PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke 86, Washington 80, Post-Game Thread



JBDuke
12-10-2011, 02:25 PM
Put your post-game thoughts here.

gotoguy
12-10-2011, 02:26 PM
Now time to go Christmas shopping

CLW
12-10-2011, 02:29 PM
27/44?

Wow I seriously cannot remember a Duke club that was this [CENSORED] awful from the free throw line.

This team will choke a big game away in March if the free throw shooting does not improve.

It is almost reminiscent of that Memphis team that choked the game away to Kansas (which of course was vacated).

flyingdutchdevil
12-10-2011, 02:30 PM
The Good: Team D in the first half, Dawkins off the bench, Austin's aggressive nature

The Bad: Ineffective slow-playing towards the end of the game, inability to put UW out of the game in the second half

The Ugly: Mason's FT shooting. I'm not even sure this qualifies as ugly. Is there a lower variable to place this?

feldspar
12-10-2011, 02:31 PM
Solid, balanced performance. Another game with 4 guys in double figures in scoring. Fouls were a concern, as was foul shooting.

1 24 90
12-10-2011, 02:35 PM
27/44?

Wow I seriously cannot remember a Duke club that was this [CENSORED] awful from the free throw line.

This team will choke a big game away in March if the free throw shooting does not improve.

It is almost reminiscent of that Memphis team that choked the game away to Kansas (which of course was vacated).

Obviously Mason is a mess at the line but the rest of the team was 25 of 33 which is 76%. I believe that's above the NCAA average. I know you can't ignore Mason's but it may just be something we have to live with this season.

Bob Green
12-10-2011, 02:35 PM
Another win for the good guys. The final margin of only six points after having a 17 point lead does not bother me because a win is a win and I knew we would start milking the clock after the under eight minutes timeout. The poor free throw shooting is a concern. I'd say depth is the team's big strength right now. It is great to be able to insert Quinn Cook into the game to handle the ball after Rivers and Curry fouled out. Obviously, free throw shooting is the biggest concern.

jv001
12-10-2011, 02:36 PM
Today will be my last time watching a Duke game on TV and posting on this board. Way too many whinners blaming the lost lead to Coach K. While I would like to see Quinn Cook play a little more, I will not begin to say that Coach K is wrong. He's seen Quinn in practice. Something I have never done. GoDuke!

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 02:39 PM
Another win for the good guys. The final margin of only six points after having a 17 point lead does not bother me because a win is a win and I knew we would start milking the clock after the under eight minutes timeout. The poor free throw shooting is a concern. I'd say depth is the team's big strength right now. It is great to be able to insert Quinn Cook into the game to handle the ball after Rivers and Curry fouled out. Obviously, free throw shooting is the biggest concern.

But it's the opposite of great that K didn't turn to Cook immediately after Thornton picked up foul #4. Actually, Cook should have been in there after foul #3. Actually, Cook should have played earlier and more than a minute and a half in the 1st half. Actually, Cook should be the team's PG and should be starting.

This was Coach K's worst-coached game in a LONG time. I hate seeing him treat Quinn Cook like he did Elliot Williams, and I hate seeing him stall the team's short-term and long-term development by keeping him on the bench. Hopefully K realizes his mistake faster than he did with Williams.

COYS
12-10-2011, 02:42 PM
For the first 30-33 minutes it was a performance that showed a glimpse of what this team can become. Amazing defense from our guards, strong rotations from the post players (especially Miles!), and a nice blend of offense from all of our players. We rebounded so strongly that we didn't even have to shoot the lights out to remain efficient on offense. My minor quibble from this part of the game became a major problem in the second, and that was cheap fouls. Tyler, Seth, and Austin all gave away a few cheapies for no real reason during the first half which came back to bite us at the end of the game.

The comeback from UW started when Austin, who to this point in the game had played probably his most controlled game on offense, made two mistakes. A quick shot with a miss and a turnover. The result was a made three and a three point play for UW. A safe 18 point lead was suddenly down to 12 in the span of 15 seconds. We followed that up with our other two ballhandling guards Tyler and Seth turning the ball over. With foul trouble plaguing all of our guards, our perimeter D became porous and our interior D didn't have time to react as quickly on their rotations, which is something we've seen a few times this year. In another thread, we had a debate about whether poor rotations in the post were the result of bad perimeter D or a lack of heads up play from our forwards. I felt like it was clear that the improved rotations early in the game were the result of UW's guards having to work hard and therefore take an extra step or two to get into the lane which allowed our forwards time to rotate. Our rotations broke down in the last 5 minutes as our forwards couldn't react fast enough to driving guards.

Man was that ugly and it marred a wonderful defensive performance. In fact, we went from shooting up the defensive efficiency stats to probably staying where we have been in a 5 minute stretch. The good news (and it's been good news all season except against the BUckeyes) is that we defended the three point line well. Even with our atrocious free throw shooting, trading 1 for 2 didn't give the Huskies enough time to get back into the game.

I'd like to single out Miles for some praise in this game, though. He knocked down his free throws and was a HUGE part of the defensive effort that allowed us to build our lead. Andre also played really good defense. The two of them provided a huge lift for our team off the bench.

hurleyfor3
12-10-2011, 02:47 PM
Well, at least it didn't end in a fight.

COYS
12-10-2011, 02:48 PM
But it's the opposite of great that K didn't turn to Cook immediately after Thornton picked up foul #4. Actually, Cook should have been in there after foul #3. Actually, Cook should have played earlier and more than a minute and a half in the 1st half. Actually, Cook should be the team's PG and should be starting.

This was Coach K's worst-coached game in a LONG time. I hate seeing him treat Quinn Cook like he did Elliot Williams, and I hate seeing him stall the team's short-term and long-term development by keeping him on the bench. Hopefully K realizes his mistake faster than he did with Williams.

Oriole, you seem to really be fixated on why Quinn should have played more in the first half. But who should have been sitting for him to play? The first half was the best defensive effort we've played all season. Quinn's got plenty of time to play. Indeed, he got some great, high pressure minutes in, today. Why not just wait until he's ready to contribute? You seem to theorize that Quinn can't improve without playing through mistakes in games even though Tyler, Seth, and Austin all overlap in terms of on court responsibilities and are quality players who need time to develop in their own rights. It seems obvious to me that the staff values Quinn, but they are letting him develop at his own pace.

And also, regarding Elliott Williams. We played a lot better when Elliott was inserted into the lineup, but the bigger change was moving Scheyer to the point guard spot. Elliott worked hard in practice and earned his spot when the opportunity arose. Why can't Quinn do the same thing?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-10-2011, 02:48 PM
But it's the opposite of great that K didn't turn to Cook immediately after Thornton picked up foul #4. Actually, Cook should have been in there after foul #3. Actually, Cook should have played earlier and more than a minute and a half in the 1st half. Actually, Cook should be the team's PG and should be starting.

This was Coach K's worst-coached game in a LONG time. I hate seeing him treat Quinn Cook like he did Elliot Williams, and I hate seeing him stall the team's short-term and long-term development by keeping him on the bench. Hopefully K realizes his mistake faster than he did with Williams.

Sorry to reiterate myself from the in-game thread, but you are repeating yourself and I'm really baffled. What is your beef with Quinn Cook? Are you his future NBA agent?

What are the parallels between Cook and Williams? My understanding is that Williams, over the course of his freshman year, earned his way into heavy rotation through practice and great defensive work. K's "mistake" with Williams was that he transferred to Memphis to be closer to his ailing mother.

And as far as K's "worst-coached game in a LONG time" - (you said in "several seasons" in the in-game thread) I can't fathom what you are referring to. They played fantastic in the first half, sloppy in the second, but got a solid win against an athletic Pac-10 team in December on a neutral floor despite having terrible free throw shooting and fouling out two starters. The end game wasn't pretty, but for a tough game against a decent NCAA tournament team, I didn't hate what I saw.

Also, I somehow doubt that the worst-coached game in several seasons wouldn't be one of our losses? Coach K takes a season-long approach to his coaching and is doing everything to get this young team with lots of promise in the position to win games in March. They have room for growth, but I put lots of faith in the man with four rings and gold medal.

/go Duke

Saratoga2
12-10-2011, 02:52 PM
Our defense, against a big and athletic club was outstanding in the first half. I can see why coach K wants Thornton in the game. He was disrupting the Washington offensive flow and I watched him fighting through screens to stay with his man. Very solid against very good opponents.

Austin was working his usual magic and it has to be disheartening when you essentially cannot stop a player from getting to the basket. Kelly played very good defense and Miles also has upped his performance in the last two games. Lets hope he can stay on this trend going forward. Mason is a load out there with rebounding and scoring ability and finally, Dawkins was on for most of the first half, he can be such a weapon.

Our defense didn't do so well in the second half and we also had sosme end of game decision making and free thow issues, but a win in a win.

What can we limprove on coming out of this game?

1. Free throw shooting is a definite issue with this team. Mason in particular looks lost at the line missing 10 of 12 by my count, most of which looked sick. Washinton was fouling Mason every chance they got.
2. Kelly seemed to revert to a very flat shot today, missing more than he was earlier in the year. That is correctable and I am sure he will get the touch back for the next game. Otherwise he had an excellent game.
3. Austin needs to improve his decision making, particularly during end of game situations.

We have a solid team, which will only get better and the defense is coming around. We need to keep up the strong defense for 40 minutes. We have a strong front court and the emergence of Miles is a big positive. Points, rebounds and blocks without too many fouls or turnovers from the front court is something I was hoping for and it is here. Can't wait to see them develop further.

arnie
12-10-2011, 02:52 PM
I guess as long as we continue to hold on against these teams after building big leads, its not time to be too concerned. I just can't figure out why our defense is so bad in the last 4-5 minutes of these games. We invariably give up relatively easy shots or foul most times down court. Contrast that with end of game situations when score is tight - we tend to force the opponent into bad shots.

I still think Mason is playing the best of any big in last 5-6 years (except for Z's last 15 games). Just got to take him out when Hack a Mason is the plan.

jv001
12-10-2011, 02:54 PM
For the first 30-33 minutes it was a performance that showed a glimpse of what this team can become. Amazing defense from our guards, strong rotations from the post players (especially Miles!), and a nice blend of offense from all of our players. We rebounded so strongly that we didn't even have to shoot the lights out to remain efficient on offense. My minor quibble from this part of the game became a major problem in the second, and that was cheap fouls. Tyler, Seth, and Austin all gave away a few cheapies for no real reason during the first half which came back to bite us at the end of the game.

The comeback from UW started when Austin, who to this point in the game had played probably his most controlled game on offense, made two mistakes. A quick shot with a miss and a turnover. The result was a made three and a three point play for UW. A safe 18 point lead was suddenly down to 12 in the span of 15 seconds. We followed that up with our other two ballhandling guards Tyler and Seth turning the ball over. With foul trouble plaguing all of our guards, our perimeter D became porous and our interior D didn't have time to react as quickly on their rotations, which is something we've seen a few times this year. In another thread, we had a debate about whether poor rotations in the post were the result of bad perimeter D or a lack of heads up play from our forwards. I felt like it was clear that the improved rotations early in the game were the result of UW's guards having to work hard and therefore take an extra step or two to get into the lane which allowed our forwards time to rotate. Our rotations broke down in the last 5 minutes as our forwards couldn't react fast enough to driving guards.
Man was that ugly and it marred a wonderful defensive performance. In fact, we went from shooting up the defensive efficiency stats to probably staying where we have been in a 5 minute stretch. The good news (and it's been good news all season except against the BUckeyes) is that we defended the three point line well. Even with our atrocious free throw shooting, trading 1 for 2 didn't give the Huskies enough time to get back into the game.

I'd like to single out Miles for some praise in this game, though. He knocked down his free throws and was a HUGE part of the defensive effort that allowed us to build our lead. Andre also played really good defense. The two of them provided a huge lift for our team off the bench.

Great post. Our defense came out agressive and players were really moving their feet. But late in the 2nd half we began reaching and making some silly fouls(Tyler). I was impressed with Miles today. He played well on both ends of the floor. The biggest area of concern is Mason's foul shooting. If he's going to be the player we think he can become he needs to shoot at least 55-60% from the line. GoDuke!

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:00 PM
Oriole, you seem to really be fixated on why Quinn should have played more in the first half. But who should have been sitting for him to play? The first half was the best defensive effort we've played all season. Quinn's got plenty of time to play. Indeed, he got some great, high pressure minutes in, today. Why not just wait until he's ready to contribute? You seem to theorize that Quinn can't improve without playing through mistakes in games even though Tyler, Seth, and Austin all overlap in terms of on court responsibilities and are quality players who need time to develop in their own rights. It seems obvious to me that the staff values Quinn, but they are letting him develop at his own pace.

And also, regarding Elliott Williams. We played a lot better when Elliott was inserted into the lineup, but the bigger change was moving Scheyer to the point guard spot. Elliott worked hard in practice and earned his spot when the opportunity arose. Why can't Quinn do the same thing?

Thornton should have been sitting, just like Cook should be starting over Thornton.

The practice excuse is BS. I would rather not get into the Williams and practice discussion again, but K didn't finally play and start Williams because he was practicing well, it was because Duke was losing, and other reasons.

We shouldn't wait because it's clear that Cook is the best and most talented option at PG, and because he will make the team better, pure and simple.

I was one of the biggest advocates on this board for starting Jon Scheyer at the point and playing Williams more. I called for both moves before they happened. I knew K was making a mistake with Williams early in that season and I called for more PT for him, just like I know K is making a huge mistake with Cook and I'm calling for substantially more PT for Cook. I still think that K's mismanagement of Williams was a contributing reason for his transfer. And yes, I understand that we won a title the following season without him.

Quinn shouldn't be eased in because he's capable of making an impact. Giving him more minutes now will make him and the team better faster, and makes us better at the end of the season. The other thing making it a no-brainer is that Cook is going to be our starting PG for the next 3 years. Give him the reigns now so that his learning curve accelerates. Thornton is best coming off the bench for 10-12 minutes. Using him as a starting PG playing 20+ minutes is going to kill this team, just as it did today. Our whole starting backcourt basically fouled out, and Washington hit the bonus with more than 12 minutes to go in the second half. The primary reason for both was that Thornton's terrible on-the-ball defense compromised the entire defense at the point of attack. It doesn't help that Curry is a bad on-the-ball defender as well.

The bottom line is that Cook should get major minutes immediately, an the sooner he starts, the better not only for this Duke team, but also the next 3 editions of Duke.

OldSchool
12-10-2011, 03:02 PM
I'd say depth is the team's big strength right now.

Yep, being able to bring in high quality players from the bench and not have a drop-off in play is key for us.

Big talented wings are a match-up problem for us as we saw in this game. Our post players handled their post players quite well. But Wroten and Ross and Wilcox were a load for us.

Defensively, we were more focused than in the Ohio State game. The concentration was there as well as the effort. It's just that the wing matchups are tough for us. A couple of times when Ross had Andre one-on-one he easily cleared him out with a cross-over and another time just blew by him when Andre was in a defensive stance on his heels. When Ross had Quinn defending him he promptly drove him and drew a foul. Wroten was very effective with slashing moves to get into the lane and Wilcox had a big game offensively.

Andre was very good on the offensive end today even though his shooting percentage was not high, and fairly solid defensively on the whole. He made a few sharp long entry passes to the post which were very effective and hopefully we will see more of. It'll be interesting to see whether the coaches continue to use him as a sixth man with Tyler starting at the point. The coaches seem to like Tyler's taking care of the ball and defensive pressure and poise, even though he is not scoring a lot or racking up a lot of assists.

It was good to see Mike make an appearance in this game, and he showed hustle diving for a loose ball. Hopefully he will continue to develop defensively and we can make more use of him later in the season against big wings.

OldSchool
12-10-2011, 03:06 PM
The primary reason for both was that Thornton's terrible on-the-ball defense compromised the entire defense at the point of attack. It doesn't help that Curry is a bad on-the-ball defender as well.

My sense is that the coaches see Cook as weaker defensively than both Thornton and Curry. Cook is on a short hook when he makes a defensive lapse.

SMO
12-10-2011, 03:07 PM
My main takeaway is that if Oriole Way had coached this game and many others, Duke would win more and by greater margins. We need to replace Coach K immediately.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-10-2011, 03:09 PM
Thornton should have been sitting, just like Cook should be starting over Thornton.

The practice excuse is BS. I would rather not get into the Williams and practice discussion again, but K didn't finally play and start Williams because he was practicing well, it was because Duke was losing, and other reasons.

We shouldn't wait because it's clear that Cook is the best and most talented option at PG, and because he will make the team better, pure and simple.

I was one of the biggest advocates on this board for starting Jon Scheyer at the point and playing Williams more. I called for both moves before they happened. I knew K was making a mistake with Williams early in that season and I called for more PT for him, just like I know K is making a huge mistake with Cook and I'm calling for substantially more PT for Cook. I still think that K's mismanagement of Williams was a contributing reason for his transfer. And yes, I understand that we won a title the following season without him.

Quinn shouldn't be eased in because he's capable of making an impact. Giving him more minutes now will make him and the team better faster, and makes us better at the end of the season. The other thing making it a no-brainer is that Cook is going to be our starting PG for the next 3 years. Give him the reigns now so that his learning curve accelerates. Thornton is best coming off the bench for 10-12 minutes. Using him as a starting PG playing 20+ minutes is going to kill this team, just as it did today. Our whole starting backcourt basically fouled out, and Washington hit the bonus with more than 12 minutes to go in the second half. The primary reason for both was that Thornton's terrible on-the-ball defense compromised the entire defense at the point of attack. It doesn't help that Curry is a bad on-the-ball defender as well.

The bottom line is that Cook should get major minutes immediately, an the sooner he starts, the better not only for this Duke team, but also the next 3 editions of Duke.

Wait... you are suggesting that Coach K changed line ups with regards to Elliot Williams because the team wasn't playing well and they needed a shake up? Isn't that what coaches do? Why would this be such a terrible mistake to repeat with Quinn Cook?

I don't understand your reasoning at all, unless your thesis is that you are much better at evaluating player talent than the four time national champion winningest coach in history.

Please, tell me what your basis for this evaluation is and what your personal credentials are.

Additionally, I still don't understand why Elliot Williams is your example of what NOT to have happen again. Isn't your hope that the same thing would happen with Cook? To have him inserted into the lineup late in the year and make a positive impact?

It's still early in the season and this is a quality win. If we had shot 75% from the line we would have won by 15 pts. That's not a coaching problem. This team is young and talented and will win 25 games. They have as good a shot as anyone of making a run in March.

Go Duke.

DukieInBrasil
12-10-2011, 03:09 PM
so many roller-coasters in this game. Andre started out on fire and then went ice-cold. Kelly started out ice-cold and ended up with a very solid game. It took a long time for Curry to do much of anything, but he finished with decent numbers, before fouling out. Rivers had maybe his best game at Duke, and then fouled out.
Again, the inability to hold a big lead still a big concern for this team. I actually think that N'Diaye leaving the game helped UW, in that they were faster and could shoot better w/o him in. Duke did a poor job of exploiting the lack of size in the paint, partly b/c Mason is a terrible FT shooter, but credit UW for recognizing that and making Duke pay for leaving him in.
Their quickness and size at the guard spots caused us all sorts of problems: Rivers fouled out, ditto Curry, Thornton had 4 and played a sub-standard game. I actually thought Cook kinda saved our bacon their by being able to handle the ball under pressure, and made some FTs down the stretch. TT may be a good option as a starter due to the toughness he brings to the game, but not b/c he is a superior PG.
Anywho, good win vs a decent team. Still, plenty of things for the team to improve on.

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:13 PM
Sorry to reiterate myself from the in-game thread, but you are repeating yourself and I'm really baffled. What is your beef with Quinn Cook? Are you his future NBA agent?

What are the parallels between Cook and Williams? My understanding is that Williams, over the course of his freshman year, earned his way into heavy rotation through practice and great defensive work. K's "mistake" with Williams was that he transferred to Memphis to be closer to his ailing mother.

/go Duke

All-American freshmen who were given too few minutes to the detriment of the team. Freshman who would make freshman mistakes, especially defensively, but were not allowed to play through them. Both were freshmen who would have made their respective teams substantially better with 15-20+ minutes right off the bat, but received half the time and were not shown the same margin for error that far less talented upperclassman (Paulus, McClure, and Thornton) were allowed to make.

In both situations, blind Coach K defenders always point to the 900+ wins, national championships, "earning it" in practice, and "you don't see what goes on in practice." But Coach K would be the first to tell you that he's not perfect, and that he makes mistakes. He's the best their is, but he's not infallible. In my opinion, which has turned out to be right in similar situations, he's making a big mistake with how he's handled Cook. It's the nature of this board to make observations based on watching the games. Just because we don't see the practices doesn't mean we can't make what we consider to be accurate evaluations based on the games we do see.

I'm not always right - after all, I thought Miles should have been the starting center to start the season based on his stellar play in the exhibitions and (apparently) in practices, as well as how poorly Mason had been playing, but Mason started and he has been an absolute beast ever since (and Miles has been struggling for the most part). But in this case, I'm confident that I'm right, and based on Thornton's consistently lackluster play since he's started, I think it's perfectly reasonable to make a change which I think will massively help this team.

Sgt. Dingleberry
12-10-2011, 03:17 PM
I thought we played really, really well and I didn't even see the first half. Kelly was particularly impressive to me on the offensive end. We gave up a lot of points at the end, but everything they threw up was going in. Besides free throw shooting, there was not much to complain about.

I will say this though, UW is the most talented 4-4 team in the country. I would hate to see them as a #8 or #7 seed if I was a #1 or #2 seed.

jv001
12-10-2011, 03:18 PM
Thornton should have been sitting, just like Cook should be starting over Thornton.

The practice excuse is BS. I would rather not get into the Williams and practice discussion again, but K didn't finally play and start Williams because he was practicing well, it was because Duke was losing, and other reasons.

We shouldn't wait because it's clear that Cook is the best and most talented option at PG, and because he will make the team better, pure and simple.

I was one of the biggest advocates on this board for starting Jon Scheyer at the point and playing Williams more. I called for both moves before they happened. I knew K was making a mistake with Williams early in that season and I called for more PT for him, just like I know K is making a huge mistake with Cook and I'm calling for substantially more PT for Cook. I still think that K's mismanagement of Williams was a contributing reason for his transfer. And yes, I understand that we won a title the following season without him.

Quinn shouldn't be eased in because he's capable of making an impact. Giving him more minutes now will make him and the team better faster, and makes us better at the end of the season. The other thing making it a no-brainer is that Cook is going to be our starting PG for the next 3 years. Give him the reigns now so that his learning curve accelerates. Thornton is best coming off the bench for 10-12 minutes. Using him as a starting PG playing 20+ minutes is going to kill this team, just as it did today. Our whole starting backcourt basically fouled out, and Washington hit the bonus with more than 12 minutes to go in the second half. The primary reason for both was that Thornton's terrible on-the-ball defense compromised the entire defense at the point of attack. It doesn't help that Curry is a bad on-the-ball defender as well.

The bottom line is that Cook should get major minutes immediately, an the sooner he starts, the better not only for this Duke team, but also the next 3 editions of Duke.

How do you know that Williams practice play didn't cause Coach K to insert him into the starting rotation? Did you see the practices? As for Quinn, I would love to see him play more, but I'm not going to throw Coach K under the bus and say that Quinn should be starting. Maybe he will be a starter some time in the future. Currently I see Quinn as no better or no worse on the ball defender than Tyler or Seth. I do believe that Austin is probably our best on the ball defender. I'm not saying Austin is a very good on the ball defender, but he is probably our best. What Tyler does is disrupt the opposing team's guards with his tough play. Cook will get his minutes as he will get better. I don't think this will become a "Marty" thing because I agree with you, Quinn is a talent. GoDuke!

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:22 PM
Wait... you are suggesting that Coach K changed line ups with regards to Elliot Williams because the team wasn't playing well and they needed a shake up? Isn't that what coaches do? Why would this be such a terrible mistake to repeat with Quinn Cook?

I don't understand your reasoning at all, unless your thesis is that you are much better at evaluating player talent than the four time national champion winningest coach in history.

Please, tell me what your basis for this evaluation is and what your personal credentials are.

Additionally, I still don't understand why Elliot Williams is your example of what NOT to have happen again. Isn't your hope that the same thing would happen with Cook? To have him inserted into the lineup late in the year and make a positive impact?

It's still early in the season and this is a quality win. If we had shot 75% from the line we would have won by 15 pts. That's not a coaching problem. This team is young and talented and will win 25 games. They have as good a shot as anyone of making a run in March.

Go Duke.

Please, don't go with the "so you're saying you know better than the best coach of all time?" argument. It's weak, and at the heart of it, you're saying no one should ever question Coach K. It's just as annoying and destructive of encouraging enlightening debate as the "do you see the practices?" argument. I'm basing this on the games and my evaluations of Thornton's and Cook's skills. You're also suggesting that none of us should share our opinions if we're not a member of the team or coaching staff. This is a fan site for discussion about the team, and discussing the team and what I would like to see happen with it is what I'm doing.

