PDA

View Full Version : Measuring This Duke Team



RockyMtDevil
02-01-2012, 09:45 AM
That was a great, in depth analysis of the current team in relation to the 2007 team. Thankfully, we are much more experienced than the 2007 team with an established low post game and a couple guards that can create their own shot in Rivers and Curry. However, the inconsistency and lack of passion is mind boggling, we don't seem to have that one leader that can will the team to win and put them on his back life we've had in previous successful years.

This team is what it is. I went back and watched the last 10 minutes of the St. John's debacle and realized something pretty damning, we didn't really play that bad, we just arent' that good. Sure, there were 2 or 3 mental lapses, but other than that, St. John's decided to see if our men could match their men and we simply cannot do that this year. Kelly got absolutely abused on defense and he may be one of the worst defensive big men we've had in years trying to guard on the perimeter. We've yet to establish a glue defender ala Demarcus early on in his career, or even Lance Thomas, Carrawell or Nate, someone that just knows they are out there to lock up the best wing on the other team. We don't have that in the stable this year. I believe one of the great aspects of some of Duke's 'lesser' teams has been the ability to win games by employing that one defender who wills the others around him. In a year when we are not head and shoulders more talented than other teams, we need that more than ever.

I don't see any easy fixes or simple solutions. We have inferior athletes who cannot guard, our gurds are woefully small, we have players that show up every third game and we've yet to establish a vocal leader on the court. How we are 18-3 is beyond me, here's hoping the development continues. I don't see us tanking like 2007, that team simply ran out of gas. We have plenty of veterans that that team didn't have, we may not continue winning on the current pace, but there is no reason to assume we'll lose 6 or 7 of our last games. That would be a disgrace, even with all our weaknesses...

COYS
02-01-2012, 10:04 AM
That was a great, in depth analysis of the current team in relation to the 2007 team. Thankfully, we are much more experienced than the 2007 team with an established low post game and a couple guards that can create their own shot in Rivers and Curry. However, the inconsistency and lack of passion is mind boggling, we don't seem to have that one leader that can will the team to win and put them on his back life we've had in previous successful years.

This team is what it is. I went back and watched the last 10 minutes of the St. John's debacle and realized something pretty damning, we didn't really play that bad, we just arent' that good. Sure, there were 2 or 3 mental lapses, but other than that, St. John's decided to see if our men could match their men and we simply cannot do that this year. Kelly got absolutely abused on defense and he may be one of the worst defensive big men we've had in years trying to guard on the perimeter. We've yet to establish a glue defender ala Demarcus early on in his career, or even Lance Thomas, Carrawell or Nate, someone that just knows they are out there to lock up the best wing on the other team. We don't have that in the stable this year. I believe one of the great aspects of some of Duke's 'lesser' teams has been the ability to win games by employing that one defender who wills the others around him. In a year when we are not head and shoulders more talented than other teams, we need that more than ever.

I don't see any easy fixes or simple solutions. We have inferior athletes who cannot guard, our gurds are woefully small, we have players that show up every third game and we've yet to establish a vocal leader on the court. How we are 18-3 is beyond me, here's hoping the development continues. I don't see us tanking like 2007, that team simply ran out of gas. We have plenty of veterans that that team didn't have, we may not continue winning on the current pace, but there is no reason to assume we'll lose 6 or 7 of our last games. That would be a disgrace, even with all our weaknesses...

Why cherry pick the last 10 minutes, though? Why not look at the other stretches when we play very well? To a certain I agree with you in that this Duke team isn't THAT good yet. But it's still really good and has impressive wins for a reason. I think Featherston's article is excellent because it highlights the Jekyll/Hyde personality of the team and even the individual players. The team has a tendency to play it's worst defense with leads, however it clearly had to play great defense to get the lead in the first place. Our guards are small, but our lineup with Seth, Austin, and Andre isn't really all that small. Andre at small forward is really the only one who will occasionally be significantly shorter than his counterpart. And that is balanced by our size and strength at the power forward and center spots.