No, I don't want what happened with Williams to happen with Cook. I think Duke would have been a better team in March had Williams been starting and getting big minutes earlier in the season. He would have been better with the added experience, and the team would have been better with more familiarity to him being in the lineup as major part of the rotation. A loss or two could have been avoided, we could have been a slightly higher seed, and we probably wouldn't have faced a Villanova team that ran us off the floor. That's a lot of speculation, but I speculated that the team should have played Williams more and moved Scheyer to the point before those things happened, and I was right about that.

I want Cook to be inserted NOW and have a positive impact, so no, technically I don't want Quinn to be inserted later in the season and make a positive impact. If K is going to make the right move too late, of course I want Cook to succeed, but I have no doubt he would succeed right now, and he would be a much better option than Thornton as the starting PG.

Kdogg
12-10-2011, 03:26 PM
The practice excuse is BS.


How long have you been watching Duke basketball? Playing time has always been dependant on performance at practice. Duke's never beeen a big proponent of one the job training. Freshman playing time usually increases at the season progresses, they learn the system and get better in practice.

Thomas1
12-10-2011, 03:30 PM
Cook missed most of preseason due to his knee, and will have a larger role as the year progresses. He will contribute this year and have a great Duke career.

Biggest positive I saw in the first half was our dedication to feeding the post, and our ability to do so. Duke guards have not always been great at this without dribble penetration. I especially appreciated Andre's passes. Our bigs were also demanding the ball and carving out space.

Once it was delivered, nice post moves and passing between our bigs. We had a lot of easy finishes because of the passing. For all the criticism, we are improving greatly. If Kelley shoots a decent percentage from the field in the first half, or Mason hits his free throws (all game), it is never close.

With the way we shoot...the improvement on defense and on the interior...this has a chance to be a great team. Fun to watch them grow. This is not even the same team as we saw in Hawaii.

jimsumner
12-10-2011, 03:31 PM
Please, don't go with the "so you're saying you know better than the best coach of all time?" argument. It's weak, and at the heart of it, you're saying no one should ever question Coach K. It's just as annoying and destructive of encouraging enlightening debate as the "do you see the pratices?" argument. I'm basing this on the games and my evaluations of Thornton's and Cook's skills. You're also suggesting that none of us should share our opinions if we're not a member of the team or coaching staff. This is a fan site for discussion about the team, and discussing the team and what I would like to see happen with it is what I'm doing.

No, I don't want what happened with Williams to happen with Cook. I think Duke would have been a better team in March had Williams been starting and getting big minutes earlier in the season. He would have been better with the added experience, and the team would have been better with more familiarity to him being in the lineup as major part of the rotation. A loss or two could have been avoided, we could have been a slightly higher seed, and we probably wouldn't have faced a Villanova team that ran us off the floor. That's a lot of speculation, but I speculated that the team should have played Williams more and moved Scheyer to the point before those things happened, and I was right about that.

I want Cook to be inserted NOW and have a positive impact, so no, technically I don't want Quinn to be inserted later in the season and make a positive impact. If K is going to make the right move too late, of course I want Cook to succeed, but I have no doubt he would succeed right now, and he would be a much better option than Thornton as the starting PG.

We'd all love to see Cook inserted NOW and have a positive impact.

But we don't know that he will have a positive impact, NOW. There's the rub.

K absolutely could be wrong and you absolutely could be right about this. But I'm fond of the Carl Sagan dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And I haven't seen any proof that your opinion in this matter is superior to that of the coaching staff, who actually do see all of the players in practice and actually do this for a living. That may seem like a pat excuse to you and maybe it is. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.

My default in these matters tends to be that these folks actually know what they're doing most of the time.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-10-2011, 03:31 PM
Please, don't go with the "so you're saying you know better than the best coach of all time?" argument. It's weak, and at the heart of it, you're saying no one should ever question Coach K. It's just as annoying and destructive of encouraging enlightening debate as the "do you see the practices?" argument. I'm basing this on the games and my evaluations of Thornton's and Cook's skills.....

I'm not saying that no one should question K on anything ever. I'm just saying that I give him the benefit of the doubt, and independent of some good evidence I will certainly trust his evaluation of player readiness and/or talent. You say you are basing this on "games and my evaluations of Thornton's and Cook's skills..." All of us have been watching the same games as you and the general consensus on this board seems to be that TT plays because of his defensive tenacity and willingness to do the dirty work. Additionally, TT came up huge in Maui when given the chance to shine.

Please, inform us what this insider information is that you have about Quinn Cook and his skills that all of us and Coach K seem to be missing. In the meantime, yes, I will continue to trust the coach with 900 more wins than you.

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:33 PM
How long have you been watching Duke basketball? Playing time has always been dependant on performance at practice. Duke's never beeen a big proponent of one the job training. Freshman playing time usually increases at the season progresses, they learn the system and get better in practice.

I've been watching Duke basketball closely since I was a freshman at Duke more than 10 years ago. I'm speaking to Elliot's case in particular. I know that Coach K values performance in practice.

The thing is, has Coach K been specifically saying that Cook hasn't been practicing well? If he has, I haven't heard it. What doesn't make sense to me is for Cook to get less time in a game we really could have used him, coming off the heels of him gradually getting more PT and doing fine with it. I know K's tendencies. I think I'm correct when I say that it's reasonable to think that K was unhappy with Cook's defense on his first two plays, took him out immediately, and put him in the doghouse as part of an overreaction. He would do the exact same thing with Williams, which is why I bring that situation up as an appropriate comparison.

Duke79UNLV77
12-10-2011, 03:34 PM
Can we start a separate "Oriole Way's Fixation with Quinn Cook" thread, so that this thread could have a more robust and balanced discussion of the game?

I think the best development of the past 2 games has been Miles' playing like an athletic and physical 6'10" big man, and Andre's being more active and aggressive. Mason is free throws away from being a 17 and 10 guy. I'm sure it's mostly mental (which can't just be practiced away), but he does tend to get too much of his palm on the ball before shooting it.

As for Cook, I think he has a bright future. I think the staff's not recruiting a point guard this year says something about what they think of him. That said, I haven't seen anything that makes me think he's an instant impact major difference maker right off the bat that is just being held back. He may start later in the year as he continues to develop. I think Tyler's in there right now for leadership as much of anything. They said that K said Thornton's the best leader on the team.

OldSchool
12-10-2011, 03:35 PM
Cook would be a stronger offensive force than Thornton, but our weakness is more on defense than on offense. When Cook shows defensive improvement more minutes will be there for him.

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:37 PM
We'd all love to see Cook inserted NOW and have a positive impact.

But we don't know that he will have a positive impact, NOW. There's the rub.

K absolutely could be wrong and you absolutely could be right about this. But I'm fond of the Carl Sagan dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And I haven't seen any proof that your opinion in this matter is superior to that of the coaching staff, who actually do see all of the players in practice and actually do this for a living. That may seem like a pat excuse to you and maybe it is. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.

My default in these matters tends to be that these folks actually know what they're doing most of the time.

I heard the exact same things on this board when I went to war with posters on Williams and Scheyer several years ago, Jim. It's difficult to have a minority opinion which questions Coach K's roster management, especially on this board in particular. But I'm confident my observations with regards to Thornton and Cook will be vindicated.

ArkieDukie
12-10-2011, 03:38 PM
We'd all love to see Cook inserted NOW and have a positive impact.

But we don't know that he will have a positive impact, NOW. There's the rub.

K absolutely could be wrong and you absolutely could be right about this. But I'm fond of the Carl Sagan dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And I haven't seen any proof that your opinion in this matter is superior to that of the coaching staff, who actually do see all of the players in practice and actually do this for a living. That may seem like a pat excuse to you and maybe it is. But that doesn't mean it's not correct.

My default in these matters tends to be that these folks actually know what they're doing most of the time.

THIS. I really like what I've seen of QC so far, but I don't think he's ready to start. I like TT a lot for his defense, and he does make some good passes. Potential-wise, I think QC could end up being better, but I'm not qualified to say the coaches are completely wrong in starting TT over QC.

Curry is an excellent player, but I just don't think of him as a point guard. It seems to me that playing point stunts his game a bit. I'm not saying this because I don't like Curry - on the contrary, I think he's a very good player. I just think he's better if he doesn't also have to worry about running the team's offense. As above, though, the coaches know more about this than I do.

CLW
12-10-2011, 03:38 PM
Obviously Mason is a mess at the line but the rest of the team was 25 of 33 which is 76%. I believe that's above the NCAA average. I know you can't ignore Mason's but it may just be something we have to live with this season.

I agree a LARGE % of the problem is MP2 related. However, even excluding Mason, we only have 2 guys (4 if you count Cook's and Silgent G's %s - which I don't know if they are really 90% at the line type players or not due to the few attempts/limited minutes) that we can really count on if needed in a tight game in March. Curry is shooting 93% from the line and Kelly is at 86%.

The rest of the team (with significant minutes) is around 67% or less which is shocking to me considering the number of 3 point shooters we have on the club.

Maybe I'm wrong but I seem to recall Kelly being the inbounds passer in most late game situations when he is on the floor. That means if the ball doesn't go to Seth there is a significant chance we miss the front end of the 1 and 1 and rinse and repeat until a semi decent lead dwindles away. Seth is a good player but I'm not sure you can count on him getting open when the opponent knows the ball needs to go to him and so they put their best (and likely better athlete than seth) on him denying him the ball.

I don't think it is a stretch to say this could definitely come back to haunt the team when it matters the most.

licc85
12-10-2011, 03:39 PM
Please, don't go with the "so you're saying you know better than the best coach of all time?" argument. It's weak, and at the heart of it, you're saying no one should ever question Coach K. It's just as annoying and destructive of encouraging enlightening debate as the "do you see the practices?" argument. I'm basing this on the games and my evaluations of Thornton's and Cook's skills. You're also suggesting that none of us should share our opinions if we're not a member of the team or coaching staff. This is a fan site for discussion about the team, and discussing the team and what I would like to see happen with it is what I'm doing.

No, I don't want what happened with Williams to happen with Cook. I think Duke would have been a better team in March had Williams been starting and getting big minutes earlier in the season. He would have been better with the added experience, and the team would have been better with more familiarity to him being in the lineup as major part of the rotation. A loss or two could have been avoided, we could have been a slightly higher seed, and we probably wouldn't have faced a Villanova team that ran us off the floor. That's a lot of speculation, but I speculated that the team should have played Williams more and moved Scheyer to the point before those things happened, and I was right about that.

I want Cook to be inserted NOW and have a positive impact, so no, technically I don't want Quinn to be inserted later in the season and make a positive impact. If K is going to make the right move too late, of course I want Cook to succeed, but I have no doubt he would succeed right now, and he would be a much better option than Thornton as the starting PG.

Wow . . . I think you are definitely going a little overboard here, man. We are 10 games into this season, and we are doing FINE. I think one thing you are underestimating about Tyler Thornton is his leadership ability and intangibles. If there's one thing that this team lacks, it's leadership, and I thought it was very interesting when Clark Kellogg mentioned that in a conversation that he had with Coach K, that Coach said Tyler was the team's best leader. Tyler may not be the most talented player out there, but he elevates the level of play of his teammates with his hard work and hustle, as well as his vocal leadership. Quinn is not the starting point guard because he's not ready. And believe me, I've been one of his biggest supporters on this board from the day he committed. I trust Coach K knows what he's doing.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-10-2011, 03:42 PM
Can we start a separate "Oriole Way's Fixation with Quinn Cook" thread, so that this thread could have a more robust and balanced discussion of the game?.

This.

How much of the Jekyll and Hyde act Duke pulled in the first and second half seems to relate to Duke playing absolutely great in the first half and coming back to earth in the second playing against a talented team, and how much was simply a handful of mistakes and TOO MANY missed free throws? Do people see any long-term cause for concern in this game? Or is it a solid December win and not much more - next play, let's get to the ACC schedule in January before we start criticizing too harshly or spraining a wrist patting ourselves on the back too heartily...

Duke71
12-10-2011, 03:44 PM
My personal pluses taken away from the WSU game:

1.After a horrendous multi-game shooting slump (even from the FT line), Kelly finally is back on track with his shot, I think (Did I correctly hear the announcer say after he missed his 2nd FT that Kelly had missed 6 or 7 in a row stretching back to the last game? If so, when's the last time you remember an 86% FT shooter do that?? )

2. Duke played good help-side, team defense (which is a mark a mark of improved communication and team chemistry)

3. Duke did well on the rebounding, getting many second-chance opps from offensive ribbies, and blocking lots of WSU's shots and altering the arc on several more. Stat lines don't capture that shot-altering phenomenon.

My game after game after game "broken record" minus:

After a pleasant pause in this habit in the CSU game, once again our team's TO's exceeded Assists (14 vs. 13 according to ESPN) and of course it's possible to win that way, as most of our victories have attested, just as it's possible to drive that sportscar up the Interstate with the brake engaged....it's just harder that way.

ArkieDukie
12-10-2011, 03:44 PM
I've been watching Duke basketball closely since I was a freshman at Duke more than 10 years ago. I'm speaking to Elliot's case in particular. I know that Coach K values performance in practice.

The thing is, has Coach K been specifically saying that Cook hasn't been practicing well? If he has, I haven't heard it. What doesn't make sense to me is for Cook to get less time in a game we really could have used him, coming off the heels of him gradually getting more PT and doing fine with it. I know K's tendencies. I think I'm correct when I say that it's reasonable to think that K was unhappy with Cook's defense on his first two plays, took him out immediately, and put him in the doghouse as part of an overreaction. He would do the exact same thing with Williams, which is why I bring that situation up as an appropriate comparison.

Hypothetical situation: what if QC's knees are good to go, but not up to playing a huge number of minutes per game? Like you, I really think QC shows lots of promise. I love the overall quality of our backcourt this year. I'm not as down on TT as you are, though. I really like his defensive intensity.

MP1 seems to be showing steady improvement as well. This game could very well be one of the best all-around games I've seen from Miles. Maybe his improved free throw shooting is biasing me on this one, but he just seemed to make great decisions on both ends of the court. Here's hoping the trend continues.

RK is so solid that it's particularly jarring when he gets off to a slow start as he did today. He played a great second half, though.

jv001
12-10-2011, 03:47 PM
I've been watching Duke basketball closely since I was a freshman at Duke more than 10 years ago. I'm speaking to Elliot's case in particular. I know that Coach K values performance in practice.

The thing is, has Coach K been specifically saying that Cook hasn't been practicing well? If he has, I haven't heard it. What doesn't make sense to me is for Cook to get less time in a game we really could have used him, coming off the heels of him gradually getting more PT and doing fine with it. I know K's tendencies. I think I'm correct when I say that it's reasonable to think that K was unhappy with Cook's defense on his first two plays, took him out immediately, and put him in the doghouse as part of an overreaction. He would do the exact same thing with Williams, which is why I bring that situation up as an appropriate comparison.

Why do you think Coach K is not starting Quinn? Does he have something personal against him? You say that Coach K overreacted against him because of two bad defensive plays. But those two plays were not why Quinn didn't start. As for using Williams as your comparison, that doesn't seem right. Williams was our best on the ball defender. Like I said, Quinn is a talent that will get his time, but it will be in the coaching staff's time. Not yours or mine. GoDuke!

jimsumner
12-10-2011, 03:53 PM
I heard the exact same things on this board when I went to war with posters on Williams and Scheyer several years ago, Jim. It's difficult to have a minority opinion which questions Coach K's roster management, especially on this board in particular. But I'm confident my observations with regards to Thornton and Cook will be vindicated.

It seems to me that you are trying to define the parameters of the discussion in such a way that you cannot be wrong.

If Cook plays more and plays well, that means he was always ready to play well, only K was too obstuse to see it or too stubborn to act on what he did see Other people might see it as an example of the coach doing a good job of bringing along a young player and knowing when to elevate his PT, as happened with Elliott Williams.

If Cook plays more and doesn't play well, it's because of K's quick leash, which undermined Cook's confidence.

If Cook doesn't play more, we just hit the restart switch. It's not because he's not ready, it's bad coaching.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:54 PM
Wow . . . I think you are definitely going a little overboard here, man. We are 10 games into this season, and we are doing FINE. I think one thing you are underestimating about Tyler Thornton is his leadership ability and intangibles. If there's one thing that this team lacks, it's leadership, and I thought it was very interesting when Clark Kellogg mentioned that in a conversation that he had with Coach K, that Coach said Tyler was the team's best leader. Tyler may not be the most talented player out there, but he elevates the level of play of his teammates with his hard work and hustle, as well as his vocal leadership. Quinn is not the starting point guard because he's not ready. And believe me, I've been one of his biggest supporters on this board from the day he committed. I trust Coach K knows what he's doing.

The statistics we have available with Thornton getting significant minutes as the starting point don't bear any of that out. I think Thornton is a solid bench player who is a very good-off-the ball defender and awful on-the-ball defender. His skills shine against inferior competition, and his limitations become more exposed against better teams, like they were today.

Because Thornton has played well in the several games against outmatched competition, we have seen a good sample size in which Thorton's assets have been able to flourish. And I recognize that Thornton has played well in games against better opponents as well, especially hitting those huge shots against Kansas. But I think that K is using Thornton primarily as an example for the rest of the team in order to illustrate how much he values hustle and team defense. He's not the solution at PG, and I think the numbers in games will continue to bear that out as we hit conference play when the competition stiffens a little bit (even though the ACC is weak and we played a very strong pre-season schedule).

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 03:59 PM
It seems to me that you are trying to define the parameters of the discussion in such a way that you cannot be wrong.

If Cook plays more and plays well, that means he was always ready to play well, only K was too obstuse to see it or too stubborn to act on what he did see Other people might see it as an example of the coach doing a good job of bringing along a young player and knowing when to elevate his PT, as happened with Elliott Williams.

If Cook plays more and doesn't play well, it's because of K's quick leash, which undermined Cook's confidence.

If Cook doesn't play more, we just hit the restart switch. It's not because he's not ready, it's bad coaching.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

It's very presumptuous for you to contend I would say that. If Cook were to get 15-20 minutes a game going forward and he struggled, I would be more than willing to admit he didn't do the job. If Cook gets steady playing time, and K allows him to play through the freshman mistakes which will inevitably happen, that means K isn't using his quick leash. I wouldn't blame K for cutting Cook's time if he shows he can't handle it, so I don't know why you assume I would use the quick leash excuse.

Devildog
12-10-2011, 04:03 PM
Don't like the Orioles but Cook is the way. Thornton should sit. Fan since '77.

jipops
12-10-2011, 04:04 PM
Please, don't go with the "so you're saying you know better than the best coach of all time?" argument. It's weak, and at the heart of it, you're saying no one should ever question Coach K. It's just as annoying and destructive of encouraging enlightening debate as the "do you see the practices?" argument. I'm basing this on the games and my evaluations of Thornton's and Cook's skills. You're also suggesting that none of us should share our opinions if we're not a member of the team or coaching staff. This is a fan site for discussion about the team, and discussing the team and what I would like to see happen with it is what I'm doing.

No, I don't want what happened with Williams to happen with Cook. I think Duke would have been a better team in March had Williams been starting and getting big minutes earlier in the season. He would have been better with the added experience, and the team would have been better with more familiarity to him being in the lineup as major part of the rotation. A loss or two could have been avoided, we could have been a slightly higher seed, and we probably wouldn't have faced a Villanova team that ran us off the floor. That's a lot of speculation, but I speculated that the team should have played Williams more and moved Scheyer to the point before those things happened, and I was right about that.

I want Cook to be inserted NOW and have a positive impact, so no, technically I don't want Quinn to be inserted later in the season and make a positive impact. If K is going to make the right move too late, of course I want Cook to succeed, but I have no doubt he would succeed right now, and he would be a much better option than Thornton as the starting PG.

I don't want to dismiss your argument at all but I can think of two reasons to speculate on as to why Cook does not have a more prominent role at this time. For one, Duke's biggest weakness right now plain and simple so far is defense. Many times it looks very good, many times it looks downright awful. We are less efficient on D right now than we would be in awhile. This has to be the focus of the staff to compensate for this, not sure how Cook fits in to this- he hasn't shown the ability to be a quality defender yet. Secondly, there could be a factor in the knee injury Cook suffered sometime back. He's obviously playing like he is 100% healthy but isn't it possible that after the famous toe injury that prevented us from getting a full season's benefit of Kyrie that maybe K wants to play it safe? Cook has the potential to be a vital cog in the coming years, maybe K doesn't want to wreck that. The fact that Cook was pulled out of all the China and Dubai games tells me he is pretty cautious with the kid. Sure K could be making a mistake, but if either one of these reasons is correct, then he may not be making a mistake after all.

Frankly, I'd like to see more pt from Gbinije than Cook, just because it addresses my first speculative point.

ncexnyc
12-10-2011, 04:05 PM
The statistics we have available with Thornton getting significant minutes as the starting point don't bear any of that out. I think Thornton is a solid bench player who is a very good-off-the ball defender and awful on-the-ball defender. His skills shine against inferior competition, and his limitations become more exposed against better teams, like they were today.

Because Thornton has played well in the several games against outmatched competition, we have seen a good sample size in Thorton's assets can flourish. And I recognize that Thornton has played well in games against better opponents as well, especially hitting those huge shots against Kansas. But I think that K is using Thornton primarily as an example for the rest of the team in order to illustrate how much he values hustle and team defense. He's not the solution at PG, and I think the numbers in games will continue to bear that out as we hit conference play when the competition stiffens a little bit (even though the ACC is weak and we played a very strong pre-season schedule).
I think you've raised some interesting points, but this constant back and forth makes you look as if you've got tunnel vision. You've had your say today, give it a rest and pick your spots next time around. There are many on this board beside you who feel this team is a work in progress and that the starting line-ups we are currently seeing isn't going to be the one that walks onto the court for ACC Tournament play and beyond.

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 04:17 PM
I think you've raised some interesting points, but this constant back and forth makes you look as if you've got tunnel vision. You've had your say today, give it a rest and pick your spots next time around. There are many on this board beside you who feel this team is a work in progress and that the starting line-ups we are currently seeing isn't going to be the one that walks onto the court for ACC Tournament play and beyond.

I apologize if that's the case, but I really feel that Cook being installing as the team's PG will drastically make this team better. In my opinion, it's the most important significant lineup change since moving Jon Scheyer to the point, and I'd like to see it made immediately to see if it will work.

I usually do pick my spots, and I rarely feel this passionately about a move that many posters disagree with or don't see. Looking back at my time here, I haven't gotten in a big debate since Williams/Scheyer, and I clashed with Jumbo extensively on Williams, which was difficult at the time because Jumbo was one of the most respected yet smug posters on the forum. Like other respected posters like Jim Sumner, he was big on trusting Coach K's track record and justifying a hypothetical move with calculus equations and perfect logic that could not be refuted. And I'm in no way criticizing Jim, he's an immensely talented and accomplished writer who I have great respect for as a sports writer myself. Just saying that putting the burden of proof on someone making a claim by always reminding us of Coach K's impressive credentials and the normal fan's lack thereof can be counterproductive when engaging in speculative debate and forecasting.

For now, I've done giving my thoughts with regards to Cook, I just have to defend myself when the "do you know better than Coach K" and the "have you been at all the practices" arguments get thrown my way.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-10-2011, 04:24 PM
I apologize if that's the case, but I really feel that Cook being installing as the team's PG will drastically make this team better. In my opinion, it's the most important significant lineup change since moving Jon Scheyer to the point, and I'd like to see it made immediately to see if it will work.

I usually do pick my spots, and I rarely feel this passionately about a move that many posters disagree with or don't see. Looking back at my time here, I haven't gotten in a big debate since Williams/Scheyer, and I clashed with Jumbo extensively on Williams, which was difficult at the time because Jumbo was one of the most respected yet smug posters on the forum. Like other respected posters like Jim Sumner, he was big on trusting Coach K's track record and justifying a hypothetical move with calculus equations and perfect logic that could not be refuted. And I'm in no way criticizing Jim, he's an immensely talented and accomplished writer who I have great respect for as a sports writer myself. Just saying that putting the burden of proof on someone making a claim by always reminding us of Coach K's impressive credentials and the normal fan's lack thereof can be counterproductive when engaging in speculative debate and forecasting.

For now, I've done giving my thoughts with regards to Cook, I just have to defend myself when the "do you know better than Coach K" and the "have you been at all the practices" arguments get thrown my way.

And I would like to make one more point on this topic before "clocking out" on this particular debate... couldn't one argue that Coach K did the very sensible thing by sitting on Williams until he was ready and had "earned" playing time? That he put him into the lineup at the most effective time and the team received a big boost?

I would also like to say that your points about the board not being open to discussion of Coach K's mistakes is valid, but that you don't engender much sympathy when you open your post-game comments with blanket hyperbole like "this is the worst coached game in years." Makes people suspect about your opinions before you even get around to stating them.

And again, if you are going to attack the coaching methods of someone with a track record like K's, you absolutely have to have some evidence to back yourself up AND you have to be prepared for people to discount your ideas if you don't have numbers/evidence/video/specifics.

Additionally, people on this board are admittedly big fans of Tyler Thorton, which doesn't help you. He plays hard, doesn't slack on defense, makes the plays no one else wants to... and was the Maui hero just weeks ago.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming...

Bob Green
12-10-2011, 04:27 PM
He [Dawkins] made a few sharp long entry passes to the post which were very effective and hopefully we will see more of.

I commented several times in chat about Dawkins' impressive entry passes. That's a new wrinkle, which I definitely hope we see a lot in future games.

77devil
12-10-2011, 04:45 PM
The team didn't look mentally sharp at times. Exams start on Tuesday. I wonder if that was a factor. The NYC game in December has been a week earlier, at the beginning of the reading period, or week later, after exams, since the current series began in 2003.

There was a big Duke turnout at MSG as usual. I'd say 2/3 of the stadium. It was pretty subdued until the end when the impressively sized Washington crowd got loud. We shouted them down.

dcdevil2009
12-10-2011, 04:51 PM
We have got to get better from the free throw line. I'm not sure if it's something the coaching staff should spend time working on in practice because I'm sure there are better team things they could do instead of using precious practice time doing something that only gets better with a lot of repetition. Instead, I hope the players are working on this themselves in their down time. We can't keep leaving "easy" points on the stripe and expect it not to bite us at some point. It's even worse considering how often this team gets to the line compared to our opponents. Even with our poor performance, we've still made more free throws than our opponents have attempted (190 to 171 by my count), but the only times we've shot a better percentage than our opponents are the Michigan State game (73% to 72%) and the Belmont game (77% to 32%). Fortunately, our second best game from the line came against Kansas when we needed it the most (77% on 13 for 17), which is also the only game where our opponent shot more free throws than us. I'm sure part of it is teams knowing how bad our front court has been from the stripe and being more willing to foul, but even the slightest improvement will help add a few points per game and force teams to defend our bigs more honestly.

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 04:55 PM
We have got to get better from the free throw line. I'm not sure if it's something the coaching staff should spend time working on in practice because I'm sure there are better team things they could do instead of using precious practice time doing something that only gets better with a lot of repetition. Instead, I hope the players are working on this themselves in their down time. We can't keep leaving "easy" points on the stripe and expect it not to bite us at some point. It's even worse considering how often this team gets to the line compared to our opponents. Even with our poor performance, we've still made more free throws than our opponents have attempted (190 to 171 by my count), but the only times we've shot a better percentage than our opponents are the Michigan State game (73% to 72%) and the Belmont game (77% to 32%). Fortunately, our second best game from the line came against Kansas when we needed it the most (77% on 13 for 17), which is also the only game where our opponent shot more free throws than us. I'm sure part of it is teams knowing how bad our front court has been from the stripe and being more willing to foul, but even the slightest improvement will help add a few points per game and force teams to defend our bigs more honestly.

It's definitely a concern, but it's so dependent on Mason that I'm not sure what can realistically be done. This team has the makings a good FT-shooting team - Curry and Kelly are excellent and are two of the highest-volume FT shooters on the team - and Dawkins has the stroke to also be a great FT shooter, and has been solid to date.

I think Rivers needs to improve, he should be able shoot around 75% but has been disappointing at the line thus far.

The problem is obviously how atrocious Mason has been, and how often he gets to the line. I'm halfway jokingly, halfway seriously starting to wonder if Mason shooting it under-handed or intentionally bricking free throws off the backboard in hopes of an offensive rebound would be a better approach.

chrishoke
12-10-2011, 05:00 PM
I commented several times in chat about Dawkins' impressive entry passes. That's a new wrinkle, which I definitely hope we see a lot in future games.

A very encouraging development.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
12-10-2011, 05:03 PM
I'm halfway jokingly, halfway seriously starting to wonder if Mason shooting it under-handed or intentionally bricking free throws off the backboard in hopes of an offensive rebound would be a better approach.

There was a joke in the in game thread about "Hack-A-Mason" - but if he doesn't show marked improvement, the end game of any match where we are up by fewer than fifteen points is going to be an excruciating series of substitutions and foul shots.

Mason's yearly FT % per ESPN.com:

2009/10: 54% (team low, narrowly edging out Z)
2010/11: 44% (team low, by a wide margin)
2011 to date: 42%

It's becoming a serious detriment to his development as a player. His FG% is a solid (impressive, really) 65%, and fouling his inside moves will decrease scoring and increase his chances of injury. How can he actually be getting worse?

Oriole Way
12-10-2011, 05:09 PM
There was a joke in the in game thread about "Hack-A-Mason" - but if he doesn't show marked improvement, the end game of any match where we are up by fewer than fifteen points is going to be an excruciating series of substitutions and foul shots.

Mason's yearly FT % per ESPN.com:

2009/10: 54% (team low, narrowly edging out Z)
2010/11: 44% (team low, by a wide margin)
2011 to date: 42%

It's becoming a serious detriment to his development as a player. His FG% is a solid (impressive, really) 65%, and fouling his inside moves will decrease scoring and increase his chances of injury. How can he actually be getting worse?

It's got to be a combination of bad mechanics made much worse by mental struggles.

At this point, we will need to sub out Mason on every offensive possession during end games. The problem is that he is so bad during the rest of the game that it is going to start hurting our chances to have a lead to begin with.

dcdevil2009
12-10-2011, 05:10 PM
It's becoming a serious detriment to his development as a player. His FG% is a solid (impressive, really) 65%, and fouling his inside moves will decrease scoring and increase his chances of injury. How can he actually be getting worse?


I think part of his FG percentage being at 65% is because it doesn't count shots where he gets fouled and misses. If he could just get to 60% from the line, teams would have to be honest on defense and avoid fouling so much. His FG percentage might drop a little, but his scoring would go up and he'd be a bigger asset offensively.

dball
12-10-2011, 05:10 PM
But it's the opposite of great that K didn't turn to Cook immediately after Thornton picked up foul #4. Actually, Cook should have been in there after foul #3. Actually, Cook should have played earlier and more than a minute and a half in the 1st half. Actually, Cook should be the team's PG and should be starting.

This was Coach K's worst-coached game in a LONG time. I hate seeing him treat Quinn Cook like he did Elliot Williams, and I hate seeing him stall the team's short-term and long-term development by keeping him on the bench. Hopefully K realizes his mistake faster than he did with Williams.

Wow. Don't agree with anything you said. How as this the worst coached game in a long time? Poor foul shooting was the biggest culprit and right now the hack-a-Mason scheme worries me more than guard play. Coach K did try to ameliorate the problem late game by subbing Mason in and out.

As I recall, during the ESPN practices that aired last year, Coach K singled Tyler out for being vocal and being a leader -- and that was with Smith, Singler and Kyrie. The team as a whole played great the first half and it appears Tyler does have a positive influence on getting things to flow. This year, K has again specifically noted Tyler as a leader. It is possible that Quinn will start later and if that happens -- great. Right now, Coach K evidently thinks Tyler's leadership and defensive disruption demand he be on the floor.

FellowTraveler
12-10-2011, 05:16 PM
Curry is an excellent player, but I just don't think of him as a point guard. It seems to me that playing point stunts his game a bit.

I'm often inclined to think this as well, but for what it's worth, Seth's least productive games have coincided almost perfectly with games in which Thornton has gotten the most extensive playing time.

Seth's last four games have been his worst four of the season -- he isn't shooting well, and he's turning the ball. If we exclude the Ohio State game, in which nearly everyone played poorly (and in which usage patterns were strange), Seth's numbers for the remaining three: 6-21 FG, 7.3 ppg, 4.6 apg, 3 TOpg, 3.3 fouls per game. And that includes his 8:1 assist:TO game against a weak Colorado State team.

Perhaps coincidentally, those three games account for 3 of Tyler's 4 highest-PT games of the season, including two games in which Tyler started.

Overall, Tyler has has played 20 or more minutes in 5 games. In those five games, Seth is shooting .375 from the field. In 5 games in which Thornton has played fewer than 20 minutes, Seth is shooting .558 from the field.

This doesn't mean that long-term Seth wouldn't flourish more if he didn't have to worry about playing point, of course. But so far -- and, again, it could certainly be a coincidence -- he's struggled most in the precise games in which Tyler has played most. (And, of course it might not be a coincidence -- but the causation might be the inverse of the possibility I've suggested thus far; that is, Tyler might be playing more in these games because Seth is struggling, rather than the other way around. Though the fact that Tyler has started the last two seems to throw some cold water on that possibility.

Standard disclaimers about small samples sizes and the difference between causation and correlation apply.

wilko
12-10-2011, 05:18 PM
I want Cook to be inserted NOW and have a positive impact, so no, technically I don't want Quinn to be inserted later in the season and make a positive impact. If K is going to make the right move too late, of course I want Cook to succeed, but I have no doubt he would succeed right now, and he would be a much better option than Thornton as the starting PG.

So if Quinn is inserted and he doesn't have a positive impact how quickly does he get the hook?

I agree in principle that QC is a better long term solution @ PG over TT.
BUT TT has 1 thing QC currently doesnt... a year of experience in the Duke system and the Staff's trust.

QC can absolutely get there! This year in fact.. Lotta games left.
Cant we get wins AND develop players at the same time. I don't see hwy we have to sacrifice either. I saw several NICE things from Quin and expect it to continue.

At it's core whats best build him up slowly and let him get his legs and confidence OR throw him to the wolves and let him fail against more experienced players. QC aint KI or he'd be playing. QC will get his turn. I dont think TT or SC is a long term solution at PG. QC needs to learn how to be a leader and give the Coaching staff what it wants when it asks for it. As soon as that's close to happening we'll see QC get more meaningful burn and eventually take over.

I think a change is needed. Going back to the OSU game D's have changed their approach on Curry and hes been alot less effective (seemingly) at getting his own shot. Adding QC give SC a chance to slide over to his natural position once in a while.

I liked Miles game. I hope he can pluck the positives out and build on this. As the better ft shooter we need him on the court at the end of games

Wildling
12-10-2011, 05:24 PM
If K is going to make the right move too late, of course I want Cook to succeed, but I have no doubt he would succeed right now, and he would be a much better option than Thornton as the starting PG.

Agreed. I know I will get lambasted for agreeing with you that I know more than a coach who has over 900 wins and 4 championships. But playing ball most of my life, and watching basketball games for most of my life, I think I can evaluate basketball players talent. And Cook just has more talent all around in his game than Thornton does.

Duke would be better served to give Cook more minutes now rather than later.

licc85
12-10-2011, 05:44 PM
So if Quinn is inserted and he doesn't have a positive impact how quickly does he get the hook?

I agree in principle that QC is a better long term solution @ PG over TT.
BUT TT has 1 thing QC currently doesnt... a year of experience in the Duke system and the Staff's trust.

QC can absolutely get there! This year in fact.. Lotta games left.
Cant we get wins AND develop players at the same time. I don't see hwy we have to sacrifice either. I saw several NICE things from Quin and expect it to continue.

At it's core whats best build him up slowly and let him get his legs and confidence OR throw him to the wolves and let him fail against more experienced players. QC aint KI or he'd be playing. QC will get his turn. I dont think TT or SC is a long term solution at PG. QC needs to learn how to be a leader and give the Coaching staff what it wants when it asks for it. As soon as that's close to happening we'll see QC get more meaningful burn and eventually take over.

I agree with all of this. Confidence is a huge asset in basketball. It's better to break in a player slowly rather than hand him too much responsibility right away and destroy his confidence if things don't go well. Quinn is obviously our PG for the forseeable future, why not let him get comfortable before we talk about throwing him in the starting lineup? The fact that he's playing at all demonstrates Coach K's trust in him as a true freshman. I think that speaks volumes. The starting PG at Duke is no easy job.

jimsumner
12-10-2011, 05:51 PM
It's very presumptuous for you to contend I would say that. If Cook were to get 15-20 minutes a game going forward and he struggled, I would be more than willing to admit he didn't do the job. If Cook gets steady playing time, and K allows him to play through the freshman mistakes which will inevitably happen, that means K isn't using his quick leash. I wouldn't blame K for cutting Cook's time if he shows he can't handle it, so I don't know why you assume I would use the quick leash excuse.

I apologize if you think I'm being presumptous. But go back and read your posts #9 and #17 on this thread, where you accuse Mike Krzyzewski of "mismangement" of Elliott Williams and I don't think I'm being unrealistic or unfair.

Let me sketch a scenario. Talented freshman arrives at traditional power. This wing oozes NBA potential. But his game is undisciplined and unfocused. He plays decent on-the-ball defense but doesn't have a clue about team defense. His offense too easily devolves into get-out-of-my-way.

Fortunately, traditional power has the luxury of bringing the talented freshman along slowly. The team returns a senior combo guard, who had been third-team all-conference the previous season; a junior wing who would be All-America that season and an NBA lottery pick; another junior wing, who would be All-America the following season; and a promising sophomore combo guard, who would be his league's Player of the Year two seasons down the road.

Life, as they say, intervenes. The promising sophomore is given the PG position but struggles, injures a knee, then suffers a concussion. Senior struggles in new role.

While, this is going on, the coaching staff breaks down the game of the talented freshman and rebuilds it. His improvement coincides with the injuries to the sophomore and the poor play of the senior. One of the juniors moves to point, where he plays the best ball of his career to that point. The freshman plays well incorporating the team elements taught to him the previous months and developed in practice. The team finishes in the top 10, wins its conference tournament and advances to the third round of the NCAA Tournament.

And somehow, this all proves that the head coach and his assistants mismanaged the team, didn't know what they were doing?

You do realize there are other plausible ways to look at this than "K was wrong and I was right"?

The Duke coaching staff loves Quinn Cook. Duke turned down some pretty strong overtures from Kabongo because they were convinced they had their man. But I find baffling your absolute conviction that the Duke coaches either don't know what they're doing or insist on doing it the wrong way for reasons never explained. Because their track record of roster management and player development suggests otherwise.

I'm also fond of Occam's Razor. And I'm pretty sure I know which end of the discussion Occam will come down on.

Duke71
12-10-2011, 06:07 PM
There was a joke in the in game thread about "Hack-A-Mason" - but if he doesn't show marked improvement, the end game of any match where we are up by fewer than fifteen points is going to be an excruciating series of substitutions and foul shots.

Mason's yearly FT % per ESPN.com:

2009/10: 54% (team low, narrowly edging out Z)
2010/11: 44% (team low, by a wide margin)
2011 to date: 42%

It's becoming a serious detriment to his development as a player. His FG% is a solid (impressive, really) 65%, and fouling his inside moves will decrease scoring and increase his chances of injury. How can he actually be getting worse?

Is An Occasionally Made Free Throw An Acceptable Alternative To A Not-So-Occasional Air Ball?

Believe it or not, by the time you are a Jr. in college - as is MP2 - it's entirely realistic that you have shot 200,000+ FTs already in your brief lifetime. (100/day x 300 days/year x 7 years = 210K in one possible scenario. The particular numbers aren't important. The magnitude is). Serious ballers will play 300+ days a year easy. Even I did that many years ago when a big money pro contract wasn't the lure that it is today.

Of all the shots you fool around with or practice on your own or with a team, the FT on all courts is from 15 feet away to the same 10 foot high basket with no one guarding you, done at pretty much your own pace and rhythm, in your own preferred style. Most kids that have dreams of playing at a Division 1 level - and possibly in the pros - have begun playing seriously at an earlier age than 8th grade like my scenario above implies.

I know personally - because I watched him play on a Salvation Army team in my Long Island neighborhood almost daily - that Dr. J was practicing 50-100 FT's per day from about the 5th grade on. My point is simply this, if you're serious about developing a complete game you have lots of time and opportunity to Git-R-Done by the time you arrive at a Div. 1 program.

Even a poor FT shooter at this level should be shooting no poorer than 55-60% after so many opps to program muscle-memory. If you're bricking it substantially below that, it really does speak to unnecessary "mental noise" that you are permitting into your peace of mind at the foul line. To that end, I agree with a previous poster (I can't now recall who it was but it was on the Hack-A-Mason discussion topic) who suggested that some sports psyche training sessions would be a good payback investment.

More reps in practice are not going to address MP2's torments at the charity stripe to a significant degree at this point. It's not the poor mechanics of shooting that explains the nature of the problem.

Speaking of torment, watching the air balls, the clunkers, the off-balance lunging, the other desperate impromptu fixes, etc....all of that is tortuously painful to watch for me in real time and ever more painful when I consider the eventual tournament time implications. Ouchhhhhhh.

Starter
12-10-2011, 06:18 PM
Not interested in an Oriole Way-type argument here -- LOL -- but I'm not a huge Thornton fan myself. He doesn't score, and virtually never makes a challenging pass. (Like Bob Green, I enjoyed that aspect of Andre's game today. He looked revitalized in general.) I also have never seen where people think he's some sort of lockdown defender; I actually think he's a liability in that area. I think he's fine in spots, though. He can come in, provide some energy, cause some havoc, his attitude is infectious. There's a spot for him on this team.

But my opinion is that he shouldn't in a million years be starting and/or playing 30 minutes. Cook has more long-term potential, and based on what I've seen, has more ability to help this team in the short term. For one, he can drive and create contact, get shots off, etc. But I'm also satisfied in what I've seen in terms of: We know Cook's going to be a major contributor on this team at some point, and for a long time. Not only that, Duke's winning while still getting used to a totally new dynamic. But I do think Cook's going to be very hard to keep on the bench as the season goes on, and I'm ecstatic that they brought him in.

roywhite
12-10-2011, 06:53 PM
I was impressed with the athletic ability of Tony Wroten...he's got speed, length, and quickness.
Apparently, he ran track last spring and turned in a 10.78 (hand-timed) 100 meters, one of the best times in the state.

Considering the athleticism of Wroten and several of his teammates, I was very pleased with Duke's perimeter defense for most of the game.
Obviously, it's been a point of emphasis for the team and staff.

DukieInBrasil
12-10-2011, 06:55 PM
Not interested in an Oriole Way-type argument here -- LOL -- but I'm not a huge Thornton fan myself. He doesn't score, and virtually never makes a challenging pass. (Like Bob Green, I enjoyed that aspect of Andre's game today. He looked revitalized in general.) I also have never seen where people think he's some sort of lockdown defender; I actually think he's a liability in that area. I think he's fine in spots, though. He can come in, provide some energy, cause some havoc, his attitude is infectious. There's a spot for him on this team.

But my opinion is that he shouldn't in a million years be starting and/or playing 30 minutes. Cook has more long-term potential, and based on what I've seen, has more ability to help this team in the short term. For one, he can drive and create contact, get shots off, etc. But I'm also satisfied in what I've seen in terms of: We know Cook's going to be a major contributor on this team at some point, and for a long time. Not only that, Duke's winning while still getting used to a totally new dynamic. But I do think Cook's going to be very hard to keep on the bench as the season goes on, and I'm ecstatic that they brought him in.
Well you won't get an Oriole type argument b/c you used much more even handed analysis. I agree with you on all counts there. I particularly like seeing Andre passing the ball into the post well on several occasions. He shot a nice baseline mid-range jumper. He brought the ball up once near the end of the game and didn't turn it over, seems like he might be getting more confidence. Would like to see him not try to shoot NBA 3pts when a NCAA 3pt is equally as open.
I also agree that TT is not a defensive savant, but what he does do really well is get loose balls, create loose balls and create havoc. His on-ball D is not good, he gets beat frequently. He is an ok FT shooter, but he needs to be great at FTs if he wants to be any sort of factor on O. But like you said, he mos def has a place on this team.
I also agree about QC's ability to create, which is developing nicely. Perhaps he'll start seeing more floor time during normal game-time action, he proved today that he can handle it.

jv001
12-10-2011, 06:55 PM
1. Washington out scored us in the 2nd half 54-46.
2. Duke FTs...bench went 12-16.
3. Duke 10 offensive rebounds.
4. Duke turnovers..14 total does not seem bad, but they all came from the starters; Seth 5, Austin 3, Tyler 3, Mason 2, Ryan 1. Andre(30 min) and Miles 20(20mins) had none.

All in all a good game against a good team. Washington would be a tremendous team with a good big man. Wonder if their fans are complaining about not recruiting a big man. Probably don't have a tall big man coach, lol. GoDuke!

Newton_14
12-10-2011, 07:05 PM
Thornton should have been sitting, just like Cook should be starting over Thornton.

The practice excuse is BS. I would rather not get into the Williams and practice discussion again, but K didn't finally play and start Williams because he was practicing well, it was because Duke was losing, and other reasons.

We shouldn't wait because it's clear that Cook is the best and most talented option at PG, and because he will make the team better, pure and simple.

I was one of the biggest advocates on this board for starting Jon Scheyer at the point and playing Williams more. I called for both moves before they happened. I knew K was making a mistake with Williams early in that season and I called for more PT for him, just like I know K is making a huge mistake with Cook and I'm calling for substantially more PT for Cook. I still think that K's mismanagement of Williams was a contributing reason for his transfer. And yes, I understand that we won a title the following season without him.

Quinn shouldn't be eased in because he's capable of making an impact. Giving him more minutes now will make him and the team better faster, and makes us better at the end of the season. The other thing making it a no-brainer is that Cook is going to be our starting PG for the next 3 years. Give him the reigns now so that his learning curve accelerates. Thornton is best coming off the bench for 10-12 minutes. Using him as a starting PG playing 20+ minutes is going to kill this team, just as it did today. Our whole starting backcourt basically fouled out, and Washington hit the bonus with more than 12 minutes to go in the second half. The primary reason for both was that Thornton's terrible on-the-ball defense compromised the entire defense at the point of attack. It doesn't help that Curry is a bad on-the-ball defender as well.

The bottom line is that Cook should get major minutes immediately, an the sooner he starts, the better not only for this Duke team, but also the next 3 editions of Duke.

This is way off base. For 32 minutes today Duke played great on both sides of the ball with the defense being the best it had been all year. After the under 8 TO in the 2nd Half, when the two quick plays COYS noted turned it from 18 up to 12 up in less than a minute, it turned the momentum. At that point Seth, Austin, and Tyler were in foul trouble and as this team has done all year, they lost their defensive intensity. That and Mason's troubles at the line gave Washington two things to feed off of and it loosened them up. That's what uglied up the last 7 minutes. Up until that point, Duke was soundly butt-whipping a very good and athletic team. If this was the worst game Coach K has coached in years then I hate it for the opponent when he has his best coaching job in years. You are just way off base with that analysis.

Same thing with Quinn. He is not ready to play 20-25 minutes yet. That day is coming but it isn't now. Yes, Quinn is the best ball-handler on the team by a mile, and the quickest with the ball. That doesn't make him ready. His defense is improving, but he is still behind all of the other guards on defense. He doesn't have the help scheme's, and switch scheme's down yet, and he needs strength to help fight through screens. On offense, he has flashes, but has not been consistent their either. Have you seen a single game this year in person? TV hides things that you can see much better in person. If Coach K has shown anything over his career, he has shown that if a player is ready, he plays him, no matter how young they are.

Tyler brings toughness, defense, and leadership that no one else brings. It can be argued that Andre should start over Tyler, but not Quinn. However, coming off the bench but getting starters minutes seems to have done wonders for Andre on both sides of the ball. Andre's defense today was outstanding. So I have no problem with him coming off the bench.

Underdog5
12-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Was at the game today virtually 2 rows behind press, mid-court... close enough to hear the players talk on the floor. Have to say Tyler's leadership on defense was significant. It's not just his toughness on the ball but each trip down the floor Tyler was turning and telling the teammates what WashU was running and where players wanted to get the ball. It definitely made a difference in how difficult our D mades things for WashU. Prolly something the bench or someone else could do but today it was Tyler. Will to bet this is a big part of the reason he's on the floor a lot. I ultimately want QC to be that guy because I agree that the talent gap is significant but right now, I feel what Tyler gives on D is greater than what QC gives on O.

Kewlswim
12-10-2011, 07:33 PM
Hi,

Mason knows he is missing free throws. Mason wants to clean this part of his game up. I think Mason is playing better than he did last year or the year before. It often takes big men more time to figure things out. I feel that being worried about Duke's free throw shooting, as a whole, is a legitimate concern, but it is also December.

A lot of people seem to want a finished masterpiece right now. This team has lots and lots of upside. I would rather be blown out by OSU in the early part of the season and be able to make corrections that equal a deep run in March. If RK1, MP1, and MP2 are playing at a high level in March the Devils will be able to have an inside game rather than having to rely on jump shots in end of game situations. If Mason can get his free throw shooting to a higher percentage it means hack-a-Mason would be a really bad idea. Isn't it really exciting to think about what is legitimately the upside for this team?

I sometimes feel like some of the fan base on this board does not enjoy victories and is just relieved they happen. Sheesh. The team just won a game where the other team really needed and wanted the victory as a statement game (sound familiar, it didn't work out so well in Ohio). The team did much, much, much better in team defense than it has in quite a while. Give Coach K time to figure out what piece goes where and yes, I am going to defer to Coach K as to when he thinks QC should be playing. Both QC and Coach K seemed pretty happy at the end of the game so I think things are going in the right direction. QC does not seem unhappy, and if he is, he is a great teammate and working hard so that when it is his moment to shine (like today) he is ready to go in there and go after it. I think today's game was a great win. I know how hard and stressful exam time is at Duke (as do many of you). These are student-athletes, not robots.