I would modify your analysis to say that we don't have a superior athlete who can consistently guard the point guard spot and our team defense is still incredibly inconsistent. I actually think this team, on pure athleticism, is quicker than our 2010 championship team. I also think that no one on this team has mastered defense as well as the worst defender from the 2010 starting five (I have no idea who that "worst defender" would be, but you get my point). There are some weaknesses on this team, but I think consistency is the biggest question mark.

SCMatt33
02-01-2012, 10:04 AM
How do you measure yourself with other golfers? By height. Sorry, I saw the title and felt obligated to post that. Classic. To keep this from being a completely pointless post, I will include some info on Duke' height. Courtesy of KenPom, our average height (weighted by minutes played) is 77.5", 32nd tallest in the nation. Duke' effective height (which is further weighted toput emphasis on interior positions), however, ranks 4th in the country. This wide gap illustrates just how small our perimeter is and highlights the defensive conundrum of choosing between a pressure D that doesn't doesn't do a great job of disrupting opposing offenses and sitting back without enough size to properly contest jumpers.

dukeballboy88
02-01-2012, 10:08 AM
This team can look like the best team in the nation and look just as bad in the same game. I think K said something to the fact earlier in the year that prior Duke teams would go up 20 then bump it to 30. This Duke team hasnt figured that out yet and thats why I think it maybe time for a small change in the substitution lineup when we get a lead.

Silent G could be that missing piece. Bring him in let lock down their best scorer and get in the passing lanes knocking passes down and maybe get us some easy baskets. His energy at that point in the game could boost our other guys.

I love watching this team because you dont know who has the gun with them each game but obviously K aint quite as pleased. IF you do what you've always dont you get what you always get so maybe its time to pull an Elliot Williams or some kind of shake up.

Is a full court trapping press out of the question? We have enough depth to do it. It may hide the fact we cant guard our shadow.

RockyMtDevil
02-01-2012, 10:16 AM
How do you measure yourself with other golfers? By height. Sorry, I saw the title and felt obligated to post that. Classic. To keep this from being a completely pointless post, I will include some info on Duke' height. Courtesy of KenPom, our average height (weighted by minutes played) is 77.5", 32nd tallest in the nation. Duke' effective height (which is further weighted toput emphasis on interior positions), however, ranks 4th in the country. This wide gap illustrates just how small our perimeter is and highlights the defensive conundrum of choosing between a pressure D that doesn't doesn't do a great job of disrupting opposing offenses and sitting back without enough size to properly contest jumpers.

I have absolutely no clue what you are saying. The "Measure" in this case is referring to the front page article. Shall we draw a picture and pass it around the board and see what we get once it makes its way all the way around? It took two degrees of separation for this thread to get off....

Billy Dat
02-01-2012, 10:30 AM
I wanted to add that I think Al Featherston's front page DBR article, "Measuring the 2012 Blue Devils" is really well done and does a good job pointing out the paradox of this year's team - 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country yet one that inspires little-to-no "Final Four" confidence from its own fans or the national media, myself included.

SCMatt33
02-01-2012, 10:34 AM
I have absolutely no clue what you are saying. The "Measure" in this case is referring to the front page article. Shall we draw a picture and pass it around the board and see what we get once it makes its way all the way around? It took two degrees of separation for this thread to get off....

I just find the use of "measure" as opposed to some other synonym amusing. The joke is a line from Caddyshack. I wasn't commenting on anything related to the article or post, hence the apology embedded for a mostly off topic post.

The Gordog
02-01-2012, 10:54 AM
That was a great, in depth analysis of the current team in relation to the 2007 team. Thankfully, we are much more experienced than the 2007 team with an established low post game and a couple guards that can create their own shot in Rivers and Curry. However, the inconsistency and lack of passion is mind boggling, we don't seem to have that one leader that can will the team to win and put them on his back life we've had in previous successful years.