GO DUKE!

Newton_14
12-10-2011, 07:34 PM
The statistics we have available with Thornton getting significant minutes as the starting point don't bear any of that out. I think Thornton is a solid bench player who is a very good-off-the ball defender and awful on-the-ball defender. His skills shine against inferior competition, and his limitations become more exposed against better teams, like they were today.Because Thornton has played well in the several games against outmatched competition, we have seen a good sample size in which Thorton's assets have been able to flourish. And I recognize that Thornton has played well in games against better opponents as well, especially hitting those huge shots against Kansas. But I think that K is using Thornton primarily as an example for the rest of the team in order to illustrate how much he values hustle and team defense. He's not the solution at PG, and I think the numbers in games will continue to bear that out as we hit conference play when the competition stiffens a little bit (even though the ACC is weak and we played a very strong pre-season schedule).

Wrong again. Tyler is a great help defender and a much improving on ball defender who played good defense out there today. He has absolutely not feasted on bad competition and played bad against good competition. That is just simply not true. In fact down the stretch in the Kansas game Tyler played so well, it caused K to stick with him in the critical last 5 minutes keeping Austin on the bench.

If you want to praise Quinn that's fine, but don't throw Tyler under the bus trying to help make your case better. Being destructively negative is bad enough (and against the rules btw) but being wrong about the kid's play is even worse. If Quinn was playing so welll that he warranted starting, you should not need to diss Tyler's game to make your case.

ncexnyc
12-10-2011, 07:42 PM
Was at the game today virtually 2 rows behind press, mid-court... close enough to hear the players talk on the floor. Have to say Tyler's leadership on defense was significant. It's not just his toughness on the ball but each trip down the floor Tyler was turning and telling the teammates what WashU was running and where players wanted to get the ball. It definitely made a difference in how difficult our D mades things for WashU. Prolly something the bench or someone else could do but today it was Tyler. Will to bet this is a big part of the reason he's on the floor a lot. I ultimately want QC to be that guy because I agree that the talent gap is significant but right now, I feel what Tyler gives on D is greater than what QC gives on O.
I seem to recall some comments that were made by Nolan and Kyle earlier this year that some people laughed off and were very quick to dismiss. I guess seeing Tyler day in and day out and how he was willing to step-up and take charge on the court showed them something they didn't see in any of the returning players.
Yes, he's not the most gifted player on the court, but Coach K probably sees a little of himself and Wojo in Tyler and his willingness to mix it up and get dirty are reasons why we'll continue to see him get a good amount of playing time.

ArkieDukie
12-10-2011, 07:42 PM
Was at the game today virtually 2 rows behind press, mid-court... close enough to hear the players talk on the floor. Have to say Tyler's leadership on defense was significant. It's not just his toughness on the ball but each trip down the floor Tyler was turning and telling the teammates what WashU was running and where players wanted to get the ball. It definitely made a difference in how difficult our D mades things for WashU. Prolly something the bench or someone else could do but today it was Tyler. Will to bet this is a big part of the reason he's on the floor a lot. I ultimately want QC to be that guy because I agree that the talent gap is significant but right now, I feel what Tyler gives on D is greater than what QC gives on O.

Excellent observations - thanks, Underdog! This is singificant and not something we'd see easily on TV.

Saratoga2
12-10-2011, 08:07 PM
Is An Occasionally Made Free Throw An Acceptable Alternative To A Not-So-Occasional Air Ball?

Believe it or not, by the time you are a Jr. in college - as is MP2 - it's entirely realistic that you have shot 200,000+ FTs already in your brief lifetime. (100/day x 300 days/year x 7 years = 210K in one possible scenario. The particular numbers aren't important. The magnitude is). Serious ballers will play 300+ days a year easy. Even I did that many years ago when a big money pro contract wasn't the lure that it is today.

Of all the shots you fool around with or practice on your own or with a team, the FT on all courts is from 15 feet away to the same 10 foot high basket with no one guarding you, done at pretty much your own pace and rhythm, in your own preferred style. Most kids that have dreams of playing at a Division 1 level - and possibly in the pros - have begun playing seriously at an earlier age than 8th grade like my scenario above implies.

I know personally - because I watched him play on a Salvation Army team in my Long Island neighborhood almost daily - that Dr. J was practicing 50-100 FT's per day from about the 5th grade on. My point is simply this, if you're serious about developing a complete game you have lots of time and opportunity to Git-R-Done by the time you arrive at a Div. 1 program.

Even a poor FT shooter at this level should be shooting no poorer than 55-60% after so many opps to program muscle-memory. If you're bricking it substantially below that, it really does speak to unnecessary "mental noise" that you are permitting into your peace of mind at the foul line. To that end, I agree with a previous poster (I can't now recall who it was but it was on the Hack-A-Mason discussion topic) who suggested that some sports psyche training sessions would be a good payback investment.

More reps in practice are not going to address MP2's torments at the charity stripe to a significant degree at this point. It's not the poor mechanics of shooting that explains the nature of the problem.

Speaking of torment, watching the air balls, the clunkers, the off-balance lunging, the other desperate impromptu fixes, etc....all of that is tortuously painful to watch for me in real time and ever more painful when I consider the eventual tournament time implications. Ouchhhhhhh.

Someone else said that his mechanics are messed up and he has lost confidence that he can hit. You would think that mechanics can be straightened out with coaching, since he obviously isn't getting there on his own. Even his brother Miles has much better form and maybe he could assist him. The mental confusion or lack of confidence can best be helped by staying with one method using good mechanics and having game success doing it. This is a big deal for the team as we wind up leaving at least 5 points a game on the table.

Saratoga2
12-10-2011, 08:12 PM
1. Washington out scored us in the 2nd half 54-46.
2. Duke FTs...bench went 12-16.
3. Duke 10 offensive rebounds.
4. Duke turnovers..14 total does not seem bad, but they all came from the starters; Seth 5, Austin 3, Tyler 3, Mason 2, Ryan 1. Andre(30 min) and Miles 20(20mins) had none.

All in all a good game against a good team. Washington would be a tremendous team with a good big man. Wonder if their fans are complaining about not recruiting a big man. Probably don't have a tall big man coach, lol. GoDuke!

It is great to have Quinn available of the bench to sub in for Tyler, Seth or Austin. He brings a unique skill set with low turnovers, decent passing and it looks like he can penetrate. Fom what I see, his defense is improving game by game. I don't really advocate starting him over the others, but I would like to see him get reasonable PT, especially against the kind of opponents we will continue to see for the next month.

Bluealum
12-10-2011, 10:17 PM
I suspect we are going to have a LOT of who should be playing more/less minutes discussions this year....and we have them every year.

I am very glad, this holiday season, that we have perhaps the best coach in the history of the game on our sideline because it must be frustrating trying to figure our how to create an effective team with 3 power fowards, 4 shooting guards, and 1 freshman point guard who is coming off a significant injury.

I would contend that a majority of historic Duke teams would have LOVED to have had any of Mason/Miles/Ryan on their roster with the skills and experience they bring to the table. Any of the 3 would have played major minutes on all but 1 or 2 Duke teams of yore. Can you imagine the impact even one of them would have had on the C-well team when he had to guard Timmy D?

I would contend that a majority of Duke teams would have LOVED to have a lethal shooter like Dawkins (only Trajan and JJ had comparable shots and most teams did not have either of those 2).
I would contend that virtually all Duke teams would have LOVED to have had a breakdown 1 on 1 scorer like Austin. Can you imagine him on the 94 team to complement Grant?

We have remarkable talent on this years team, but that talent is not naturally complementary. How to get 3 terrific shooting guards on the floor at the same time without having defensive issues?? (Curry/Dawkins/Rivers ...in case I am unclear).

On teams where the tangibles are similar...intangibles may often determine playing time a great deal more. How players react when they are away from the ball (both on offense and defense for example) or how they communicate on defense which increases everyone's awareness. These are not easy things to 'see' when you are mostly watching the ball as a fan. I think it's going to be much more difficult for us couch coaches to evaluate PT this year because of this.

Of course we won't stop doing this....and it does make for interesting dialog....but he does have four rings, an Olympic Gold medal, and more wins than anyone in history...so all of us on his bandwagon are safe to keep yelling ourselves hoarse and enjoying the ride just the same.

BTW I am pro QC and pro MP1 and pro Dawkins....and I am not anti-anyone in a Duke uniform so I would have a hell of a time distributing 200 minutes among our 10 or so available guys. Glad it's not my job!

Billy Dat
12-10-2011, 10:18 PM
I seem to recall some comments that were made by Nolan and Kyle earlier this year that some people laughed off and were very quick to dismiss. I guess seeing Tyler day in and day out and how he was willing to step-up and take charge on the court showed them something they didn't see in any of the returning players.
Yes, he's not the most gifted player on the court, but Coach K probably sees a little of himself and Wojo in Tyler and his willingness to mix it up and get dirty are reasons why we'll continue to see him get a good amount of playing time.

The PG debate is really interesting, I appreciate everyone's comments, especially Oriole's for his willingness to take some shots to the chin for stating a widely held opinion. I quoted ncenxyc's comment because I was thinking of the same quote while reading this thread, that Nolan and Kyle were adamant that no one better assume Tyler was going to give up his spot without a dogfight. Perhaps that's what the coaches are waiting for - Quinn to slay the Tyler dragon in practice?

Still, looking at the big picture, Seth, Tyler and Cook will all be here next year. Is the assumption that Austin leaves which means it's a Quinn/Tyler battle for the point? What does that say about Seth? Is he getting the Nolan Smith sophomore year opportunity - and we expect that he'll fail and hand the ball over to Quinn next year? I kind of feel that way, but it seems like a lot of trouble to go through considering Seth's best shot as a pro will be as a PG - he'll likely make someone pry that ball out of his cold, dead hands. Quinn, if you want that spot, you've got two tough dudes to knock out. I can see Oriole's point - why go through all that drama? I guess the answer is, the Coaches can only go by what they are seeing everyday and Quinn must not be knocking them out.

Back to the game, I thought we looked awesome today. I know we didn't execute down the stretch, but I thought our offense looked as smooth and integrated today as it has all season. The silos were gone, Rivers was operating within the offense, the bigs were getting lots of touches, Andre was a huge spark, Kelly shook off the rust in the second half, etc. I am a little worried about Seth's recent shrinkage, but Andre and, as many have pointed out, Miles recent resurgence has me very excited. Miles was great today. I also thought the defense looked solid for the most part - someone pointed out, and I agree, the started hitting some tougher shots, and they missed a lot of shots they could have made early. We're not 17 points better than UW but we were whooping on them to that tune for most of the game because we were really sharp for most of that game. I am feeling really good about us. If anything, I actually think we are underrated by most across the nation because of the OSU beat down and that is fine with me.

uh_no
12-10-2011, 10:48 PM
Still, looking at the big picture, Seth, Tyler and Cook will all be here next year.

I could be mistaken, but shouldn't seth be on pace to graduate this year? Have we heard whether he will stick around in grad school to play another year?

NYBri
12-10-2011, 10:59 PM
Awful free throw shooting. Good game, but there is something missing in the chemistry. Personally, I think Quinn could provide it.

Ryan and Seth had off games. I know Ryan scored some, but what an awful first half.

Real excited with AR's growth.

Team is a work in progress. Interesting to see where we end up.

uh_no
12-10-2011, 11:07 PM
Awful free throw shooting. Good game, but there is something missing in the chemistry. Personally, I think Quinn could provide it.

Ryan and Seth had off games. I know Ryan scored some, but what an awful first half.

Real excited with AR's growth.

Team is a work in progress. Interesting to see where we end up.

I really have to disagree that quinn provided any additional chemistry. I don't see any inherent chemistry issues with the team.....

Unfortunately defensively, we almost can't afford to have him on the floor. First possession he was in, got beat and i believe it resulted in a layup....second possession he got beat and fouled the guy....It may be an exaggeration, but he seemed to get beaten more often than not. I believe he then got pulled

I'm sure he can be a good defender, but I really don't think he is right now, and what he provides on the offensive end is not so much superior to thornton or curry or whomever that we can afford such a liability in an already spotty perimeter defense.

In essence, until his defense becomes, shall I say, serviceable, or his benefit on the offensive end becomes so phenomenal that we can't afford him to sit (and we scored 86 points.....while shooting worth darn from the line...we shoot our average we hit 95 probably), he's not going to see more minutes.

That all said, I think our first half was one of our best defensive halves all year.

roywhite
12-10-2011, 11:15 PM
Awful free throw shooting. Good game, but there is something missing in the chemistry. Personally, I think Quinn could provide it.

Ryan and Seth had off games. I know Ryan scored some, but what an awful first half.

Real excited with AR's growth.

Team is a work in progress. Interesting to see where we end up.

Okay, I'm confused. Your post, and some others in this thread, make more of the negatives of this game than the positives.
Yes, Mason shot poorly from the line and other players missed some FT's in the last 8 minutes; with a little better performance in this area alone, this wouldn't have been a close game.
So we signficiantly outplayed a good Washington team (or a team with some good players) in a December game and areas like Rivers' integration in the team game, and the perimeter defense were much improved.

I don't get the griping about a game like this, or about the team's progress in general so far.
After watching parts of games involving Ohio State, Kansas, Kentucky, and North Carolina today, I don't see teams nationally that are decidedly better than Duke at this stage.
The glass of Christmas egg nog is considerably more than half-full.

rsvman
12-10-2011, 11:16 PM
.....[paraphrasing} Coach K should done blah blah blah because I know that Quinn Cook is better than Tyler Thornton blah blah blah.....I was right once before, doncha know.......I'm prolly right again....yada yada yada....

Did we LOSE the game?

If so, I must've missed something.........

I could've sworn we won.

tele
12-10-2011, 11:25 PM
Wrong again. Tyler is a great help defender and a much improving on ball defender who played good defense out there today. He has absolutely not feasted on bad competition and played bad against good competition. That is just simply not true. In fact down the stretch in the Kansas game Tyler played so well, it caused K to stick with him in the critical last 5 minutes keeping Austin on the bench.

If you want to praise Quinn that's fine, but don't throw Tyler under the bus trying to help make your case better. Being destructively negative is bad enough (and against the rules btw) but being wrong about the kid's play is even worse. If Quinn was playing so welll that he warranted starting, you should not need to diss Tyler's game to make your case.

This is very nicely said. Thank you. I think most fans would want Cook to play well, and get playing time if he earns it. But you don't need to dog another Duke player to make that point. Besides Thornton is doing a lot of things for the team that don't show up in the stat sheet, like sharing the ball, playing solid help defense, and helping the team win. Sharing the ball and not looking for your shot everytime you get the ball may not get you on the highlight reel, but can make you a good teammate. If you are working hard and helping the team win then TT deserves his playing time too.

Oh, one other thing, during the Maui tourney in a post game interview on national tv, Coach K said Tyler was the teams best defender. He didn't say off the ball or help defender, or except for his on the all defense either, he said the teams best defender. If you are the team's best defender at Duke for Coach K, you are going to get to play.

If Cook is going to get more minutes, he doesn't just need to get them from tyler, he also needs to be better than Andre, and Seth and even Austin in some way. Then he will get on the court more, which is exactly how thornton has done it with his defense.

ONe other other thing, if Duke hadn't lost to OSU they might have been ranked number one now. I don't think they are the number one team at this point, but that is where they might have been except for that one loss. For a team that was going to have trouble scoring, they are doing pretty well.

uh_no
12-10-2011, 11:25 PM
Your post, and some others in this thread, make more of the negatives of this game than the positives.

I can't speak for others, but it was a tale of two halves on defense. best all year in the first half (imo) and it went to the dogs (get it??? huskies??? get it???) in the second.

FT shooting is what it is, i'm sure we're working on it, be we know its not a strength for us as it has been typically for duke.

But I think there's no reason to overlook the fact that dre had a great game, mason had a great game, miles had a great game, AR is absolutely the player we thought he would be. Ryan turned it around after a very slow start and scary ankle roll to put up 16....not sure anyone can NOT be happy with how this team looks.

We're improving every game, we know what our trouble areas are and we showed for 20 minutes that we CAN play good solid defense.

Kfanarmy
12-10-2011, 11:28 PM
The bottom line is that Cook should get major minutes immediately, an the sooner he starts, the better not only for this Duke team, but also the next 3 editions of Duke. in short I disagree, he's where he should be at this point.....just uggghhhh

Kedsy
12-10-2011, 11:36 PM
We shouldn't wait because it's clear that Cook is the best and most talented option at PG, and because he will make the team better, pure and simple.

I was at the game today, and Quinn plain and simply could not keep his man in front of him. You think he should start because of his offense. I think he's not starting because of his defense.


I knew K was making a mistake with Williams early in that season and I called for more PT for him...

Both were freshmen who would have made their respective teams substantially better with 15-20+ minutes right off the bat, but received half the time and were not shown the same margin for error that far less talented upperclassman (Paulus, McClure, and Thornton) were allowed to make.

Ellliot Williams averaged 14 minutes per game in November/December 2008 (his only year at Duke). It was only in January 2009 that Elliot hardly played. So I think your memory may be faulty. Unless you're saying you thought he should have had more than 14 mpg at this point that year? Or that 15 mpg "right off the bat" would have been good but 14 wasn't enough?


I agree with all of this. Confidence is a huge asset in basketball. It's better to break in a player slowly rather than hand him too much responsibility right away and destroy his confidence if things don't go well.

I tend to agree with this. Quinn looked almost terrified when he stepped up to the line for his late game free throws today.


Using him as a starting PG playing 20+ minutes is going to kill this team, just as it did today.

Well, we won, so I'm not sure how it killed us today.


Andre was very good on the offensive end today even though his shooting percentage was not high, and fairly solid defensively on the whole. He made a few sharp long entry passes to the post which were very effective and hopefully we will see more of.

I counted at least eight strong entry passes to the low post by Andre. He was also moving a lot on offense, demanding the ball, faking and driving for open two-point shots, playing solid defense against very tough opponents, and pretty much everything else we've been hoping he'd do. All while coming off an injury. He's played two very strong games in a row now, for the first time in awhile. He seems to have embraced the 6th man role, when I was afraid he might pout. Now, I guess we just have to hope that he keeps it up.


It was good to see Mike make an appearance in this game, and he showed hustle diving for a loose ball. Hopefully he will continue to develop defensively and we can make more use of him later in the season against big wings.

Interestingly enough, in the brief time Mike played out there he guarded first Gaddy and then Wroten (when Wroten was serving as PG). I guess Coach K thought his quick feet were better guarding the opposing PGs, rather than their big wings (Ross and Wilcox, who was killing us for much of the game).

It's also interesting how so many people thought we absolutely needed to start Mike and play him big minutes because none of our other players could possibly guard Ross, and then we held Ross to 1 for 8 shooting and two points in the first half.


I'm often inclined to think this as well, but for what it's worth, Seth's least productive games have coincided almost perfectly with games in which Thornton has gotten the most extensive playing time.

I was going to bring this up and I'm glad you did first.

Last season when Tyler started playing more I thought I noticed that Nolan's productivity decreased dramatically when he was teamed with Tyler. I went back through the play-by-play and discovered my observation was accurate. It was a small sample size, but in every single game where Tyler played big minutes, Nolan's scoring rate plummeted when he was teamed with Tyler but was his usual outstanding self (in the same games) when he wasn't. Nolan also turned the ball over at a much higher rate when he was teamed with Tyler, which is the opposite of what you'd expect when going from PG to off-guard.

So I don't think it's completely a coincidence that this season Seth has scored 15.6 ppg when Tyler plays fewer than 20 minutes and has scored 8.8 ppg when Tyler plays 20 or more minutes, or that Seth has averaged 6.5 ppg during Tyler's starts. I mean, I guess it might be coincidence, but I believe it's probably more likely that Tyler doesn't give his wing guard the ball in the best spots, or maybe it's as simple as Tyler doesn't have to be guarded as closely so it's easier to help on his backcourt-mate. Or something else that I just can't see.

No matter what, I think it's worth some attention as the team moves forward.

Newton_14
12-10-2011, 11:37 PM
I can't speak for others, but it was a tale of two halves on defense. best all year in the first half (imo) and it went to the dogs (get it??? huskies??? get it???) in the second.

FT shooting is what it is, i'm sure we're working on it, be we know its not a strength for us as it has been typically for duke.

But I think there's no reason to overlook the fact that dre had a great game, mason had a great game, miles had a great game, AR is absolutely the player we thought he would be. Ryan turned it around after a very slow start and scary ankle roll to put up 16....not sure anyone can NOT be happy with how this team looks.

We're improving every game, we know what our trouble areas are and we showed for 20 minutes that we CAN play good solid defense.

One important note. With 6:56 left in the game, the defense had held Washington to 52 points. That's darn good defense for 33:04 of game time. From there to the end is where the defense went awry. Washington scored 28 points in the final 6:56.

I am confident the guys will eventually figure out how to keep their defensive intensity when they have a large lead with that little time left, but as of now it is a work in progress. I never got the feeling today though, that they were fixing to blow the game. I never reached heart attack mode, so that's progress for me on this young season! :D

Kedsy
12-10-2011, 11:39 PM
I know Ryan scored some, but what an awful first half.

Ryan did not have an awful first half. He had an awful shooting first half, but his overall play was strong. And then in the beginning of the second half he just took over and dominated the game on both sides of the court. Overall, I thought Ryan was great today.

uh_no
12-10-2011, 11:43 PM
One important note. With 6:56 left in the game, the defense had held Washington to 52 points. That's darn good defense for 33:04 of game time. From there to the end is where the defense went awry. Washington scored 28 points in the final 6:56.

I am confident the guys will eventually figure out how to keep their defensive intensity when they have a large lead with that little time left, but as of now it is a work in progress. I never got the feeling today though, that they were fixing to blow the game. I never reached heart attack mode, so that's progress for me on this young season! :D

Even better! for the good part! but so much worse for the rest! I wonder if austin and seth's foul issues had something to do with it (i mean how could you not....as they are likely better defenders than their replacements)

Fortunately, we have a month til our next big game (uva on 1/12), and i would expect to see a wonderful defense then.

-jk
12-10-2011, 11:54 PM
I've been watching Duke basketball closely since I was a freshman at Duke more than 10 years ago. I'm speaking to Elliot's case in particular. I know that Coach K values performance in practice.

The thing is, has Coach K been specifically saying that Cook hasn't been practicing well? If he has, I haven't heard it. What doesn't make sense to me is for Cook to get less time in a game we really could have used him, coming off the heels of him gradually getting more PT and doing fine with it. I know K's tendencies. I think I'm correct when I say that it's reasonable to think that K was unhappy with Cook's defense on his first two plays, took him out immediately, and put him in the doghouse as part of an overreaction. He would do the exact same thing with Williams, which is why I bring that situation up as an appropriate comparison.

If my math is right, K had been coaching at Duke since before you were born. Not says g that's dispositive, but I think it suggests K gets the benefit of the doubt on bringing a frosh along.

Cook will be an invaluable player, but it's best to not throw him to the wolves before he's ready.

-jk

greybeard
12-11-2011, 12:37 AM
You want better defense, get the ball inside early and often and make the bigs make athletic catches, make the other team's bigs work and littles collapse and dash back out. The defense will improve because what you get on offense will be easier, the bigs will be fully integrated into the offense, the bigs will have much better opportunities to score the ball and gain a psychological/emotional/mojo advantage over the other team's that translates to advantage on the otherend, the bigs will not be asked to come out and set so many high screens (they are not pick and pop shooters, which let's other teams simply shade to forstall rolls to the basket; the consequence, the high screener is effectively a blocking fullback, not a full participant in the offense), the other team's bigs get a mental, more than physical rest, the littles won't be spending so much gas on scoring the ball, and will have more energy on defending people, the other team's littles will be darting in and out on defense and maybe have less on the offensive end, the other team's bigs will be a little more worn from playing D and getting beat occasionally more often (on purpose).

The first couple of games it seemed that Duke was committed to playing through the bigs in just this way. I was misstaken. I am not sure why K backed away from it, or if it was simply that the main assistants, that would be WoJo and Collins simply do not see the game that way, do not prepare the guards and other outside players to see it that way either. There are only two guys on this team who see the game as an inside out game in which the bigs are integral--Kelly and Cook. I take that back, I think Thorton sees the game that way as well. But it seems to me that Kelly and Cook have a much better talent for seeing and creating lines of advantage than Thorton, probably because of their more sophiicated and diverse offensive games.

I watch Georgetown and they play through a kid named Clyde Simms, who coming into this season was never featured in the offense. He is handling himself terrifically and scoring and passing it down the stretch in close games. He's better than Miles? I don't think so. Dukes bigs are less involved in the offense than any other team's in the top 20, and I don't know who most of those teams are. How come? There are probably a dozen other teams that play through big men, whose big men score the ball and show much more on the offensive end than either of the Masons but I do not believe possess the talent of either of them.

I think Tyler is playing terrifically and belongs out there. He is not only a terrrific leader and the best defender on the team, he is the toughest guy you want to meet and it pays off in myriad ways, which usually involve getting Duke the ball and knocking heads with guys twice his size (they hurt much more than they want in those moments). No Thorton belongs out there. Do the other guys belong out there for the minutes they are getting? It depends, and I believe less on the speculation of how they play defense relative to Cook. What is it then? Cook is at his best, is only really, really valuable, when he is running a team and everyone out there knows and accepts it. That ain't where K is going with this team. By the way, I happen to think that Elliot was the best point guard Duke had the year he was there and that was from the outset, but only if K was prepared to run. If not, Scheyer was defintely the right choice. They did have the talent to run with Elliot, but probably K did not like his team's strength on the boards to let them loose. Maybe he just thought that there was a better chance of Duke's winning more games if they didn't run. They certainly weren't running with Paulus at the point and see below as to that issue.

I think that Elliot was all but out the door mid season, until he spoke to Dawkins and wound up in the starting line-up. I think he was tired of sitting behind Paulus, with no hope of playing his natural position which was the point, and was tired of having his offensive game during the few minutes he got being limited to taking it to the rim hard and finishing no matter what with an attempted dunk. Duke had no inside game that year (when was the last time it did?) and in order to score at the rim or get fouled, Singler, G, and was it Nelson were all expected to try to dunk in order to make the other team's bigs work on D and foul. Unlike the others, Elliot was allowed to do nothing else and, more often than not, ended up on his behind, having neither thrown it down nor drawn a foul. If anybody can justify his playing behind Paulus on grounds other than that K must have felt he owed Paulus the job after Paulus played with a broken foot the previous year to hold the team together, I haven't heard it. Elliot stayed until the end of the season because he got to start and stay on the floor, performing impressively in a much more diverse role. BTW, we heard before and after the transfer that Moms was gravely ill, on death's door it sounded like. How's she doing?

Finally, Mason can improve his free throw shooting. Here's how, he should shoot a bunch lefty, but not from no free throw line. He should start from two feet until he makes five straight swishes, move back a foot and shot until he makes another five straight, and then once again from another foot away (we can make the increases a foot and a half if you'd prefer). He should then repeat this regimine righty. Each day when he comes out to practice, he starts from two feet, makes the five swishes lefty, moves to four feet, then does the same righty. should practice shooting free throws lefty only not from no free throw line. Yeah, of course, when the team practices free throws with tired legs etc, he participates. If he struggles, I'd go back to taking a few lefts shots from in close, and then return to the line. He does this, no more free throw problems. (By the way, if he and Miles want to improve their shooting, around the world from 2 or 2 1/2 feet, swishes off the backboard lefty from 2 feet out at the 45% angle from the right side, five from the middle, five from the left, then swishes, no backboard, from baseline, 45 middle, etc. and repeat righty).



See

tele
12-11-2011, 01:04 AM
You want better defense, get the ball inside early and often and make the bigs make athletic catches, make the other team's bigs work and littles collapse and dash back out. The defense will improve because what you get on offense will be easier, the bigs will be fully integrated into the offense, the bigs will have much better opportunities to score the ball and gain a psychological/emotional/mojo advantage over the other team's that translates to advantage on the otherend, the bigs will not be asked to come out and set so many high screens (they are not pick and pop shooters, which let's other teams simply shade to forstall rolls to the basket; the consequence, the high screener is effectively a blocking fullback, not a full participant in the offense), the other team's bigs get a mental, more than physical rest, the littles won't be spending so much gas on scoring the ball, and will have more energy on defending people, the other team's littles will be darting in and out on defense and maybe have less on the offensive end, the other team's bigs will be a little more worn from playing D and getting beat occasionally more often (on purpose).

The first couple of games it seemed that Duke was committed to playing through the bigs in just this way. I was misstaken. I am not sure why K backed away from it, or if it was simply that the main assistants, that would be WoJo and Collins simply do not see the game that way, do not prepare the guards and other outside players to see it that way either. There are only two guys on this team who see the game as an inside out game in which the bigs are integral--Kelly and Cook. I take that back, I think Thorton sees the game that way as well. But it seems to me that Kelly and Cook have a much better talent for seeing and creating lines of advantage than Thorton, probably because of their more sophiicated and diverse offensive games.

I watch Georgetown and they play through a kid named Clyde Simms, who coming into this season was never featured in the offense. He is handling himself terrifically and scoring and passing it down the stretch in close games. He's better than Miles? I don't think so. Dukes bigs are less involved in the offense than any other team's in the top 20, and I don't know who most of those teams are. How come? There are probably a dozen other teams that play through big men, whose big men score the ball and show much more on the offensive end than either of the Masons but I do not believe possess the talent of either of them.

I think Tyler is playing terrifically and belongs out there. He is not only a terrrific leader and the best defender on the team, he is the toughest guy you want to meet and it pays off in myriad ways, which usually involve getting Duke the ball and knocking heads with guys twice his size (they hurt much more than they want in those moments). No Thorton belongs out there. Do the other guys belong out there for the minutes they are getting? It depends, and I believe less on the speculation of how they play defense relative to Cook. What is it then? Cook is at his best, is only really, really valuable, when he is running a team and everyone out there knows and accepts it. That ain't where K is going with this team. By the way, I happen to think that Elliot was the best point guard Duke had the year he was there and that was from the outset, but only if K was prepared to run. If not, Scheyer was defintely the right choice. They did have the talent to run with Elliot, but probably K did not like his team's strength on the boards to let them loose. Maybe he just thought that there was a better chance of Duke's winning more games if they didn't run. They certainly weren't running with Paulus at the point and see below as to that issue.

I think that Elliot was all but out the door mid season, until he spoke to Dawkins and wound up in the starting line-up. I think he was tired of sitting behind Paulus, with no hope of playing his natural position which was the point, and was tired of having his offensive game during the few minutes he got being limited to taking it to the rim hard and finishing no matter what with an attempted dunk. Duke had no inside game that year (when was the last time it did?) and in order to score at the rim or get fouled, Singler, G, and was it Nelson were all expected to try to dunk in order to make the other team's bigs work on D and foul. Unlike the others, Elliot was allowed to do nothing else and, more often than not, ended up on his behind, having neither thrown it down nor drawn a foul. If anybody can justify his playing behind Paulus on grounds other than that K must have felt he owed Paulus the job after Paulus played with a broken foot the previous year to hold the team together, I haven't heard it. Elliot stayed until the end of the season because he got to start and stay on the floor, performing impressively in a much more diverse role. BTW, we heard before and after the transfer that Moms was gravely ill, on death's door it sounded like. How's she doing?

Finally, Mason can improve his free throw shooting. Here's how, he should shoot a bunch lefty, but not from no free throw line. He should start from two feet until he makes five straight swishes, move back a foot and shot until he makes another five straight, and then once again from another foot away (we can make the increases a foot and a half if you'd prefer). He should then repeat this regimine righty. Each day when he comes out to practice, he starts from two feet, makes the five swishes lefty, moves to four feet, then does the same righty. should practice shooting free throws lefty only not from no free throw line. Yeah, of course, when the team practices free throws with tired legs etc, he participates. If he struggles, I'd go back to taking a few lefts shots from in close, and then return to the line. He does this, no more free throw problems. (By the way, if he and Miles want to improve their shooting, around the world from 2 or 2 1/2 feet, swishes off the backboard lefty from 2 feet out at the 45% angle from the right side, five from the middle, five from the left, then swishes, no backboard, from baseline, 45 middle, etc. and repeat righty).



See

Glad to hear she is doing ok. And also BTW, on the subject of how Elliot is doing, the sad Brandon Roy news was linked on the DBR front page, but here is some other blazer related news, related to not just Eliot but also now Nolan and even some guy named Felton: http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2011/12/canzano_column_opportunity_kno.html
I hadn't heard about Aldrige. This probably isn't the place ot post this but here it is.

Your free throw fix sounds promising, how did Lance Thomas turn his around?

COYS
12-11-2011, 01:06 AM
Ryan did not have an awful first half. He had an awful shooting first half, but his overall play was strong. And then in the beginning of the second half he just took over and dominated the game on both sides of the court. Overall, I thought Ryan was great today.

I'd add that he had 7 rebounds in the 1st half. If Ryan can continue to be a 6-7 rpg player whenever he gets 25-30 minutes, that would be incredible. So yes, his shooting was off, but in every other aspect of the game he played really well.

UrinalCake
12-11-2011, 01:16 AM
Wow, my memory of Elliot Williams seems to be different than what OrioleWay, Greybeard, and others have described. I thought he was treated fairly and had plenty of opportunities to play, and his insertion into the starting lineup was proof that Coach K was not intentionally keeping him on the bench. To say that the reason Elliot transferred was because of playing time doesn't make any sense, considering he would have gotten plenty of PT had he stayed with only Nolan and Scheyer returning in the backcourt (Dawkins came early but probably wouldn't have if Elliot had stayed). Also, my lasting memory of Elliot is watching Villanova sag off of him and dare him to shoot. After he bricked his first two threes he was too afraid to shoot anymore and therefore became an offensive liability. Not the reason we lost that game but revisionist history could argue that maybe he wasn't for sure the superior player over Paulus.

At any rate, our point guard situation this year is completely different than 2009, so I don't think comparing Elliot Williams to Quin Cook is all that relevant. I like Cook a lot but he's not ready to be the starter. That may change by the end of the season. Playing point guard at Duke is about much more than having skills and athleticism, the adage about being the coach on the floor is absolutely true and so much of what the point guard does is not immediately visible on TV. Having a freshman to come in and play point guard is a real rarity, we were spoiled last year by Kyrie's off-the-charts talent plus he had Nolan in the backcourt with him to be the floor general. But generally speaking, Coach K is going to trust an older player at the point and is going to value leadership and defense over offense.

COYS
12-11-2011, 01:21 AM
Last season when Tyler started playing more I thought I noticed that Nolan's productivity decreased dramatically when he was teamed with Tyler. I went back through the play-by-play and discovered my observation was accurate. It was a small sample size, but in every single game where Tyler played big minutes, Nolan's scoring rate plummeted when he was teamed with Tyler but was his usual outstanding self (in the same games) when he wasn't. Nolan also turned the ball over at a much higher rate when he was teamed with Tyler, which is the opposite of what you'd expect when going from PG to off-guard.

So I don't think it's completely a coincidence that this season Seth has scored 15.6 ppg when Tyler plays fewer than 20 minutes and has scored 8.8 ppg when Tyler plays 20 or more minutes, or that Seth has averaged 6.5 ppg during Tyler's starts. I mean, I guess it might be coincidence, but I believe it's probably more likely that Tyler doesn't give his wing guard the ball in the best spots, or maybe it's as simple as Tyler doesn't have to be guarded as closely so it's easier to help on his backcourt-mate. Or something else that I just can't see.

No matter what, I think it's worth some attention as the team moves forward.

I actually think this is a great point and is worth significant attention. Seth Curry is a deadly, deadly scorer who shoots better than 40% from three (in no small sample size). He's at his most deadly spotting up and coming off screens. However, he has had almost zero of these opportunities the past few games. The points he has generated have almost been entirely the result of his work off the dribble. Curry is clearly capable of driving the lane and working for his own shot, but he's still more deadly shooting open threes. It should be a point of emphasis, in my opinion, to get Curry back on the scoring wagon, where he is at his most comfortable. I'm not sure why/how/if Tyler's extended minutes play into it, but your theory that Tyler's complete absence as a scoring threat allows defenders to key in on Curry might have some merit. It could also be that Curry is being guarded by the opposing teams 2 guard rather than the PG. While the PG might be faster, the 2 is often bigger (and this has been the case the past few games), which might make it harder for Curry to get his shot off. Anyway, people have mentioned that we needed to run some more "JJ" plays for Andre to get open off screens and curls. Perhaps we should also hope to see Curry get more looks coming off screens. If we're going to have someone else run the point, Curry might as well reap the benefits of playing off the ball.

zack2014
12-11-2011, 01:23 AM
Regarding Mason's free throw shooting this year, has anyone watched a practice this year? If so, how do Mason's free throws look then? At the beginning of my freshman season in high school I had some sort of mental block and started shooting free throws horribly during games. My form would break down and I was missing terribly. Later in practice though I would shoot around 80%. I was wondering does anyone think that this could be Mason's problem or if his free throw shooting is poor all of the time.

Greg_Newton
12-11-2011, 01:24 AM
I think we should start a thread to keep track of Austin's strengths/weaknesses at a given time, because they change so quickly and dramatically that it can be hard to remember it was even difference. Remember when his defense was a major issue? Remember when he had a lot of trouble finishing because he'd drive without a clear plan? Remember when he'd consistently turn it over because he'd try to split 4 defenders? Remember when he'd force up shots when help came instead of lobbing it to the open big?

I'm not sure I can remember a player where you can tell exactly what he's been working on in practice because he shows such a tangible game-to-game improvement.

jipops
12-11-2011, 01:31 AM
Dukes bigs are less involved in the offense than any other team's in the top 20, and I don't know who most of those teams are. How come?



Duke bigs vs Washington - 14-26 fg, 20 ft attempts
UNC bigs vs Long Beach State - 19-29 fg, 5 ft attempts
Kansas bigs vs OSU - 15-20, 10 ft attempts
Syracuse bigs vs GW - 10-18, 3 ft attempts

Sure about that?



BTW, we heard before and after the transfer that Moms was gravely ill, on death's door it sounded like. How's she doing?


Confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer. Very scary but also has a good recovery rate.

throatybeard
12-11-2011, 01:55 AM
It's not just his toughness on the ball but each trip down the floor Tyler was turning and telling the teammates what WashU was running and where players wanted to get the ball. It definitely made a difference in how difficult our D mades things for WashU.

WashU is a tremendous Research University about half a mile southwest of my modest apartment. They play D3 sports--they're very good at D3 football.

The University of Washington is a tremendous Research University in Seattle, about 65 miles northwest of Mount Rainier. They play D1 sports, including a men's basketball game against Duke in the last 24 hours. I think the shorthand for them is "U-Dub." At any rate, they're decidedly not WashU.

If Duke ever plays WashU, I want the game to be at SLU's Chaifetz Arena. Nice gym that is.

Dukeface88
12-11-2011, 02:03 AM
The first couple of games it seemed that Duke was committed to playing through the bigs in just this way. I was misstaken.


The team as whole averages 78. Our bigs are averaging 33 points per game. This works out to about 2/5 coming from 2 of the 5 positions. Odd that.



I watch Georgetown and they play through a kid named Clyde Simms, who coming into this season was never featured in the offense.


I'm assuming you mean Henry Sims, but yes, Georgetown runs its offense through the post. In other breaking news, Syracuse plays a zone, Kentucky uses the dribble-drive, and UNC likes to run.



Dukes bigs are less involved in the offense than any other team's in the top 20, and I don't know who most of those teams are.


Syracuse, UF, Missouri, Marquette, Pitt, UConn and Xavier would all like to know when they fell out of the top 15, because none of those teams have a big man averaging double digits. We have two.

Starter
12-11-2011, 03:03 AM
I was at the game today, and Quinn plain and simply could not keep his man in front of him. You think he should start because of his offense. I think he's not starting because of his defense.

I tend to agree with this. Quinn looked almost terrified when he stepped up to the line for his late game free throws today.


I agree that Quinn wasn't exactly Gary Payton on defense today, but I'd suggest it's tough to come off the bench cold after playing one minute in the first half and immediately play lockdown defense against good penetration. I do agree that Quinn's perceived defensive shortcomings are probably keeping him off the court -- we've seen that movie many times -- but I'd contend it's tough to make any sort of judgment, good or bad, based on such a small sample size. That said, I see Quinn as quick, physical and active on defense, and I'm looking forward to seeing a little more what we have there. I'd still assume with a little more experience, his physical tools would help him develop into a comfortably above-average defender, and I continue to maintain he'd probably be better than Tyler right away. *shrugs*

In terms of his free throws, he hit 4-of-6, including knocking down both with 22 seconds left to extend the lead from 8 to 10. Krzyzewski even cited his free throws as a factor in the postgame news conference. If that's Quinn being terrified, I'd like to see him when he calms down! His two prior trips, when he missed the front end on both, I'd also perhaps chalk up to coming in cold after not having played most of the game (or really, most of the season). Encouragingly, he did hit the second one each time.





I counted at least eight strong entry passes to the low post by Andre. He was also moving a lot on offense, demanding the ball, faking and driving for open two-point shots, playing solid defense against very tough opponents, and pretty much everything else we've been hoping he'd do. All while coming off an injury. He's played two very strong games in a row now, for the first time in awhile. He seems to have embraced the 6th man role, when I was afraid he might pout. Now, I guess we just have to hope that he keeps it up.



Well said, agreed completely.




I was going to bring this up and I'm glad you did first.

Last season when Tyler started playing more I thought I noticed that Nolan's productivity decreased dramatically when he was teamed with Tyler. I went back through the play-by-play and discovered my observation was accurate. It was a small sample size, but in every single game where Tyler played big minutes, Nolan's scoring rate plummeted when he was teamed with Tyler but was his usual outstanding self (in the same games) when he wasn't. Nolan also turned the ball over at a much higher rate when he was teamed with Tyler, which is the opposite of what you'd expect when going from PG to off-guard.

So I don't think it's completely a coincidence that this season Seth has scored 15.6 ppg when Tyler plays fewer than 20 minutes and has scored 8.8 ppg when Tyler plays 20 or more minutes, or that Seth has averaged 6.5 ppg during Tyler's starts. I mean, I guess it might be coincidence, but I believe it's probably more likely that Tyler doesn't give his wing guard the ball in the best spots, or maybe it's as simple as Tyler doesn't have to be guarded as closely so it's easier to help on his backcourt-mate. Or something else that I just can't see.

No matter what, I think it's worth some attention as the team moves forward.

Same here. My main problem with Thornton playing so much is that he puts zero pressure on the opposing defense. He can't make his own shot, and doesn't really penetrate or set up Duke's shooters. (I still contend that he's a weak on-ball defender. And though I do think it's hard to quantify exactly how much his vocal encouragement actually enhanced our defensive performance when he was on the court, as some have suggested, they were -2 in the 30 minutes he played and +8 in the 10 minutes he didn't.) That said, I think his strengths have been well established: He's an opportunistic help defender, and he understands the game. As I said earlier this afternoon, there's a definitive spot on this team for him, I just think that playing Thornton 30 minutes, or even 20, isn't productive.

And listen, I think it's natural to throw our two cents in even after an encouraging Duke victory over a solid team during what has been a terrific start to the season. It's what we do: We're fans using a message board for a forum. This isn't to say we should tear college kids down just to do it, but we all have opinions and observations, and we don't have to have won 900 games to have them. We're blessed to root for a team with perhaps the best coach in basketball on any level, but I think framed the right way, there's nothing wrong with hurling some constructive criticism into the Internet ether.

feldspar
12-11-2011, 03:35 AM
Look who's sitting to Coach K's right on the bench, then look back at Tyler. Now look back at Coach K's right. Now back at Tyler again. I'm on a horse.

Tyler is the prototypical Coach K "hustle" guy. He's probably going to beat out Quinn for minutes until he stops being the potential second coming of Steve Wojciechowski.

dukebballcamper90-91
12-11-2011, 07:29 AM
Tyler was only the Washington DC Gatorade Player of the year

oldnavy
12-11-2011, 08:20 AM
TT has become one of my favorites on this team. He is a hustle guy who seems to inspire the others on the court when he is in the game. I like it when he is in, because the team seems to play better overall. I don't have the fancy +/- numbers to support what I sense, but I am sure some one has those that we could look at. He is not the most talented at his position and probably never will be, but he always seems to be around the ball making things happen. LOVE his game.

I also think that Cook is going to be very good, and it will be interesting to see how Coach K works this situation. I trust that he will make it work.

And, I have to throw this out because it has been on my mind... anyone find it funny that Mason's name is discriptive of his FT shooting? I mean, that boy can lay some bricks at the line!

Devilsfan
12-11-2011, 09:19 AM
I was not a big fan of Quinn until yesterday, our second treck up to MSG this year. Great crowd! I loved the "Our House" chant. Quinn is going to be a great Duke guard. I saw something in him yesterday that says he's the real deal. With Seth and Austin fouling out Ty and Quinn finished the game. But there is something about him I really liked. No whining like other freshmen. No "I didn't commit that foul!"', no "Charge? He was inside the circle!". Just hard play and no attitude. Another GREAT Duke representative on the court. I for one am glad we have him on Our Team and I'm glad I got to see him finish a tough game in "Our (other) House". Go Devils!

Jeff Frosh
12-11-2011, 11:27 AM
I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but we did an excellent job of defensive rebounding. Washington is one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the country, and we held them well below their average, both in terms of number of offensive boards and percentage of rebounds off missed shots. And I realize that one of their bigs went out with an injury and one fouled out, but we were doing an excellent job early in the game when they were both playing. Our three bigs all did a great job.

wilko
12-11-2011, 12:05 PM
I am not sure if this has been mentioned, but we did an excellent job of defensive rebounding. Washington is one of the best offensive rebounding teams in the country, and we held them well below their average, both in terms of number of offensive boards and percentage of rebounds off missed shots. And I realize that one of their bigs went out with an injury and one fouled out, but we were doing an excellent job early in the game when they were both playing. Our three bigs all did a great job.

What struck me early in the game was the # of tip-outs.
To my eye.. it looked as though there was some scouting done and this was by design to keep smaller faster guys from swarming around the ball on a rebound.

If it were just a couple of times here and there I'd say it was a guy who couldn't grab it cleanly and was trying to keep the possession alive. We did it So much that seemed to be a bit more...

Starter
12-11-2011, 12:16 PM
Look who's sitting to Coach K's right on the bench, then look back at Tyler. Now look back at Coach K's right. Now back at Tyler again. I'm on a horse.

Tyler is the prototypical Coach K "hustle" guy. He's probably going to beat out Quinn for minutes until he stops being the potential second coming of Steve Wojciechowski.

He's definitely in the Wojo vein, and there's no question he'll always have a role on this team, as he should. That said, Wojo also virtually never turned it over, racked up assists, won a National Defensive Player of the Year Award and did have the capability to score in double digits despite being on totally loaded teams. They're not exactly the same guy.


Tyler was only the Washington DC Gatorade Player of the year

Yup, and Josh Hairston won in Maryland.


What struck me early in the game was the # of tip-outs.
To my eye.. it looked as though there was some scouting done and this was by design to keep smaller faster guys from swarming around the ball on a rebound.

If it were just a couple of times here and there I'd say it was a guy who couldn't grab it cleanly and was trying to keep the possession alive. We did it So much that seemed to be a bit more...

I think there's something to this, and I enjoyed seeing it.

Saratoga2
12-11-2011, 12:48 PM
I was at the game today, and Quinn plain and simply could not keep his man in front of him. You think he should start because of his offense. I think he's not starting because of his defense.




Ellliot Williams averaged 14 minutes per game in November/December 2008 (his only year at Duke). It was only in January 2009 that Elliot hardly played. So I think your memory may be faulty. Unless you're saying you thought he should have had more than 14 mpg at this point that year? Or that 15 mpg "right off the bat" would have been good but 14 wasn't enough?



I tend to agree with this. Quinn looked almost terrified when he stepped up to the line for his late game free throws today.



Well, we won, so I'm not sure how it killed us today.



I counted at least eight strong entry passes to the low post by Andre. He was also moving a lot on offense, demanding the ball, faking and driving for open two-point shots, playing solid defense against very tough opponents, and pretty much everything else we've been hoping he'd do. All while coming off an injury. He's played two very strong games in a row now, for the first time in awhile. He seems to have embraced the 6th man role, when I was afraid he might pout. Now, I guess we just have to hope that he keeps it up.



Interestingly enough, in the brief time Mike played out there he guarded first Gaddy and then Wroten (when Wroten was serving as PG). I guess Coach K thought his quick feet were better guarding the opposing PGs, rather than their big wings (Ross and Wilcox, who was killing us for much of the game).

It's also interesting how so many people thought we absolutely needed to start Mike and play him big minutes because none of our other players could possibly guard Ross, and then we held Ross to 1 for 8 shooting and two points in the first half.



I was going to bring this up and I'm glad you did first.

Last season when Tyler started playing more I thought I noticed that Nolan's productivity decreased dramatically when he was teamed with Tyler. I went back through the play-by-play and discovered my observation was accurate. It was a small sample size, but in every single game where Tyler played big minutes, Nolan's scoring rate plummeted when he was teamed with Tyler but was his usual outstanding self (in the same games) when he wasn't. Nolan also turned the ball over at a much higher rate when he was teamed with Tyler, which is the opposite of what you'd expect when going from PG to off-guard.

So I don't think it's completely a coincidence that this season Seth has scored 15.6 ppg when Tyler plays fewer than 20 minutes and has scored 8.8 ppg when Tyler plays 20 or more minutes, or that Seth has averaged 6.5 ppg during Tyler's starts. I mean, I guess it might be coincidence, but I believe it's probably more likely that Tyler doesn't give his wing guard the ball in the best spots, or maybe it's as simple as Tyler doesn't have to be guarded as closely so it's easier to help on his backcourt-mate. Or something else that I just can't see.
No matter what, I think it's worth some attention as the team moves forward.