This team is what it is. I went back and watched the last 10 minutes of the St. John's debacle and realized something pretty damning, we didn't really play that bad, we just arent' that good. Sure, there were 2 or 3 mental lapses, but other than that, St. John's decided to see if our men could match their men and we simply cannot do that this year. Kelly got absolutely abused on defense and he may be one of the worst defensive big men we've had in years trying to guard on the perimeter. We've yet to establish a glue defender ala Demarcus early on in his career, or even Lance Thomas, Carrawell or Nate, someone that just knows they are out there to lock up the best wing on the other team. We don't have that in the stable this year. I believe one of the great aspects of some of Duke's 'lesser' teams has been the ability to win games by employing that one defender who wills the others around him. In a year when we are not head and shoulders more talented than other teams, we need that more than ever.

I don't see any easy fixes or simple solutions. We have inferior athletes who cannot guard, our gurds are woefully small, we have players that show up every third game and we've yet to establish a vocal leader on the court. How we are 18-3 is beyond me, here's hoping the development continues. I don't see us tanking like 2007, that team simply ran out of gas. We have plenty of veterans that that team didn't have, we may not continue winning on the current pace, but there is no reason to assume we'll lose 6 or 7 of our last games. That would be a disgrace, even with all our weaknesses...

I think your post is way over the top, particularly the bolded parts.

One overlooked factor is that the talent in college basketball is more diluted and spread among more teams than ever before. We are not as good as in the recent past, but neither is most of the competition.

WRT 2007, my memory on that year is crystal clear. McClure hurt his knee, and although he continued to play he was never the same defender that year. That's why we went down hill so suddenly.

jv001
02-01-2012, 11:07 AM
This team can look like the best team in the nation and look just as bad in the same game. I think K said something to the fact earlier in the year that prior Duke teams would go up 20 then bump it to 30. This Duke team hasnt figured that out yet and thats why I think it maybe time for a small change in the substitution lineup when we get a lead.

Silent G could be that missing piece. Bring him in let lock down their best scorer and get in the passing lanes knocking passes down and maybe get us some easy baskets. His energy at that point in the game could boost our other guys.

I love watching this team because you dont know who has the gun with them each game but obviously K aint quite as pleased. IF you do what you've always dont you get what you always get so maybe its time to pull an Elliot Williams or some kind of shake up.

Is a full court trapping press out of the question? We have enough depth to do it. It may hide the fact we cant guard our shadow.

When we've tried to trap or press this year, we give up too many easy baskets(layups). We usually use Ryan or Mason in the back court with one of our guards to trap and the opposition beats the trap like a drum. We just don't have the quickness to play this defense for long periods of time. I think that's why Coach K doesn't use it much. And we've seen that Silent G as you call Michael, is not the answer on defense. One player is not going to be the difference maker. GoDuke!

tommy
02-01-2012, 01:09 PM
This team is what it is. I went back and watched the last 10 minutes of the St. John's debacle and realized something pretty damning, we didn't really play that bad, we just arent' that good. Sure, there were 2 or 3 mental lapses, but other than that, St. John's decided to see if our men could match their men and we simply cannot do that this year. Kelly got absolutely abused on defense and he may be one of the worst defensive big men we've had in years trying to guard on the perimeter.

I challenge you to support the statement that "Kelly got absolutely abused on defense" in the last 10 minutes of this game.

I catalogued in detail in beginning the thread entitled "Our Defense vs. St. John's" every St. John's possession that resulted in points in the last 12 minutes of that game. There were three that are fairly laid at the feet of Ryan Kelly. They went like this:

8:04 remaining: On a switch, Thornton is on Greene. Takes him left to left side of lane, where he shoots and Mason contests the shot hard. Kelly loses sight of Harkless though, so does not box. Easy putback for Mo. Kelly’s lapse here, whether you want to call it physical or mental, but I tend to think of it more as mental.

2:57 remaining: Harkless takes Ryan baseline, Mason comes over and provides very good help. Tough, challenged shot bounces off, and Harkless basically out-athletes Kelly for the board, and puts it back up and in.

2:00 remaining: Harkless has Kelly on an iso left side. Takes him with one dribble into the lane, followed by a very nice spin move back to his left and cans the 10 footer. Sweet individual move and Ryan was right there with him. Hats off.

In my book, that does not constitute "getting abused." In fact, there were more instances in the last 12 minutes in which Mason Plumlee could not handle his defensive assignment than there were for Kelly.

So do you have any evidence in support of your assertion?

azzefkram
02-01-2012, 01:43 PM
It appears to me that we have 3 issues.

1) A leadership void was created with the graduation of Kyle and Nolan.
2) Our two best guards are freshman (Austin and Quinn). The 3 other guards are more sixth man type of players.
3) We don't have a small forward/3 on our roster. Maybe Silent G can be one, but I assume he's not playing because K doesn't think he's ready.

I am surprised that the first issue hasn't solved itself by now. The second issue could improve as the season progresses. The third issue probable doesn't have a solution for 2012.

NSDukeFan
02-01-2012, 02:00 PM
That was a great, in depth analysis of the current team in relation to the 2007 team. Thankfully, we are much more experienced than the 2007 team with an established low post game and a couple guards that can create their own shot in Rivers and Curry. However, the inconsistency and lack of passion is mind boggling, we don't seem to have that one leader that can will the team to win and put them on his back life we've had in previous successful years.

This team is what it is. I went back and watched the last 10 minutes of the St. John's debacle and realized something pretty damning, we didn't really play that bad, we just arent' that good. Sure, there were 2 or 3 mental lapses, but other than that, St. John's decided to see if our men could match their men and we simply cannot do that this year. Kelly got absolutely abused on defense and he may be one of the worst defensive big men we've had in years trying to guard on the perimeter. We've yet to establish a glue defender ala Demarcus early on in his career, or even Lance Thomas, Carrawell or Nate, someone that just knows they are out there to lock up the best wing on the other team. We don't have that in the stable this year. I believe one of the great aspects of some of Duke's 'lesser' teams has been the ability to win games by employing that one defender who wills the others around him. In a year when we are not head and shoulders more talented than other teams, we need that more than ever.

I don't see any easy fixes or simple solutions. We have inferior athletes who cannot guard, our gurds are woefully small, we have players that show up every third game and we've yet to establish a vocal leader on the court. How we are 18-3 is beyond me, here's hoping the development continues. I don't see us tanking like 2007, that team simply ran out of gas. We have plenty of veterans that that team didn't have, we may not continue winning on the current pace, but there is no reason to assume we'll lose 6 or 7 of our last games. That would be a disgrace, even with all our weaknesses...
I agree that the article was very good as Al's usually are. I also agree with many of the differences between this year and 2007 that you have highlighted. I also agree that as fans we cannot see a leader at this time, though I don't know that a lack of concentration or consistency is necessarily due to a lack of passion.

I strongly disagree that "this team is what it is." I would argue the opposite and I believe Al's article made the same point. We have no idea how this team is going to end up. This team could end up similar to the team in 2007 (although that seems unlikely for some of the reasons you mentioned) or it could be a final four contender or anywhere in between. I have no idea whether this team will become more of a team defensively, if a leader or leaders will emerge, if the team will simply outscore opponents though I remain optimistic that the players and team can improve over the team that is currently 18-3.

I also disagree that this team is not athletic enough or that the players cannot guard. Duke has had much less athletic teams than this one that have been outstanding defensive teams. If this team is athletic enough to be one of the best offensive teams in the country, I don't think they become inferior athletes once the other team gets the ball. I certainly don't think Kelly has been great defensively all year, but I certainly don't believe that he is one of the worst Duke bigs guarding on the perimeter. I have seen lots of evidence that he can guard reasonably well on the perimeter and he blocks and pressures jump shots very well.