Could it be the defense played on Seth was superior in the game Tyler started? That may have more to do with his reduction in scoring than whether Tyler was in or not.

Kedsy
12-11-2011, 01:07 PM
The first couple of games it seemed that Duke was committed to playing through the bigs in just this way. I was misstaken. I am not sure why K backed away from it, or if it was simply that the main assistants, that would be WoJo and Collins simply do not see the game that way, do not prepare the guards and other outside players to see it that way either. There are only two guys on this team who see the game as an inside out game in which the bigs are integral--Kelly and Cook. I take that back, I think Thorton sees the game that way as well. But it seems to me that Kelly and Cook have a much better talent for seeing and creating lines of advantage than Thorton, probably because of their more sophiicated and diverse offensive games.

You keep singing the same song, but the band's moved on without you. We're feeding the post a lot this year. Against Washington, Andre Dawkins fed the post at least 8 times (I was there and I counted).

Here are our bigs' usage rates, compared to UNC, known as a big-centric team:

Duke:

Mason: 22.63%
Ryan: 21.72%
Miles: 20.57%

UNC:

Zeller: 22.82%
Henson: 22.47%
McAdoo: 21.74%

Looks pretty comparable to me.

Oh, and it's Thornton, not Thorton. You've spelled it "Thorton" in every post you've mentioned him since he's been here.


In terms of his free throws, he hit 4-of-6, including knocking down both with 22 seconds left to extend the lead from 8 to 10. Krzyzewski even cited his free throws as a factor in the postgame news conference. If that's Quinn being terrified, I'd like to see him when he calms down! His two prior trips, when he missed the front end on both, I'd also perhaps chalk up to coming in cold after not having played most of the game (or really, most of the season). Encouragingly, he did hit the second one each time.

He calmed down on his second shots. I was sitting in a good position to see his face, and just looking at him I was pretty sure he was going to miss the front ends on his first two trips.

But my point was not to say he messed up his free throws. My comment was in response to someone who said there's a lot of pressure to being Duke's PG. I was just pointing out that Quinn did seem to feel that pressure, and agreeing that we should probably ease him in slowly instead of making him the starter right now, as some have advocated.

Kedsy
12-11-2011, 01:13 PM
Could it be the defense played on Seth was superior in the game Tyler started? That may have more to do with his reduction in scoring than whether Tyler was in or not.

Sure, it could be. But it seems an odd coincidence that Tyler's five highest minute totals correspond exactly with five of Seth's six lowest scoring games (the only exception being Ohio State, where clearly Seth was confronted with superior defense). That combined with the fact that Tyler's presence corresponded with drastically reduced scoring for Nolan last year tells me this is a potential coincidence that's worth watching.

Starter
12-11-2011, 01:29 PM
He calmed down on his second shots. I was sitting in a good position to see his face, and just looking at him I was pretty sure he was going to miss the front ends on his first two trips.

But my point was not to say he messed up his free throws. My comment was in response to someone who said there's a lot of pressure to being Duke's PG. I was just pointing out that Quinn did seem to feel that pressure, and agreeing that we should probably ease him in slowly instead of making him the starter right now, as some have advocated.

Gotcha. We're basically on the same page there. I do think the next four games -- Greensboro, Western Michigan, Penn and Temple -- would be a relatively low-pressure good opportunity to get Cook some extended burn to see how he does, and how the team does with him at the helm.

Olympic Fan
12-11-2011, 01:46 PM
Gotcha. We're basically on the same page there. I do think the next four games -- Greensboro, Western Michigan, Penn and Temple -- would be a relatively low-pressure good opportunity to get Cook some extended burn to see how he does, and how the team does with him at the helm.

Please don't lump Temple in with those other three.

Granted the next three games are gimmies -- all at home. But Temple is a quality team (that just thumped Villanova by 11; No. 37 in Pomeroy, ahead of Michigan) and the game is in Phillly. That's going to be a significant OOC test.

Kedsy
12-11-2011, 01:48 PM
Gotcha. We're basically on the same page there. I do think the next four games -- Greensboro, Western Michigan, Penn and Temple -- would be a relatively low-pressure good opportunity to get Cook some extended burn to see how he does, and how the team does with him at the helm.

I agree there doesn't seem to be much downside to giving Quinn minutes in those games. Although as OlympicFan points out, Temple in Philadelphia will be a tough game.

DukieInBrasil
12-11-2011, 01:56 PM
Sure, it could be. But it seems an odd coincidence that Tyler's five highest minute totals correspond exactly with five of Seth's six lowest scoring games (the only exception being Ohio State, where clearly Seth was confronted with superior defense). That combined with the fact that Tyler's presence corresponded with drastically reduced scoring for Nolan last year tells me this is a potential coincidence that's worth watching.

Although Tyler brings a lot of things to the team and creates some good things, i think his passing ability is quite lacking, ie., he just doesn't seem to get the ball to people in a place where they can shoot easily. Someone put up some stats that showed that something like 80% of TT's passes leading to assist opps were actually converted, which shocked me, cuz it seems like he just doesn't give very many passes in scoring situations. Maybe the O isn't being designed for TT be an assist-type PG, perhaps they just want him to bring the ball up to save Austin and Seth some energy, and then turn around and play energetic D. At any rate, TT seems to reduce the offensive flow in the half-court, although the havoc he creates on D leads to more fast-breaks and easy scores than does Quinn's D, for example. When Tyler and Seth are paired, they seem to get their hands on a lot of passes and/or steals, which is great.
Whether or not it is a direct consequence, Dre has been much sharper since TT became the starter, which was certainly something this team needed. However, Seth has become less sharp, so there's definitely some trade-off. If this increased PT helps TT develop more confidence with his passing and then becomes a better passer because of it, i think we'll all be singing praises. We've won both games with Ty as the starter, which we should have done anyway. In the first we blew out a team we should have blown out. In the 2nd we built up a huge lead on a good team, and slowly let the lead come down, but still won. I'm not sure either situation justifies the hand-wringing that's come of it. Post-OSU, we needed a defensive upgrade and i think we've seen better D in both games since. Although i've got my preferences about who seems to be better players, my overall preference is that Duke wins. If playing TT 30 mpg means we win more games, then go for it. So far, the (limited) evidence shows that it seems to work as intended.

ChillinDuke
12-11-2011, 02:09 PM
Same here. My main problem with Thornton playing so much is that he puts zero pressure on the opposing defense. He can't make his own shot, and doesn't really penetrate or set up Duke's shooters. (I still contend that he's a weak on-ball defender. And though I do think it's hard to quantify exactly how much his vocal encouragement actually enhanced our defensive performance when he was on the court, as some have suggested, they were -2 in the 30 minutes he played and +8 in the 10 minutes he didn't.) That said, I think his strengths have been well established: He's an opportunistic help defender, and he understands the game. As I said earlier this afternoon, there's a definitive spot on this team for him, I just think that playing Thornton 30 minutes, or even 20, isn't productive.

First, I thought we played very well vs. Washington. I was there and thought we played excellent. Game wouldn't have been close if we hit some of those free throws.

I agree with this entire post 100%, but wanted to draw specific emphasis on the bold.

As some on here keep professing Tyler to be our best defender or a great defender, I disagree with that and have pointed out on other threads my belief that this is possibly a holdover classification from Tyler as a recruit. He is now a sophomore Duke PG and can be classified more accurately, IMHO, as opportunistic, savvy, and disruptive. He bothers his man by fighting hard through screens, making deflections, getting a hand on the ball, and just being a general pest. It's fantastic to watch and brings me great joy.

He does not do a good enough job staying in front of his man for me to call him a great defender. If deflections, opportunistic steals, and gritty play on defense is being used to classify him as a great defender by posters here than I wholeheartedly agree with those observations but not the end classification.

I say this somewhat in attempt to steer the general discussion on TT away from the "great defender" concept but mostly because I agree with Starter that 30 minutes is too much TT for me (at this point in time). Quantifying (and evaluating) his intangibles and on-court vocal leadership is something I can't accurately do, but I just feel there are lineup combinations that warrant more time that I would like to see (especially this early in the season).

Note: I am not advocating Quinn starting.

Note II: As I reread this post before submitting, I now am wondering if I'm roundaboutly advocating for the Seth-Austin-Andre-Mason-Kelly lineup.

- Chillin

Starter
12-11-2011, 02:15 PM
Please don't lump Temple in with those other three.

Granted the next three games are gimmies -- all at home. But Temple is a quality team (that just thumped Villanova by 11; No. 37 in Pomeroy, ahead of Michigan) and the game is in Phillly. That's going to be a significant OOC test.

I'm not an expert in advanced metrics, but I'd suggest it's a bit early in the season to use as gospel the Pomeroy formula, which I'd assume probably gets more accurate as the season goes on. (I mean, Iona is No. 36. Texas is 34th.) Though it's not surprising that OSU, UK and UNC are near the top.

One thing I know for sure is that Villanova kinda stinks this year.

But Temple played us pretty tough last year, gave SDSU a real scare in the tournament and has a lot of guys back. And I don't doubt your assertion that playing Temple in Philadelphia is on a higher level of competition than the other three is accurate, albeit obvious. ...All the more reason I'd like to see Cook play a bit to see how he handles only the second true road game we've had against a good but probably not great team, especially if he's logged some successful minutes in those prior games in Cameron. (And yes, it's all merely Sunday afternoon conjecture.) But you're right to point out we shouldn't lump them in with the lower-level teams on the schedule.

OldSchool
12-11-2011, 02:59 PM
Tyler starting sets a tone of higher intensity for the team as a whole, in particular on defense.

Look at the way he impacted the game in the first few minutes against Washington:

At the 19:22 mark, Washington prepares to collect a rebound when Tyler lunges toward the ball. He is unable to get the rebound but his effort disrupts the Washington player who fumbles the rebound out of bounds. Duke ball.

At the 18:45 mark, Austin gambles on a steal, losing his man who starts driving toward the lane. Tyler immediately shifts over to pick up the man, channeling him into Mason in the low post, who blocks his shot. Tyler from behind gets his hand on the ball without fouling, causing a bad shot that Mason taps into Tyler's hands, who starts the break the other way.

At the 17:35 mark, Seth's man beats him off the dribble and gets into the lane. As the Washington player passes near Tyler, Tyler offers a comment sotto voce regarding the size of the Washington player's mother, who struggles with a weight problem. Result: the disconcerted Washington player falls down and throws the ball out of bounds.

After three minutes: Washington 0 points.

The OSU game after three minutes without Tyler on the floor: OSU 9 points.

This Duke team has a very high ceiling, but there are a number of areas they need to work on to achieve that. Foremost is sharpness and intelligence on defense. When the rest of the team matches Tyler's intensity, then perhaps others will start seeing more minutes.

uh_no
12-11-2011, 03:02 PM
He does not do a good enough job staying in front of his man for me to call him a great defender. If deflections, opportunistic steals, and gritty play on defense is being used to classify him as a great defender by posters here than I wholeheartedly agree with those observations but not the end classification.


I'm glad somebody said this, because its sort of how i feel. It seemed several tiems yesterday he got beaten pretty badly and the big guys bailed him out. I still think he's far in front of cook in this aspect, but i wouldn't classify him as great at keeping his man in front of him.

ACCBBallFan
12-11-2011, 03:09 PM
I am getting used to selecting Mason for Game ball.

Austin had the best +/- and Dre had the best metrics, sum of all positive stats minus turnovers minus fouls.

Overall though, Mason led with Kelly second.

If Ryan ankle sprain had kept him out of the game, Duke may have blown that lead, as Mason from FT line is a disaster.

Metrics +/- Sum Duke

54 12 66 Mason Plumlee, F

53 06 59 Ryan Kelly, F

55 03 58 Andre Dawkins, G

42 14 56 Austin Rivers, G

38 (1) 37 Miles Plumlee, F

33 02 35 Seth Curry, G

31 00 31 Tyler Thornton, G

07 (3) 04 Quinn Cook, G

01 (1) 00 Josh Hairston, F

01 (2) (1) Michael Gbinije, G-F

Since I started tracking +/- in Davidson game, the season leaders are:

Dav TN Mich KU tOSU CSU Wash Sum7

09 12 08 14 (22) 08 12 41 Mason Plumlee, F

08 05 (4) 12 01 19 00 41 Tyler Thornton, G

04 07 07 08 (14) 14 02 28 Seth Curry, G

00 08 06 06 (17) 13 06 22 Ryan Kelly, F

03 (2) 00 00 03 14 (1) 18 Josh Hairston, F

14 01 03 (6) (8) 12 (1) 16 Miles Plumlee, F

13 01 03 02 (3) 03 (3) 16 Quinn Cook, G

14 06 04 (4) (24) 19 14 15 Austin Rivers, G

06 12 08 03 (27) 09 03 14 Andre Dawkins, G

(6) 00 00 00 01 04 (2) (1) Michael Gbinije, G-F

Starters far much better if results from Ohio State are removed.

63 Mason Plumlee, F
53 Austin Rivers, G
42 Seth Curry, G
41 Andre Dawkins, G
40 Tyler Thornton, G
39 Ryan Kelly, F
23 Miles Plumlee, F
19 Quinn Cook, G
14 Josh Hairston, F
(4) Michael Gbinije, G-F

g-money
12-11-2011, 04:31 PM
Great win against an underrated UW team yesterday.

But here's what I see as a concern going forward: Mason may be the player who is best-suited to emerge as the leader of this year's team, but he's also a liability at the end of games because of his free throw shooting. When games get tight, as they inevitably will at some point, who do we want to have the ball?

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Fortunately we have one of the world's best teachers of leadership at the helm. I guess there's always hope that Mason will get his free throw stroke figured out too, though his hitch-and-clutch yesterday was a cross between Chris Dudley and Shaq.

killerleft
12-11-2011, 04:51 PM
I wonder if anybody on the Duke bench noticed just how hard Miles hit the back of his head when he fell about midway through the first half? I'm thinking not. Given that concussions are taken much more seriously these days, I was a bit surprised he wasn't checked out more thoroughly.

Newton_14
12-11-2011, 04:58 PM
I wonder if anybody on the Duke bench noticed just how hard Miles hit the back of his head when he fell about midway through the first half? I'm thinking not. Given that concussions are taken much more seriously these days, I was a bit surprised he wasn't checked out more thoroughly.

That was a very dangerous play. I was surprised the trainer did not go out and check him, and he did not come out. His head snapped back really hard as you noted and crashed into the floor. Glad to see he was ok. Miles played a heck of a game yesterday and has started to play much better of late. If we keep all 3 bigs playing well at the same time, the guards will be loving life. I wish we would feed the post even more than we are now.

Duke71
12-11-2011, 05:09 PM
I wonder if anybody on the Duke bench noticed just how hard Miles hit the back of his head when he fell about midway through the first half? I'm thinking not. Given that concussions are taken much more seriously these days, I was a bit surprised he wasn't checked out more thoroughly.

Hey Killerleft:

Funny (actually not) that you should mention that. I had a fall like that in my driveway on some ice several winters ago and had my proverbial bell rung...fortunately with no downstream fallout, but it panicked my wife at the time. So fast-forward to yesterday's fall by MP1 which my wife and I were watching together on the big-screen and it was actually my wife who turned and said to me "I can't believe that the only guy that came over to check out MP1 was the ref....where's the Duke trainer on this?" The slo-mo TV replay showed the head whiplash into the hardwood pretty hard. Hope he's OK too. We need the MP's to stay healthy.:eek:

Newton_14
12-11-2011, 05:19 PM
On a lighter note, did anyone happen to see the little kid get away from mommy and daddy yesterday and run onto the court? It happened in the 2nd half right in front of the Udub bench. Udub had just scored a basket and the camera was following Duke bringing the ball up. They just did catch a little kid running on the floor in front of the bench and the panicked adult chasing him down from behind. That was funny.

ncexnyc
12-11-2011, 05:26 PM
I finally got around to watching the game late last night and after reading all of the posts on this thread I'm wondering if I watched the same game most of you saw.
The game I saw was a pretty onesided affair, which only got close near the end due to a combination of stallball, players fouling out, and some terrible freethrow shooting. Now maybe the pucker factor wasn't there for me, because I already knew the final score, but from some of the posts I've read, they made it seem like we were lucky to walk away from MSG with the win.

I was extremely pleased to see Dre able to play and to give the team a second consecutive solid outing. I believe the same can be said for Miles, who was a beast yesterday. MP1 was a factor on both ends of the floor and it's really nice to have 3 quality bigs, although it doesn't bode well for Josh. Austin was excellent again. His ability to get to the rim at will is a sight to behold.

Since it's the holiday season, I'm reminded of the Island of Misfit Toys. We have all these nice and shiney guards, but so far they don't match-up with one another. Hopefully Santa, ooops I mean Coach K will be able to get all of these nice pieces to fit.

At the start of the year I was critical of people who said we had a lot of talent on this team, while I prefered the word potential. I now submit that the talent is indeed present as far as individuals go. The potential that all of this talent can mesh into special team, well that's what we'll find out the rest of the way.

loldevilz
12-11-2011, 07:06 PM
I thought Miles had an absolutely outstanding game. I thought he looked like a championship caliber center for a few minutes there. He was making great blocks on one end. Got that offensive rebound and then dunked it. It was fantastic to watch.

Mason had a nice game except for the free throw shooting. He basically single-handedly let Washington into the game by going 1-10 or whatever from the line, including a missed one-and-one. We also saw for the first time teams foul him on purpose. This means it will be very difficult to put him in late game situations.

I still would like to see more of Gbinije and Hairston. I do believe they have a role on this team

uh_no
12-11-2011, 07:22 PM
I thought Miles had an absolutely outstanding game. I thought he looked like a championship caliber center for a few minutes there. He was making great blocks on one end. Got that offensive rebound and then dunked it. It was fantastic to watch.

Mason had a nice game except for the free throw shooting. He basically single-handedly let Washington into the game by going 1-10 or whatever from the line, including a missed one-and-one. We also saw for the first time teams foul him on purpose. This means it will be very difficult to put him in late game situations.

I still would like to see more of Gbinije and Hairston. I do believe they have a role on this team

So the defense allowing 54 points in the second half had nothing to do with it, then?

I understand that he needs to work on it, but to pretend that his FT shooting was a large proponent of, let alone the sole reason that the huskies got back into the game is silly. We gave up 54 points in the second half and that would still be true whether mason shot 0-10 or 10-10....yeah the game wouldn't have been AS close, but you're scapegoating him for something that is a more institutional problem, and scape goating is usually never the answer.

Kedsy
12-11-2011, 08:27 PM
Now maybe the pucker factor wasn't there for me, because I already knew the final score, but from some of the posts I've read, they made it seem like we were lucky to walk away from MSG with the win.

In the arena, the game never appeared to be in doubt. Not sure how it looked on TV. Worst situation I can remember is we were up 6 with the ball, which is still not quite in "pucker" territory, in my opinion.

jimsumner
12-11-2011, 10:13 PM
It's funny how that last, uncontested and totally meaningless 3-pointer skews our perspective. A 9-point win just sounds better than a 6-point win.

Duvall
12-11-2011, 10:41 PM
It's funny how that last, uncontested and totally meaningless 3-pointer skews our perspective. A 9-point win just sounds better than a 6-point win.

Well, meaningless to us.

uh_no
12-11-2011, 10:54 PM
It's funny how that last, uncontested and totally meaningless 3-pointer skews our perspective. A 9-point win just sounds better than a 6-point win.

I believe they had had it down to 6 or 7 earlier, though, so if it had ended up 9-10 it wouldn't have been as indicative of how big the collapse actually was.

Greg_Newton
12-11-2011, 10:59 PM
I believe they had had it down to 6 or 7 earlier, though, so if it had ended up 9-10 it wouldn't have been as indicative of how big the collapse actually was.

...right, because Duke responded to the collapse by hitting 7 of 8 FTs and pushing the lead back up. Why should the final score only reflect the collapse, and not the ensuing positive response?

sagegrouse
12-11-2011, 11:04 PM
I believe they had had it down to 6 or 7 earlier, though, so if it had ended up 9-10 it wouldn't have been as indicative of how big the collapse actually was.

Hunh?? I think a collapse implies that you lose, not that you trade points for time, as Duke did. We were never in danger of losing.

I also give some credit to UDub for having a hot hand the last five minutes. Made nine out of ten shots, and all shots but the last three-pointer were defended.

sagegrouse

uh_no
12-11-2011, 11:10 PM
Hunh?? I think a collapse implies that you lose, not that you trade points for time, as Duke did. We were never in danger of losing.

I also give some credit to UDub for having a hot hand the last five minutes. Made nine out of ten shots, and all shots but the last three-pointer were defended.

sagegrouse

collapse=defensive collapse....giving up 28 points in the final 6 minutes

the initial assertion was that the 3 at the buzzer made the game look worse than it actually was, and that may be true. But what it does better represent is how poorly our defense played...in the end the 9 point margin doesn't reflect how poorly we played in the last 6 minutes, and the 6 point margin doesn't reflect how well we played the rest of the game.....i guess the takeaway is that the final margin is never necessarily indicative of how the teams played

Jim3k
12-11-2011, 11:35 PM
One of the things that happened in the tOSU game was to choke Duke's offense from the start by locking down on Seth. We've done that to other teams as well. In response, against Washington, K put Tyler at the point, as he's a somewhat better ball handler than Seth (who's no slouch). That resulted in loosening up Seth as a shooter. But neither of them were feeding the post players successfully enough. Even so, it did cause the defense to focus on filling passing lanes from the point to the bigs.

So Washington wasn't as successful as tOSU. The one player they didn't look for to feed anyone is Andre. And when the Washington defense concentrated on preventing assist-style passes from Seth or Tyler, it opened up Dawkins for that purpose. As others have said, he fed the bigs at least eight times. He only got credit for two assists, but it should have been at least four. And they were sweet.

Plus, it changed Andre's game a bit. He knew where the passes had gone and could follow the shots. He's not known as a rebounder, but he got credited with four and picked up some change bouncing around on the floor. One resulted in a bank shot and another found him taking a baseline jumper. He also got fouled as he drove in for something close. He actually didn't shoot as well as he usually does, but his presence in unexpected places on the floor meant the defense was not accounting for him in those plays.

Using him as a 6th man is an interesting development. It may make Andre a better all-around offensive player and it may also mean that the post players will get even more feeds as time passes.

Try to cut off our point? K has an app for that.

Dukeface88
12-12-2011, 04:06 AM
collapse=defensive collapse....giving up 28 points in the final 6 minutes

the initial assertion was that the 3 at the buzzer made the game look worse than it actually was, and that may be true. But what it does better represent is how poorly our defense played...in the end the 9 point margin doesn't reflect how poorly we played in the last 6 minutes, and the 6 point margin doesn't reflect how well we played the rest of the game.....i guess the takeaway is that the final margin is never necessarily indicative of how the teams played

While I'd agree that our defense was much less effective in the last six minutes, I'd also note that those 6 minutes correspond roughly to Austin and Seth picking up their 4th fouls. I think this is pretty important; it meant our perimeter was less aggressive on the defensive and offensive ends, and meant that the ball was largely out of the hands of two of our best FT shooters. This also makes me think that the complaints about stall-ball are a case of correlation not implying causation; we started playing stall-ball because we were in foul trouble, and we weren't able to attack or defend effectively because we were in foul trouble.

Bluedevil114
12-12-2011, 06:30 AM
On a lighter note, did anyone happen to see the little kid get away from mommy and daddy yesterday and run onto the court? It happened in the 2nd half right in front of the Udub bench. Udub had just scored a basket and the camera was following Duke bringing the ball up. They just did catch a little kid running on the floor in front of the bench and the panicked adult chasing him down from behind. That was funny.

That was hiliarious!! I saw it in real time and had to rewind it to check if what I saw was accurate. My kids could not stop laughing when I showed them. The kid made it all the way up to the coaches box before his father caught him. Great security at the Garden. lol

devildeac
12-12-2011, 08:04 AM
That was hiliarious!! I saw it in real time and had to rewind it to check if what I saw was accurate. My kids could not stop laughing when I showed them. The kid made it all the way up to the coaches box before his father caught him. Great security at the Garden. lol

Did they arrest the little fellow? (jk)

Imagine if Ozzie had done that...

sagegrouse
12-12-2011, 08:25 AM
Did they arrest the little fellow? (jk)

Imagine if Ozzie had done that...

I saw Ozzie in the crowd, and I am still awaiting his trip report. - sage

roywhite
12-12-2011, 11:15 AM
Interesting little factoid (from Goduke writeup)

Miles Plumlee is 13-14 from the field in his last 5 games, and followed up his only miss with a putback.

This would certainly be a huge plus for the team for Miles to get his offense going and play with confidence.

moonpie23
12-12-2011, 11:17 AM
Did they arrest the little fellow? (jk)

Imagine if Ozzie had done that...

good thing huck wasn't there.....:cool:

UrinalCake
12-12-2011, 11:22 AM
Miles Plumlee is 13-14 from the field in his last 5 games, and followed up his only miss with a putback.