Is this team fortunate to be 18-3? In this regard, I think the team is what it is. It deserved to beat MSU, Kansas, Virginia, Michigan and it deserved to lose to OSU, Temple and FSU (though they almost pulled that one out.) This record is not against an easy schedule and these guys deserve that record. Will they continue to play that well and continue to be a top 2 seed? I don't know, but it is going to be fun to watch and find out.



Why cherry pick the last 10 minutes, though? Why not look at the other stretches when we play very well? To a certain I agree with you in that this Duke team isn't THAT good yet. But it's still really good and has impressive wins for a reason. I think Featherston's article is excellent because it highlights the Jekyll/Hyde personality of the team and even the individual players. The team has a tendency to play it's worst defense with leads, however it clearly had to play great defense to get the lead in the first place. Our guards are small, but our lineup with Seth, Austin, and Andre isn't really all that small. Andre at small forward is really the only one who will occasionally be significantly shorter than his counterpart. And that is balanced by our size and strength at the power forward and center spots.

I would modify your analysis to say that we don't have a superior athlete who can consistently guard the point guard spot and our team defense is still incredibly inconsistent. I actually think this team, on pure athleticism, is quicker than our 2010 championship team. I also think that no one on this team has mastered defense as well as the worst defender from the 2010 starting five (I have no idea who that "worst defender" would be, but you get my point). There are some weaknesses on this team, but I think consistency is the biggest question mark.

I hadn't thought about it, but I think you are probably right about the defensive players of 2010 vs. 2012 at this point. Hopefully that changes over the next 4-10 weeks.

ricks68
02-01-2012, 02:07 PM
Originally Posted by Ichabod Drain
Duke is up to 4 now in both polls

My response:

"Boy, is that meaningless. While I believe it makes the usual fan happy, I think we know better. I think we have a long way to go before we could even try to predict a win in a number of our upcoming games. It's almost as if we have to waste most of the first half of our games before we figure out just how to play with our own teammates that day, let alone how to figure out how to beat the opposing team. Yes, I trust our coach to get them there by March, but this year is just too unpredictable for my liking. Sure am glad that I don't have HTN."



Sorry that I don't know how (or really have the time now to figure it out) to quote a quote of a quote, etc. in the above. Please note that I said that I trusted Coach K to get the team there by March, however. Then I stated that I did not like the unpredictability. Also note that HTN means "hypertension" (Maybe you could help explain that to some on the board, devildeac.). So, the trusted (stated in all seriousness) Al Featherston, and others I might add, appear to have been basically alluding to the same thing, now. Gee, I sure hope no one flames them like they did me without even identifying themselves after giving me a negative comment.:(

Those of you out there that know me, know that I am a rabid (yet realistic) duke bball fan and alumni from the Bubas era that supports the team 100% through thick and thin.

So, after the outstanding analysis and comments by Al Featherston, maybe we could now discuss this rationally without fear of reprisal from fellow board members.

ricks

Scorp4me
02-01-2012, 03:27 PM
It appears to me that we have 3 issues.

1) A leadership void was created with the graduation of Kyle and Nolan.
2) Our two best guards are freshman (Austin and Quinn). The 3 other guards are more sixth man type of players.
3) We don't have a small forward/3 on our roster. Maybe Silent G can be one, but I assume he's not playing because K doesn't think he's ready.

I am surprised that the first issue hasn't solved itself by now. The second issue could improve as the season progresses. The third issue probable doesn't have a solution for 2012.

1. I agree and hate that Miles hasn't been able to fill that void. Apparently he is the best practice player according to the Coaches, so perhaps it's overstated in that we don't see his contributions to leadership in games.
2. Seriously???
3. Again I agree. It seemed to be a void before the season started and it hasn't really changed yet.

wilko
02-01-2012, 03:34 PM
So ... what are the odds that Alex Murphy get the red-shirt burned in an attempt to find some answers?
prolly pretty low...

BluDvlsN1
02-01-2012, 03:42 PM
18-3

Kedsy
02-01-2012, 04:08 PM
So ... what are the odds that Alex Murphy get the red-shirt burned in an attempt to find some answers?
prolly pretty low...

I'd guess practically non-existent.

superdave
02-01-2012, 04:11 PM
So ... what are the odds that Alex Murphy get the red-shirt burned in an attempt to find some answers?
prolly pretty low...

Prolly pretty low. If he had not become concussed, I think he would be in the rotation right now though. He could take a few minutes at the 4 position when we're up against an athletic 4 who plays more on the perimeter, or he could take some minutes at the 3 when we need some extra length there. I have no idea how he's been practicing lately, which would be an indication of whether Coach K thinks he'd be worth bringing out of the deep freezer.

azzefkram
02-01-2012, 04:25 PM
2. Seriously???

Unfortunately, yes. Seth, Andre and Tyler are all good players who do one (maybe two) thing(s) good to great, but have significant flaws that extended playing time tends to expose/exacerbate.

wilko
02-01-2012, 04:32 PM
Prolly pretty low. I have no idea how he's been practicing lately, which would be an indication of whether Coach K thinks he'd be worth bringing out of the deep freezer.

I figured.
Just trying to think outside the building.. :p
I was hoping that one of the more informed types might say "I saw him at practice and.... something really unbelivable great happened.."

Kedsy
02-01-2012, 04:34 PM
Unfortunately, yes. Seth, Andre and Tyler are all good players who do one (maybe two) thing(s) good to great, but have significant flaws that extended playing time tends to expose/exacerbate.

Seth and Andre would start for almost every team in the nation. Tyler would start at the vast majority as well. Saying they are "sixth man type players" is unfair and inaccurate.

Olympic Fan
02-01-2012, 04:38 PM
Just want to add one thing to this debate -- and that's the question of Michael Gbinije's disappearance.

Before the season, he was touted as a potential defensive stopper. He has the size and the physical gifts to be a great wing defender. Yet, his playing time has dwindled and disappeared.

Why?

I honestly don't know. But I kind of think Coach K has a reason for burying Silent G. There must be something going on in practice that we don't see.

The only thing I can suggest -- and I'm just offering it as a suggestion, not hard evidence -- is that they have tried to convince him to focus on the defensive end, but he's resisted doing that. I know that in his brief playing appearances, he seems more interested in hunting his shot than in locking down his defensive assignment. Except for a brief stint against William Buford in the Ohio State loss (long after the game was decided) I haven't seen any evidence that he's interested in playing defense.

Of course, three years ago at this time, we were asking the same thing about Elliott Williams, who had disappeared on the end of the bench. He ended up in the starting lineup and was the defensive catalyst for a team that won 10 of its last 12 games, including an ACC title and a Sweet 16 appearance. That might happen with Gbinije.

Physically, he's the best hope we have of finding a lockdown defender on the wing. But he's got to want to take that role.

azzefkram
02-01-2012, 04:47 PM
Seth and Andre would start for almost every team in the nation. Tyler would start at the vast majority as well. Saying they are "sixth man type players" is unfair and inaccurate.

There are over 300 D1 teams so I guess technically you are right. If you look at tournement caliber teams, I have to disagree. Additionally, there is nothing wrong IMHO about being a sixth man. Every team needs one.

superdave
02-01-2012, 04:56 PM
Just want to add one thing to this debate -- and that's the question of Michael Gbinije's disappearance.

Before the season, he was touted as a potential defensive stopper. He has the size and the physical gifts to be a great wing defender. Yet, his playing time has dwindled and disappeared.

Why?

I honestly don't know. But I kind of think Coach K has a reason for burying Silent G. There must be something going on in practice that we don't see.

The only thing I can suggest -- and I'm just offering it as a suggestion, not hard evidence -- is that they have tried to convince him to focus on the defensive end, but he's resisted doing that. I know that in his brief playing appearances, he seems more interested in hunting his shot than in locking down his defensive assignment. Except for a brief stint against William Buford in the Ohio State loss (long after the game was decided) I haven't seen any evidence that he's interested in playing defense.