Nice! I think Miles's role has been really underrated this year. He had a couple of poor games and a lot of people sort of gave up on him but I still see him contributing in spurts, his defense is always pretty good, and we definitely could use his efficient scoring. He and Mason play really well together.

DukieInBrasil
12-12-2011, 12:41 PM
Nice! I think Miles's role has been really underrated this year. He had a couple of poor games and a lot of people sort of gave up on him but I still see him contributing in spurts, his defense is always pretty good, and we definitely could use his efficient scoring. He and Mason play really well together.
The Plumlees have a thing going, we like to call it the "Plumlee Daily Double" (h/t to somebody else on the DBR for coining that phrase). I believe they have a combined 2x-double in every game this year. They are playing a bit more than 40mpg, but hey, it's like a tag-team.
In the UW game, i saw one thing that i really liked from Miles. He grabbed an Oboard, and was strong with the ball, he didn't have particularly good balance or a good angle to the rim in the position he caught it, but he adjusted his feet w/o travelling (aka good footwork) and got up for a dunk ( he almost blew it by going one-handed, but it stayed down). One thing that has really plagued Miles is poor footwork, which that play showed he is starting to get a better understanding of. He has also had problems with wanting to dribble too much in the paint, he controlled that urge on that play. He also has real problems with getting the ball stripped by exposing the ball too much, but he kept it close to his gut as he was pivoting. That one play demonstrated how much progress he has made, in that often times he'll make at least one of the 3 mistakes and not execute the play, but he didn't make any of those mistakes and finished the play that he is in the game to make. It made me happy.
ps There's a thread dedicated to MP IIs FG% and how he is just shy of officially leading the league. Well, MP I has a better FG% than baby bro', although at considerably fewer attempts. Still, having your 2 interior bigs shooting a combined 65% is AWESOME!!!

Billy Dat
12-12-2011, 03:38 PM
A couple of Post UW shots across the bow via Seth Davis:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/12/12/Cincinnati.Xavier/1.html

"Between their blowout loss at Ohio State and their near-collapse against Washington on Saturday, it's becoming evident that Duke doesn't have a talent problem so much as a leadership problem."

"Beware the elite big man who can't make free throws: UConn's Andre Drummond (33.3 percent), Duke's Mason Plumlee (38.1) and Xavier's Kenny Frease (30.0)."

Duvall
12-12-2011, 03:49 PM
A couple of Post UW shots across the bow via Seth Davis:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/seth_davis/12/12/Cincinnati.Xavier/1.html

"Between their blowout loss at Ohio State and their near-collapse against Washington on Saturday, it's becoming evident that Duke doesn't have a talent problem so much as a leadership problem."

Good old Seth - often wrong, never in doubt. Not sure how he failed to notice how Duke's "near-collapse" was the result of Washington scoring on nearly every trip down the floor after Duke ended up with multiple players in serious foul trouble.

UrinalCake
12-12-2011, 04:24 PM
Wow, did Seth Davis just say that we have an elite big man?

DukieInBrasil
12-12-2011, 04:25 PM
Good old Seth - often wrong, never in doubt. Not sure how he failed to notice how Duke's "near-collapse" was the result of Washington scoring on nearly every trip down the floor after Duke ended up with multiple players in serious foul trouble.
Well, in the eyes of one who beholds a collapse, it doesn't matter what the cause is, just that it happens.
I wouldn't use the argument that UW was scoring every trip down the floor to counter the argument that Duke "collapsed", actually that is a strong argument for "collapse".
A stronger argument was that the D Duke was employing allowed for decent scoring chances cuz Duke did not want to foul and stop the clock. Duke was in clock-management mode, and it worked.
So to say it was a "collapse" is to ignore the fact that Duke was doing what it planned on doing, although it did not plan on 2 of his starting guards fouling out. To say it was a collapse also ignores the fact that Duke hit its FTs in the final minute, and by doing so actually prevented a real collapse.
You're right about SD though, he never misses a chance to give Duke a hard time. Although his general thesis may be right, Duke does seem to lack a no-doubt-about-it leader.

Dukehky
12-12-2011, 04:29 PM
I didn't read all of the 150 posts preceding mine, so there might be a little over-lap in my thoughts here.

The first half, as most have said, was great. It was fun to watch, great defense, good offense, a lot of good things to take away from the game.

In the second half, different story. Of course, you're not going to hold a dynamic Washington offense to 26 points two halves in a row, especially with a young team like this one, so to think we were going to get the same kind of performance is at best wishful thinking. However, there were a lot of aspects of this half that give me great cause for concern. Yeah, the free-throw shooting was poor, but it didn't lose us the game, and we're better than that in general, the only perpetually poor free throw shooter that I have very little confidence in is Mason. Miles has been relatively strong, as has Ryan, and I feel the more game pressure Austin gets at the line, the better he's going to be. Curry and Dawkins, good, Kelly, good, Quinn has shown the ability to come in cold and hit at least one of two that I would assume would get better if he didn't go in the last 5 minutes off an entire game from the bench.

I hate stall ball, it has lost us some very important games in the past and has blown a lot of leads this season that we were pretty lucky to escape from. I just can't get that 2004 Final Four game against UConn out of my head for this stall ball thing. Yeah Okafor went off and we got a lot of poor calls against Shelden and Shav, but initiating the offense at 12 seconds just isn't effective, it also allows the defense to rest for 20 seconds before they have to hunker down and stop the ball, that's just a fact. This game was different. Austin said it the best, when they get up and they try and burn some time off the clock, they aren't as aggressive, they settle for relatively bad shots, and that lack of aggressiveness inadvertently translates to the defensive end. It's hard to get hyped up for just playing defense when you're forced to slow it down and pull it out for 25 seconds before you get a chance to get the momentum up. I hate it, and it infuriates me. I want them to play like college football teams, run the score up because you feel like you have to. Stall ball, with 8+ minutes, has always, and will always seem to me to be Duke trying not to lose instead of to win.

Unfortunately, I agree a little with Davis' leadership thing. There is not a vocal leader on the floor. Sure there are other ways to lead, but I have never seen much to believe that Miles, Seth, or Ryan can fire a team up on the floor, it's all leadership "by play." Hopefully I'm just wrong and/or it will develop as the year goes on. Quinn is better than Ty. He's not in as good of shape so he can't play as much, but he's faster and has some offensive capability.

I did notice K tried to do a little double big man switch a la 2010: Zoubs and Lance out, Plumlees in; this time Ryan and Mason out, Miles and Hairston in. That's not going to work, and I'm glad I didn't see it in the latter parts of the game. Josh does not currently have the game to be a part of a major 4 man rotation with the bigs.


All this amounts to absolutely nothing because we are the youngest we've been since 2007, with way more talent and way more upside. We've been a little spoiled lately so naturally there's a lot we have to complain about or try to tweak. The bottom line is that this team has a lot of room for improvement and they're still a legit top 8 team. They're not going to get worse, only better, and potentially much better if things like free throw shooting and team defense improve.

Long Beach State is legit, btw.

DukieInBrasil
12-12-2011, 04:29 PM
Wow, did Seth Davis just say that we have an elite big man?
nice catch. Did he also just imply that John Henson is not an elite big man? I mean JH is by no stretch of the imagination a FT sharpshooter.

greybeard
12-12-2011, 04:49 PM
Duke bigs vs Washington - 14-26 fg, 20 ft attempts
UNC bigs vs Long Beach State - 19-29 fg, 5 ft attempts
Kansas bigs vs OSU - 15-20, 10 ft attempts
Syracuse bigs vs GW - 10-18, 3 ft attempts

Sure about that?



Confirmed diagnosis of breast cancer. Very scary but also has a good recovery rate.

Here's what I think:

As to your first point, yeap, absolutely, I stand by what I wrote. I didn't say shots, I said touches. With lots of touches, you get to choose when you have advantage, when you feel it. You get to catch with an angle occasionally that is indefensible, or with space within 10 feetof the basket, enough so you have a chance to turn and have the defender need to close quickly or concede a short jumper, perferrably off the glass. When you catch it in such spots, there are no littles who can get there in time to swipe it away if you choose to put it on the flor once, or as you bring it up to shooting, or to make you bring it up to shooting in a manner that does not suit you (as good as a big's altering a shot we hear so much about by the heads on TV). And the touches that you don't choose to "go on," well the defender is working like a dog, leaning and pushing and you just toss it back out, perhaps to someone who is positioned to make a play--heyt, now you are doing things that littlews get so noticed for, you're actually a ballplayer, a full participant in all aspects of the game.

So, I think that Duke would be more potent offensively if they played through the bigs on offense. But, I ain't K and he is the best--could be his biggest concern is that Mason and Miles save their energy for D and defensive boards; could be his top two assistants can't see the inside out game and acccording can't coach it, and thus K is constrained to stay away from it, except when he has a hoss like Shelden, Brand, or Boozer, who can post, hold off the defender pushing and leaning on 'em, and score nontheless. It's worked pretty darn well, whatever his reasons, only I think some barbershop second-guessing is fair game here, that it's not off the charts wrong.



So, cancer, this scary circumstance, did not stop Elliot from going to the pros after his sophomore season now did it? At the time the talk of transferring came up, Elliot was still sitting, if I recall correctly, and reports were that he had been talking with Dawkins. He has the best, wisest coach on the planet and he talks to Dawkins. How come? And, after he does so, voila, he is starting and getting to play a diverse game. A diverse game, but not the point." Going to Memphis and being eligible his sophomore year he would be playing the point for a great program made to run. He would be tutored by the best in the business when it comes to scoring the ball in diverse, exciting ways, we're talkin Ron here, not Cal.

So, here's what I think is at least reasonably plausible--Elliot came to Duke planning to play a year at point for a stellar program and a great coach and leave for the pros. When he found himself sitting behind Paulus who never seemed to recover from that season with the broken foot, he became quite disgruntled. Now, I am not saying that I am anywhere near certain that that is how it played out. Maybe he didn't show well in practice (hard to accept that he couldn't have been outplaying Paulus on both ends, if K had let him play the point), or maybe K though Elliot needed to mature as a student and an independent young man before placing him under the bright lights, especially at the point. There are lots of possibilities but I think that it is fair to assume that whatever the scenario, E did not like it, and became quite disspirited.

Is Cook feeling something similar? Who knows. Perhaps we'll find out at season's end?

jimsumner
12-12-2011, 05:52 PM
Here's what I think:

As to your first point, yeap, absolutely, I stand by what I wrote. I didn't say shots, I said touches. With lots of touches, you get to choose when you have advantage, when you feel it. You get to catch with an angle occasionally that is indefensible, or with space within 10 feetof the basket, enough so you have a chance to turn and have the defender need to close quickly or concede a short jumper, perferrably off the glass. When you catch it in such spots, there are no littles who can get there in time to swipe it away if you choose to put it on the flor once, or as you bring it up to shooting, or to make you bring it up to shooting in a manner that does not suit you (as good as a big's altering a shot we hear so much about by the heads on TV). And the touches that you don't choose to "go on," well the defender is working like a dog, leaning and pushing and you just toss it back out, perhaps to someone who is positioned to make a play--heyt, now you are doing things that littlews get so noticed for, you're actually a ballplayer, a full participant in all aspects of the game.

So, I think that Duke would be more potent offensively if they played through the bigs on offense. But, I ain't K and he is the best--could be his biggest concern is that Mason and Miles save their energy for D and defensive boards; could be his top two assistants can't see the inside out game and acccording can't coach it, and thus K is constrained to stay away from it, except when he has a hoss like Shelden, Brand, or Boozer, who can post, hold off the defender pushing and leaning on 'em, and score nontheless. It's worked pretty darn well, whatever his reasons, only I think some barbershop second-guessing is fair game here, that it's not off the charts wrong.



So, cancer, this scary circumstance, did not stop Elliot from going to the pros after his sophomore season now did it? At the time the talk of transferring came up, Elliot was still sitting, if I recall correctly, and reports were that he had been talking with Dawkins. He has the best, wisest coach on the planet and he talks to Dawkins. How come? And, after he does so, voila, he is starting and getting to play a diverse game. A diverse game, but not the point." Going to Memphis and being eligible his sophomore year he would be playing the point for a great program made to run. He would be tutored by the best in the business when it comes to scoring the ball in diverse, exciting ways, we're talkin Ron here, not Cal.

So, here's what I think is at least reasonably plausible--Elliot came to Duke planning to play a year at point for a stellar program and a great coach and leave for the pros. When he found himself sitting behind Paulus who never seemed to recover from that season with the broken foot, he became quite disgruntled. Now, I am not saying that I am anywhere near certain that that is how it played out. Maybe he didn't show well in practice (hard to accept that he couldn't have been outplaying Paulus on both ends, if K had let him play the point), or maybe K though Elliot needed to mature as a student and an independent young man before placing him under the bright lights, especially at the point. There are lots of possibilities but I think that it is fair to assume that whatever the scenario, E did not like it, and became quite disspirited.

Is Cook feeling something similar? Who knows. Perhaps we'll find out at season's end?

Why would Elliott Williams have expected to play point at Duke? He wasn't recruited for that position. Paulus returned as a senior, having been third-team All-ACC the previous season. Duke tried to switch Nolan Smith to point for 2009. When he struggled at that position, K moved Scheyer to the point. Williams was never in the PG discussion, at least not on offense. He did guard some opposing PGs. For the record, Williams had 23 assists and 29 turnovers at Duke. He was the only perimeter player with more turnovers than assists. He was recruited as a wing.

Williams wanted to go pro sooner than later. I believe the ability to generate income for his family's medical expenses was a factor.

Hometown voices helped convince Williams that having to share PT and touches with the likes of Singler, Scheyer and Smith would not showcase him to the NBA as much as a one-year audition at the hometown school. He was receptive to those approaches.

gus
12-12-2011, 06:36 PM
I hate stall ball, it has lost us some very important games in the past and has blown a lot of leads this season that we were pretty lucky to escape from.

I hate stall ball too, but only because it's boring to watch. The truth is that it's an effective strategy, and this game is proof of it. Despite Washington hitting nearly every shot down the stretch, and Duke missing a ton of free throws... we still won. If Washington had been allowed a few more possessions, they may very well have won.

Those instances where "we were pretty luck to escape from" are all evidence that stall ball works. It's counter intuitive, but it's math.

pfrduke
12-12-2011, 07:07 PM
I hate stall ball too, but only because it's boring to watch. The truth is that it's an effective strategy, and this game is proof of it. Despite Washington hitting nearly every shot down the stretch, and Duke missing a ton of free throws... we still won. If Washington had been allowed a few more possessions, they may very well have won.

Those instances where "we were pretty luck to escape from" are all evidence that stall ball works. It's counter intuitive, but it's math.

Well, this game isn't the best example of stall ball - we only played it for, at most, 4 possessions down the stretch. After getting the ball back up 17 with 6 1/2 to play (not a bad time to go into stall ball if you're going to execute the strategy), our next 6 possessions were 19, 14, 13, 13, 5, and 16 seconds. Only then (with the lead now at 12 with 4 1/2 to play) did we play the stall, going 3 possessions of 28, 33, and 22 seconds, a quick 2 second possession (one of the Hack a Mason plays), and then one of 33. Those 5 possessions brought us to the 1:26 mark with a 9 point lead. The rest of the game involved an awful lot of fouling.

uh_no
12-12-2011, 07:10 PM
I hate stall ball too, but only because it's boring to watch. The truth is that it's an effective strategy, and this game is proof of it. Despite Washington hitting nearly every shot down the stretch, and Duke missing a ton of free throws... we still won. If Washington had been allowed a few more possessions, they may very well have won.

Those instances where "we were pretty luck to escape from" are all evidence that stall ball works. It's counter intuitive, but it's math.

We played stall ball from like 8 minutes out in 09/10....and it worked pretty well for us I thought :P

given our offense pretty much WAS stall ball

Dukeface88
12-12-2011, 08:30 PM
Here's what I think:

As to your first point, yeap, absolutely, I stand by what I wrote. I didn't say shots, I said touches.

And yet our bigs all have high usage rates. Kedsy posted earlier that Mason has a 22.6% usage rate. To put that into perspecitve, Nolan had a 23.6% usage rate last year. Let me repeat that; Mason is one percent away from having the same usage as the ACC POY. So I'm really not sure how




With lots of touches, you get to choose when you have advantage, when you feel it. You get to catch with an angle occasionally that is indefensible, or with space within 10 feetof the basket, enough so you have a chance to turn and have the defender need to close quickly or concede a short jumper, perferrably off the glass. When you catch it in such spots, there are no littles who can get there in time to swipe it away if you choose to put it on the flor once, or as you bring it up to shooting, or to make you bring it up to shooting in a manner that does not suit you (as good as a big's altering a shot we hear so much about by the heads on TV). And the touches that you don't choose to "go on," well the defender is working like a dog, leaning and pushing and you just toss it back out, perhaps to someone who is positioned to make a play--heyt, now you are doing things that littlews get so noticed for, you're actually a ballplayer, a full participant in all aspects of the game.


See, here's what I don't get. If our big men are being so tragically mishandled, why doesn't this show up in the stats, or for that matter, in the tape? Where is this huge defficiency to be solved? If Miles, Mason and Ryan aren't choosing when they have an advantage, why are they shooting such high percentages? If not catching it in these spots leads to steals and blocks, why are don't they have more turnovers? I mean, you seem to acknowledge that our bigs get plenty of shots, and as far as I can tell they're playing efficiently, and the offense flows well, so what flaw are you trying to fix? Will running the offense through the post help Mason shoot FTs, or Ryan get rebounds? Because otherwise, this seems to me like a solution that is desperately in search of problem. Have you considered the possibility that perhaps the current offensive scheme already puts our bigs where they can be most effecitve, and that perhaps you are allowing your own preconcieved notions of how a post players "should" be used to prevent you from seeing this? I mean, I understand that you may not find our current playstyle aesthetically pleasing, but that doesn't mean it's ineffective. I realize this may sound harsh, but I simply do not understand how anyone can watch the way Miles, Mason and Ryan have played, and look at the numbers they are putting up, and see the improvements they've made since last season, and conclude that they are somehow not being used properly. It's just completely baffling to me.

Newton_14
12-12-2011, 10:55 PM
Well, this game isn't the best example of stall ball - we only played it for, at most, 4 possessions down the stretch. After getting the ball back up 17 with 6 1/2 to play (not a bad time to go into stall ball if you're going to execute the strategy), our next 6 possessions were 19, 14, 13, 13, 5, and 16 seconds. Only then (with the lead now at 12 with 4 1/2 to play) did we play the stall, going 3 possessions of 28, 33, and 22 seconds, a quick 2 second possession (one of the Hack a Mason plays), and then one of 33. Those 5 possessions brought us to the 1:26 mark with a 9 point lead. The rest of the game involved an awful lot of fouling.

Thanks for posting the facts on that PFR. Anytime we lose a lead in the 2nd half, stall ball gets blamed. We never went to it Saturday until Seth and then Austin fouled out. If memory serves, we ran one possession of stall ball before Austin fouled out. I don't care what anyone says or how much they hate it, it is a proven strategy that works over and over again. I watch other teams each year give away leads when they choose not to use any clock management at all in the last 4 to 6 minutes of games with anywhere from 8 to 14 point leads. They shoot it quick just because an open shot presents itself and often blow the lead and the game. I hate that the most watching those games when their opponent is UNC and they steal a win due to a team playing stupid and not using clock management (aka stall ball) down the stretch.

Duke has won many many games utilizing that strategy over the years and lost very few. In most all of the losses it was execution of the strategy, not the strategy itself that failed.

Kfanarmy
12-12-2011, 11:03 PM
It's very presumptuous for you to contend I would say that. If Cook were to get 15-20 minutes a game going forward and he struggled, I would be more than willing to admit he didn't do the job. If Cook gets steady playing time, and K allows him to play through the freshman mistakes which will inevitably happen, that means K isn't using his quick leash. I wouldn't blame K for cutting Cook's time if he shows he can't handle it, so I don't know why you assume I would use the quick leash excuse.

I assume you would use the quick leash excuse because you imply it in the preceding sentence..."If Cook...and K allows him to play through the freshman mistakes..." implies you are the judge on when the "freshman mistakes" are enough to validate a coaching move...a built in argument to say QC wasn't given enough of a chance and therefore he should continue to play, or he's still the second coming and the coach is wrong....


I've been watching Duke basketball closely since I was a freshman at Duke more than 10 years ago. I'm speaking to Elliot's case in particular. I know that Coach K values performance in practice.

The thing is, has Coach K been specifically saying that Cook hasn't been practicing well? If he has, I haven't heard it. What doesn't make sense to me is for Cook to get less time in a game we really could have used him, coming off the heels of him gradually getting more PT and doing fine with it. I know K's tendencies. I think I'm correct when I say that it's reasonable to think that K was unhappy with Cook's defense on his first two plays, took him out immediately, and put him in the doghouse as part of an overreaction. He would do the exact same thing with Williams, which is why I bring that situation up as an appropriate comparison. I've been watching Duke BBall longer than you have, which according to your logic would make me even more qualified than you. Based on your standard, I -- a more qualified analyst based on couch (not coach) time -- agree with the approach Coach K is taking and I hereby validate his practice of sitting guys who aren't doing what he, the coach (not couch), thinks they should be doing.

licc85
12-12-2011, 11:41 PM
Well, this game isn't the best example of stall ball - we only played it for, at most, 4 possessions down the stretch. After getting the ball back up 17 with 6 1/2 to play (not a bad time to go into stall ball if you're going to execute the strategy), our next 6 possessions were 19, 14, 13, 13, 5, and 16 seconds. Only then (with the lead now at 12 with 4 1/2 to play) did we play the stall, going 3 possessions of 28, 33, and 22 seconds, a quick 2 second possession (one of the Hack a Mason plays), and then one of 33. Those 5 possessions brought us to the 1:26 mark with a 9 point lead. The rest of the game involved an awful lot of fouling.

Even if the stall ball strategy had lost us the game, I still think it was the right thing to do. Right now, our team right now is absolutely terrible at stall ball. Since it's early in the season, we need to learn how to do it right. We definitely need to improve our late game ball handling and decision making, and practicing it now will only help us down the stretch of the season when we need to go to this strategy to win a close game.

phaedrus
12-12-2011, 11:50 PM
Even if the stall ball strategy had lost us the game, I still think it was the right thing to do. Right now, our team right now is absolutely terrible at stall ball. Since it's early in the season, we need to learn how to do it right. We definitely need to improve our late game ball handling and decision making, and practicing it now will only help us down the stretch of the season when we need to go to this strategy to win a close game.

I don't remember how many times Mason went to the line in the last 6-7 minutes, but as a general matter, his free throw shooting will obviously make our stall-ball strategy a dicier proposition.

uh_no
12-12-2011, 11:52 PM
Even if the stall ball strategy had lost us the game, I still think it was the right thing to do. Right now, our team right now is absolutely terrible at stall ball. Since it's early in the season, we need to learn how to do it right. We definitely need to improve our late game ball handling and decision making, and practicing it now will only help us down the stretch of the season when we need to go to this strategy to win a close game.

Lets not forget we stall balled our way to a national championship 2 years ago....from 8 minutes out with the lead usually (of course its slightly subjective when this occurs)....but part of the reason we were so good at it then was because it was pretty much the same as our regular offense!

Oriole Way
12-13-2011, 12:59 AM
This is way off base. For 32 minutes today Duke played great on both sides of the ball with the defense being the best it had been all year. After the under 8 TO in the 2nd Half, when the two quick plays COYS noted turned it from 18 up to 12 up in less than a minute, it turned the momentum. At that point Seth, Austin, and Tyler were in foul trouble and as this team has done all year, they lost their defensive intensity. That and Mason's troubles at the line gave Washington two things to feed off of and it loosened them up. That's what uglied up the last 7 minutes. Up until that point, Duke was soundly butt-whipping a very good and athletic team. If this was the worst game Coach K has coached in years then I hate it for the opponent when he has his best coaching job in years. You are just way off base with that analysis.

Same thing with Quinn. He is not ready to play 20-25 minutes yet. That day is coming but it isn't now. Yes, Quinn is the best ball-handler on the team by a mile, and the quickest with the ball. That doesn't make him ready. His defense is improving, but he is still behind all of the other guards on defense. He doesn't have the help scheme's, and switch scheme's down yet, and he needs strength to help fight through screens. On offense, he has flashes, but has not been consistent their either. Have you seen a single game this year in person? TV hides things that you can see much better in person. If Coach K has shown anything over his career, he has shown that if a player is ready, he plays him, no matter how young they are.

Tyler brings toughness, defense, and leadership that no one else brings. It can be argued that Andre should start over Tyler, but not Quinn. However, coming off the bench but getting starters minutes seems to have done wonders for Andre on both sides of the ball. Andre's defense today was outstanding. So I have no problem with him coming off the bench.

You disagree with my main assertion, but you yourself point out the main reason the game became close: foul trouble. The foul trouble is why I think K coached his worst game in years, and you seem to have overlooked that I clearly stated that the foul trouble was caused by his mismanagement of Thornton and Cook, which had a ripple effect on the rest of the entire backcourt.

At 17:13 of the second half, Thornton picks up his second foul. Seven seconds later, Thornton picked up his third foul. K leaving Thornton in the game was baffling and a poor decision for two main reasons:

1. Thornton was clearly having trouble staying on front of his man, which was putting him in foul trouble, compromising the team defense on the perimeter, and putting Washington in the bonus faster (that right there is actually 3 reasons it was a bad decision)

2. Coach K, like a vast majority of all coaches, has a history of removing a player like Thornton who picks up a 3rd foul that quickly and that early in the second half.

Coack K will frequently leave his upperclassman or star players in the game when picking up an early 3rd foul like that. Thornton is neither. I was completely surprised when K didn't take Thornton out, and I was also disappointed because it was a great opportunity for Cook to come in and get some valuable minutes.

Almost a minute later, Thornton compounds K's mistake by committing foul #4, which resulted in a 3-point play and was a particularly bad foul because Thornton came up from behind Darnell Gant - a 6'8 forward who was facing the basket and essentially making a layup - and fouled a player he had no chance of stopping from scoring.

At this point, K has lost Thornton, the guard he clearly believes is essential to this team's success because he's starting and getting steady minutes, for a good 10+ minutes. K makes another mistake by not bringing in Cook, his next best ball-handling and PG option from the bench. Cook was in the doghouse at that point, which I believe is the problem at the heart of this issue.

By refusing to use Cook, K essentially put his team down two guards, when instead Thornton should have been on the bench with 3 fouls and available to re-enter in case Cook or any other guard had gotten in foul trouble. By not going with Cook, K also left 4 fouls sitting on the bench which could have been used to mitigate the starting backcourt's developing foul trouble since Cook could have been used to guard the opposing point guard, no matter how poorly he would have done it. Rivers and Curry went on to accrue 4 fouls between them in the next ~10 minutes. Thanks in large part to poor perimeter defense which was only made worse by Curry's and River's foul trouble, Washington capitalized by outscoring Duke 20-7 in just 6 minutes from roughly the 7:00 minute mark to roughly the 1:00 minute mark. After Curry and Rivers each picked up their 4th fouls at the 5:57 minute mark and the 5:43 mark respectively, Washington went on to make 5 layups, a jumper, and two free throws in 4:43 minutes of game time, as part of cutting Duke's 19-point lead at the 7:00 minute mark to the 6-point lead at the ~1:00 minute mark. That's an epic, rapid collapse which was directly a result of K's mismanagement of his rotation.

If you disagree with anything I've said, that's fine. But I'm not just throwing out statements without having compelling reasons for believing them, as some posters have suggested. And I certainly don't think I'm "way off base" to suggest our backcourt's foul trouble was a result of coaching mistakes.

Dr. Rosenrosen
12-13-2011, 01:48 AM
I don't remember how many times Mason went to the line in the last 6-7 minutes, but as a general matter, his free throw shooting will obviously make our stall-ball strategy a dicier proposition.

At the 7:11 mark, we had our largest second half lead at 19 points (71-52). This also tied for our largest lead of the game. Mason went 2-6 from the line in the last 7:11. The team collectively went 13-22 from the line over this same stretch. Based on our season FT%, we should have hit at least two more FTs during that stretch. Obviously getting the ball into the hands of the right guys (Ryan, Andre, etc.) might have made more of a difference. But while we certainly did not help ourselves at the line over this last 7:11, I think the even bigger problems were (a) turnovers and (b) arguably weak defense despite the foul trouble. We actually only attempted 2 field goals in the last 7:11 if you can believe that (and made one of them).

So, that's 5 of 14 total turnovers during the crucial final stretch. 5 turnovers that they turned into 8 points - so technically you could argue a 16 point swing right there. Conclusion... FTs hurt us, but turnovers and poor end game management were the real culprits.

Jim3k
12-13-2011, 02:33 AM
At the 7:11 mark, we had our largest second half lead at 19 points (71-52). This also tied for our largest lead of the game. Mason went 2-6 from the line in the last 7:11. The team collectively went 13-22 from the line over this same stretch. Based on our season FT%, we should have hit at least two more FTs during that stretch. Obviously getting the ball into the hands of the right guys (Ryan, Andre, etc.) might have made more of a difference. But while we certainly did not help ourselves at the line over this last 7:11, I think the even bigger problems were (a) turnovers and (b) arguably weak defense despite the foul trouble. We actually only attempted 2 field goals in the last 7:11 if you can believe that (and made one of them).

So, that's 5 of 14 total turnovers during the crucial final stretch. 5 turnovers that they turned into 8 points - so technically you could argue a 16 point swing right there. Conclusion... FTs hurt us, but turnovers and poor end game management were the real culprits.

This is the correct analysis.

COYS
12-13-2011, 07:17 AM
We played stall ball from like 8 minutes out in 09/10....and it worked pretty well for us I thought :P

given our offense pretty much WAS stall ball

I would like to add to this that the primary reason stall ball wasn't ruthlessly effective is because we failed to run it immediately following the under 8 timeout. Austin made the mistake of taking an ill-advised shot relatively early in the shot clock that resulted in a made three on the other end. Then, he turned the ball over trying to drive early in the shot clock which led to a 3 point play. To put this in perspective, Xavier got 6 points in less than 30 seconds of game time while Duke got none. If Duke had held on to the ball for 30 seconds two possessions in a row, scored, and been able to set up the defense instead of scrambling to get back after the missed shot and turnover, Duke could very well have been up 22 or even 24 with made threes with 6 and a half minutes remaining on the clock. Instead, we were up 12 with seven and a half remaining. Stall ball functions really well when it's run effectively. I think Seth Davis was a little over the top with the way he said what he said, but I actually do think his comments have some merit. Duke is clearly extremely talented (that's how we've won so many games against the toughest non-conference schedule of all top 10 teams). However, our team is still learning how to go for the kill. With literally EVERYONE on the team in a new role this season and one of our primary ball handlers in Austin a college freshman, this shouldn't be surprising or alarming. I'm sure the staff has already sat down with Austin and showed those two possessions. Similarly, I'm sure they've talked to Seth and Tyler about being stronger with the ball around the perimeter to avoid weak perimeter passes. The leadership element is not there, yet, but it is developing. I am confident we'll start to see it soon as the team develops more chemistry.

Edit: I realize that I was off in the timing of Austin's two bad possessions. They were actually around the 7 minute mark. Also, I realize I never mentioned that I thought that besides those two possessions, Austin had just about his best game. He worked within the offense, spotting up and knocking down threes (which is really encouraging as I wasn't sure if he was comfortable spotting up, yet), while still picking his spots to attack the rim. His drive and alley oop to Mason/Miles/Ryan needs to happen more.

COYS
12-13-2011, 07:34 AM
You disagree with my main assertion, but you yourself point out the main reason the game became close: foul trouble. The foul trouble is why I think K coached his worst game in years, and you seem to have overlooked that I clearly stated that the foul trouble was caused by his mismanagement of Thornton and Cook, which had a ripple effect on the rest of the entire backcourt.

At 17:13 of the second half, Thornton picks up his second foul. Seven seconds later, Thornton picked up his third foul. K leaving Thornton in the game was baffling and a poor decision for two main reasons:

1. Thornton was clearly having trouble staying on front of his man, which was putting him in foul trouble, compromising the team defense on the perimeter, and putting Washington in the bonus faster (that right there is actually 3 reasons it was a bad decision)

2. Coach K, like a vast majority of all coaches, has a history of removing a player like Thornton who picks up a 3rd foul that quickly and that early in the second half.

Coack K will frequently leave his upperclassman or star players in the game when picking up an early 3rd foul like that. Thornton is neither. I was completely surprised when K didn't take Thornton out, and I was also disappointed because it was a great opportunity for Cook to come in and get some valuable minutes.

Almost a minute later, Thornton compounds K's mistake by committing foul #4, which resulted in a 3-point play and was a particularly bad foul because Thornton came up from behind Darnell Gant - a 6'8 forward who was facing the basket and essentially making a layup - and fouled a player he had no chance of stopping from scoring.

At this point, K has lost Thornton, the guard he clearly believes is essential to this team's success because he's starting and getting steady minutes, for a good 10+ minutes. K makes another mistake by not bringing in Cook, his next best ball-handling and PG option from the bench. Cook was in the doghouse at that point, which I believe is the problem at the heart of this issue.

By refusing to use Cook, K essentially put his team down two guards, when instead Thornton should have been on the bench with 3 fouls and available to re-enter in case Cook or any other guard had gotten in foul trouble. By not going with Cook, K also left 4 fouls sitting on the bench which could have been used to mitigate the starting backcourt's developing foul trouble since Cook could have been used to guard the opposing point guard, no matter how poorly he would have done it. Rivers and Curry went on to accrue 4 fouls between them in the next ~10 minutes. Thanks in large part to poor perimeter defense which was only made worse by Curry's and River's foul trouble, Washington capitalized by outscoring Duke 20-7 in just 6 minutes from roughly the 7:00 minute mark to roughly the 1:00 minute mark. After Curry and Rivers each picked up their 4th fouls at the 5:57 minute mark and the 5:43 mark respectively, Washington went on to make 5 layups, a jumper, and two free throws in 4:43 minutes of game time, as part of cutting Duke's 19-point lead at the 7:00 minute mark to the 6-point lead at the ~1:00 minute mark. That's an epic, rapid collapse which was directly a result of K's mismanagement of his rotation.

If you disagree with anything I've said, that's fine. But I'm not just throwing out statements without having compelling reasons for believing them, as some posters have suggested. And I certainly don't think I'm "way off base" to suggest our backcourt's foul trouble was a result of coaching mistakes.

I agree that Thornton fouls too much and I completely agree about his 4th foul being particularly bad. However, Thornton, besides fouling, WAS actually playing good defense. Even when he was beaten he was not allowing the opposing player an easy path into the lane which allowed our post players to rotate to help most of the time. I don't believe he's a lock down defender. I think he has his limitations. However, he was absolutely essential to Duke being up by 19 with under 8 minutes left. When Tyler fouled out, we STILL had Cook and his 4 extra fouls waiting in the wings. He came in and after some early jitters showed some serious poise. It's fair to question whether or not Thornton should have been in for so long with 4 fouls, but you also have to weigh that against the fact that with Thornton in the game, Duke increased its lead, significantly AND that Cook had looked a step slow on defense during his 1st half cameo.

Also, foul trouble didn't cause Seth, Tyler, and Austin (twice), to commit turnovers. Those were the causes of most of the easy layups that Washington got and, worse, came from possessions that didn't take the entire 30 seconds. We probably added an extra 1 and a half minutes of game time at the very least with those turnovers. I actually think this is more of an argument for why Cook might play more. He's a strong if inexperienced ball handler and his quickness is useful for escaping pressure. Having him in at the end of games might help the whole team settle down. The coaches definitely have a puzzle to solve to get all the talented pieces on this team to fit just right. It will be interesting to watch how they pull the strings to get everything to work just right.

Saratoga2
12-13-2011, 09:58 AM
Sure, it could be. But it seems an odd coincidence that Tyler's five highest minute totals correspond exactly with five of Seth's six lowest scoring games (the only exception being Ohio State, where clearly Seth was confronted with superior defense). That combined with the fact that Tyler's presence corresponded with drastically reduced scoring for Nolan last year tells me this is a potential coincidence that's worth watching.

Worth watching the statistical side of this. I will pay close attention to this in the next slate of games.

killerleft
12-13-2011, 10:14 AM
You disagree with my main assertion, but you yourself point out the main reason the game became close: foul trouble. The foul trouble is why I think K coached his worst game in years, and you seem to have overlooked that I clearly stated that the foul trouble was caused by his mismanagement of Thornton and Cook, which had a ripple effect on the rest of the entire backcourt.

At 17:13 of the second half, Thornton picks up his second foul. Seven seconds later, Thornton picked up his third foul. K leaving Thornton in the game was baffling and a poor decision for two main reasons:

1. Thornton was clearly having trouble staying on front of his man, which was putting him in foul trouble, compromising the team defense on the perimeter, and putting Washington in the bonus faster (that right there is actually 3 reasons it was a bad decision)

2. Coach K, like a vast majority of all coaches, has a history of removing a player like Thornton who picks up a 3rd foul that quickly and that early in the second half.

Coack K will frequently leave his upperclassman or star players in the game when picking up an early 3rd foul like that. Thornton is neither. I was completely surprised when K didn't take Thornton out, and I was also disappointed because it was a great opportunity for Cook to come in and get some valuable minutes.

Almost a minute later, Thornton compounds K's mistake by committing foul #4, which resulted in a 3-point play and was a particularly bad foul because Thornton came up from behind Darnell Gant - a 6'8 forward who was facing the basket and essentially making a layup - and fouled a player he had no chance of stopping from scoring.

At this point, K has lost Thornton, the guard he clearly believes is essential to this team's success because he's starting and getting steady minutes, for a good 10+ minutes. K makes another mistake by not bringing in Cook, his next best ball-handling and PG option from the bench. Cook was in the doghouse at that point, which I believe is the problem at the heart of this issue.

By refusing to use Cook, K essentially put his team down two guards, when instead Thornton should have been on the bench with 3 fouls and available to re-enter in case Cook or any other guard had gotten in foul trouble. By not going with Cook, K also left 4 fouls sitting on the bench which could have been used to mitigate the starting backcourt's developing foul trouble since Cook could have been used to guard the opposing point guard, no matter how poorly he would have done it. Rivers and Curry went on to accrue 4 fouls between them in the next ~10 minutes. Thanks in large part to poor perimeter defense which was only made worse by Curry's and River's foul trouble, Washington capitalized by outscoring Duke 20-7 in just 6 minutes from roughly the 7:00 minute mark to roughly the 1:00 minute mark. After Curry and Rivers each picked up their 4th fouls at the 5:57 minute mark and the 5:43 mark respectively, Washington went on to make 5 layups, a jumper, and two free throws in 4:43 minutes of game time, as part of cutting Duke's 19-point lead at the 7:00 minute mark to the 6-point lead at the ~1:00 minute mark. That's an epic, rapid collapse which was directly a result of K's mismanagement of his rotation.

If you disagree with anything I've said, that's fine. But I'm not just throwing out statements without having compelling reasons for believing them, as some posters have suggested. And I certainly don't think I'm "way off base" to suggest our backcourt's foul trouble was a result of coaching mistakes.

That Coach K - why didn't we get rid of him way back in '81 when we had the chance?!:p

moonpie23
12-13-2011, 11:20 AM
is there a difference between "stall ball" and "grind it out in a deliberate half court game"?

wilko
12-13-2011, 12:26 PM
is there a difference between "stall ball" and "grind it out in a deliberate half court game"?

Yup! I can see a clear difference.

Stall ball is where milk the clock to reduce the number of possessions AND by default you force the opponent to play 2 foes.
Duke and the clock. Its predicated on being able to out execute your opponent.

In a grind it out scenario -the ability to out execute is much more in question and is a tossup with Duke hoping to hang on and find some luck to get the W.

Starter
12-13-2011, 01:45 PM
However, he was absolutely essential to Duke being up by 19 with under 8 minutes left.

With all due respect -- because I almost always completely agree with your posts -- not sure about this one.
- Duke was up 14 at the half.
- When Thornton came out at 15:59, they were up 11.
- He came back in at 8:02 with Duke having gone on a 20-14 run to go up 17.
- He subbed out again at 5:56 with Duke up 13.
- He then subbed back in 13 seconds later with Duke still up by 13 and played the rest of the way; they won by 6.

So in the second half, they were -14 with Thornton on the floor and +6 without him. Obviously, I'm not solely blaming Thornton for that, there are plenty of other factors that go into it, but I wouldn't exactly say they played better with him on the court, either. (I'm aware it's only one game, also.)


I actually think this is more of an argument for why Cook might play more. He's a strong if inexperienced ball handler and his quickness is useful for escaping pressure. Having him in at the end of games might help the whole team settle down. The coaches definitely have a puzzle to solve to get all the talented pieces on this team to fit just right. It will be interesting to watch how they pull the strings to get everything to work just right.

With this, however, we agree on literally every word.

Bluedog
12-13-2011, 03:00 PM
Incidentally, good news for Washington and its 7-footer Aziz N'Diaye. He simply suffered a knee sprain during the Duke game and is expected to miss 2-3 games. MRI showed no tear. Glad to hear that it wasn't too serious and he'll be back relatively soon.

http://www.gohuskies.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/121211aab.html

DukieInBrasil
12-13-2011, 03:17 PM
Incidentally, good news for Washington and its 7-footer Aziz N'Diaye. He simply suffered a knee sprain during the Duke game and is expected to miss 2-3 games. MRI showed no tear. Glad to hear that it wasn't too serious and he'll be back relatively soon.

http://www.gohuskies.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/121211aab.html
That is good to hear. I always get anxious when i hear about knee injuries.
Not to knock on N'Diaye, b/c he played well enough, but UW seemed to play substantially better, against Duke at least, while he was out. They got quicker. I don't think that they'd want to go the whole year without him, but for the 2nd half vs Duke, they played a more effective brand of ball when he was not on the court.
Here's to a quick recover for the very, very, very tall guy.

Newton_14
12-13-2011, 08:55 PM
That is good to hear. I always get anxious when i hear about knee injuries.
Not to knock on N'Diaye, b/c he played well enough, but UW seemed to play substantially better, against Duke at least, while he was out. They got quicker. I don't think that they'd want to go the whole year without him, but for the 2nd half vs Duke, they played a more effective brand of ball when he was not on the court.
Here's to a quick recover for the very, very, very tall guy.

I agree. When he went down, I thought, oh boy, UW will have to go small and that could give us problems. The guys made it through it though, so it didn't matter in the end. Glad to see the injury was minor. Hope he gets back on the floor soon.

Oriole Way
12-13-2011, 10:28 PM
That Coach K - why didn't we get rid of him way back in '81 when we had the chance?!:p

Just because I'm criticizing some of K's decisions doesn't mean I don't think he's the best coach alive. He is, but even the best of all-time make mistakes and it's worth discussing areas this team may or may not need improving upon.

COYS
12-14-2011, 10:14 AM
With all due respect -- because I almost always completely agree with your posts -- not sure about this one.
- Duke was up 14 at the half.
- When Thornton came out at 15:59, they were up 11.
- He came back in at 8:02 with Duke having gone on a 20-14 run to go up 17.
- He subbed out again at 5:56 with Duke up 13.
- He then subbed back in 13 seconds later with Duke still up by 13 and played the rest of the way; they won by 6.

So in the second half, they were -14 with Thornton on the floor and +6 without him. Obviously, I'm not solely blaming Thornton for that, there are plenty of other factors that go into it, but I wouldn't exactly say they played better with him on the court, either. (I'm aware it's only one game, also.)



Those pesky facts getting in the way of the narrative I created. Thanks for setting me straight. To go along with the +/- stats you just provided, according to MCFinARL's thorough analysis of our defensive plays, most of Tyler's bad defensive plays occurred in the second half. Since his value is so dependent on his defense, I would amend my statement to say that Tyler was essential to Duke building such a nice first half lead. This certainly adds fuel to the fire for those who believe that Tyler's abilities are maximized in short bursts rather than extended minutes.

That being said, there is one thing that has been absent in this debate so far, and that is the possibility for Tyler to improve. I think most agree that Cook has a higher ceiling based on his raw quickness and skill set. However, Tyler is only a sophomore. No, he's not a lockdown defender at this point. Yes, he doesn't possess the raw quickness of Quinn and his relatively short stature means that some guards will always be able to shoot over him. However, he has great defensive instincts. Moving on defense is part quickness and part anticipation. A slower defender who knows ahead of time where his opponent is going and takes the most efficient path to get there first will be a better defender than a quicker player who has a lot of wasted movement and is caught off balance a lot. Battier is a poster-child for this type of defensive player. I'm not saying that Tyler will become Battier, but if he improves enough that his limitations affect his performance on defense less, Tyler's value can increase. We seem to have a habit of talking about Tyler as a known quantity and Quinn as the only player who can improve. I think we might also want to realize that Tyler is still learning and has not reached his ceiling.

Kedsy
12-14-2011, 10:42 AM
...according to MCFinARL's thorough analysis of our defensive plays...

Not that it matters much, but I think you mean tommy's defensive analysis. He put in so much work, I think he should at least get the credit.

COYS
12-14-2011, 10:47 AM
Not that it matters much, but I think you mean tommy's defensive analysis. He put in so much work, I think he should at least get the credit.

My bad, Tommy! I accidentally looked at the "most recent post" instead of the "thread started by" line.

CDu
12-14-2011, 11:19 AM
Those pesky facts getting in the way of the narrative I created. Thanks for setting me straight. To go along with the +/- stats you just provided, according to MCFinARL's thorough analysis of our defensive plays, most of Tyler's bad defensive plays occurred in the second half. Since his value is so dependent on his defense, I would amend my statement to say that Tyler was essential to Duke building such a nice first half lead. This certainly adds fuel to the fire for those who believe that Tyler's abilities are maximized in short bursts rather than extended minutes.

Well, I don't know that we can say that Thornton was essential to Duke building the nice first half lead, either. According to statsheet, he had a +/- of +7 in ~17 first half minutes. The team had a +/- of +7 in the ~3 minutes that he didn't play. We were +2 with him for the first four minutes. Then +2 without him for a couple of minutes. Then we were +8 with him over 6 minutes. Then, he went out for a minute and we went +5. Then, he came back in and we went -3 to end the half. So, if those stats are correct, we built half of that 14 point halftime lead in the 3 minutes that he wasn't on the court, and the other half in the 17 minutes he was on the court.

Now, that's not to say that Thornton wasn't playing well during the game. I've been as vocal as anyone about how single-game, unadjusted +/- isn't well-suited to tease out all the stuff that can happen that isn't the "fault" of the player. But if those numbers are correct, it doesn't show that Thornton was essential in building the lead, and it shows that the team's results were consistently better (for whatever reason) in that game when he wasn't on the floor.


We seem to have a habit of talking about Tyler as a known quantity and Quinn as the only player who can improve. I think we might also want to realize that Tyler is still learning and has not reached his ceiling.

There is certainly room for improvement with Thornton. However, I think it's important to note that Thornton is a year further in the system than Cook. So he should theoretically be further along in his growth curve. So while there's room for player growth with Thornton, there's arguably less room for growth (especially when you consider the theoretical quickness differences). That's not to say that Cook will end up better than Thornton for sure of course.

COYS
12-14-2011, 12:27 PM
There is certainly room for improvement with Thornton. However, I think it's important to note that Thornton is a year further in the system than Cook. So he should theoretically be further along in his growth curve. So while there's room for player growth with Thornton, there's arguably less room for growth (especially when you consider the theoretical quickness differences). That's not to say that Cook will end up better than Thornton for sure of course.

I'm certainly not disputing this. But I do think it is important to keep in mind that Thornton is far from a finished product, as is Cook.

Saratoga2
12-14-2011, 01:24 PM
I'm certainly not disputing this. But I do think it is important to keep in mind that Thornton is far from a finished product, as is Cook.

Really, Duke doesn't have a single player this year that rates at the top in his position in the NCAA's as we had with Kyrie last year. You can make a case for Mason and Austin being at an elite level, although both have flaws that they are working on. All our other players are very good and would start for many good programs in the league.

The hope is that people won't dwell on the shortcomings on either of either Quinn or Tyler to promote the other. Both will provide important efforts during this season. Quinn seems to have the better handle and the offense seems to flow differently when he is in the game while he is learning defense, while Tyler is really disruptive defensively and is becoming more comfortable handling the ball. I expect both to progress well. Look at MIles, as a senior he seems to still be making strides with his game as big Zoubek did with his even in the last part of his senior season.

CDu
12-14-2011, 01:29 PM
I'm certainly not disputing this. But I do think it is important to keep in mind that Thornton is far from a finished product, as is Cook.

Absolutely. There's room for improvement from everyone. Thomas as a senior was much better than Thomas as a junior or underclassman. Zoubek as a second-half senior figured out how to stay on the floor more than Zoubek as a first-half senior. So by the same token, Miles isn't a finished product either. I think when people talk about how much room Cook has for improvement it's that his ceiling is higher. Of course, he's still playing catchup, and that doesn't mean that Thornton can't improve.

NSDukeFan
12-14-2011, 07:22 PM
Absolutely. There's room for improvement from everyone. Thomas as a senior was much better than Thomas as a junior or underclassman. Zoubek as a second-half senior figured out how to stay on the floor more than Zoubek as a first-half senior. So by the same token, Miles isn't a finished product either. I think when people talk about how much room Cook has for improvement it's that his ceiling is higher. Of course, he's still playing catchup, and that doesn't mean that Thornton can't improve.

[sarcastic pet peeve]I believe that somewhere in a player's sophomore year or, at the latest, the start of their junior year, a player "is what he is" and no further improvement can be gained, so we should look for freshmen or high school recruits as the only possible way Duke can improve. [end sarcastic pet peeve]