Of course, three years ago at this time, we were asking the same thing about Elliott Williams, who had disappeared on the end of the bench. He ended up in the starting lineup and was the defensive catalyst for a team that won 10 of its last 12 games, including an ACC title and a Sweet 16 appearance. That might happen with Gbinije.

Physically, he's the best hope we have of finding a lockdown defender on the wing. But he's got to want to take that role.

My assumption is that Coach K knows he would have to sacrifice minutes from among Andre, Seth, Austin, Quinn and Tyler in order to increase the role of Gbinije and he's not seen enough out of Gbinije to justify that.

gumbomoop
02-01-2012, 05:14 PM
Just want to add one thing to this debate -- and that's the question of Michael Gbinije's disappearance.

Before the season, he was touted as a potential defensive stopper. He has the size and the physical gifts to be a great wing defender. Yet, his playing time has dwindled and disappeared.

Why?

I honestly don't know.

Except for a brief stint against William Buford in the Ohio State loss (long after the game was decided) I haven't seen any evidence that he's interested in playing defense.

Big mystery to me, too. I was among those touting Michael's talents preseason. I saw him in several hs games, including 2 all-star type games. In one of those at least, he seemed the only person willing to play D, and made 2 very good, smart-hustle D-plays. I was struck, too, by what seemed just a bit of attitude, which I took to be of the "I belong with these great players" variety.

But either I simply misjudged both his D and his desire, or the jump to the majors has been very difficult for him. I do wonder whether Michael's soft-spoken nature has made for a special challenge in meeting K's firm insistence on team-communication. I count quite a few instances this season where I have heard K, Collins, Wojo specifically refer to their having to emphasize to the guys the [I]crucial need to "talk to each other" on the floor at all times. I wonder whether Michael can do that yet.

Kedsy
02-01-2012, 05:29 PM
Of course, three years ago at this time, we were asking the same thing about Elliott Williams, who had disappeared on the end of the bench. He ended up in the starting lineup and was the defensive catalyst for a team that won 10 of its last 12 games, including an ACC title and a Sweet 16 appearance. That might happen with Gbinije.

I have mentioned this before when people brought up Elliot Williams with regard to Michael. As of this date in 2009, Elliot Williams had played 220 minutes in 20 games (11 mpg). As of today, Michael Gbinije has played 102 minutes in 21 games (less than 5 mpg). That's a huge difference, the reason for which I believe was/is readiness to contribute. The chance of Michael suddenly being able to start and/or play big minutes is in my opinion much, much less than Elliot's chances at this time.

Wander
02-01-2012, 05:41 PM
There are over 300 D1 teams so I guess technically you are right. If you look at tournement caliber teams, I have to disagree. Additionally, there is nothing wrong IMHO about being a sixth man. Every team needs one.

I don't think so - have you looked at the other top teams much? Very highly ranked teams like Baylor, Kansas, and even UNC would start Dawkins or Curry in an instant, and be much better for it. I can think of verrrrry few teams (Kentucky? Ohio State?) who would use these guys as bench players.

I've said this before, but our fundamental problem is that these teams would start Curry... at shooting guard. They'd start Dawkins... at shooting guard. And we already have Austin Rivers. So we're stuck putting one of the three at point, and one of the three at small forward. I know we like to think that Coach K doesn't worry too much about rigid positions, but these guys, IMO, aren't guys like Jon Scheyer, Demarcus Nelson, etc who are capable of playing multiple spots on the floor on both sides of the ball. They're talented, and good college players (at the least), but I'm not sure they fit together very well, in a "we're greater than the sum of our parts" way. Not because of attitude or intensity problems, just a non-ideal combination of skill sets.

gep
02-01-2012, 05:42 PM
I don't know if Silent G can be considered an "energy guy", but if so, as posted earlier, maybe inserting him into the game in the 2nd half after a "20-point lead" is established can't hurt. After all, it appears that after getting a "20-point lead", the current lineup in the game seems to relax, lose focus, or whatever, and then struggle to get to the end of the game with a W. So inserting Silent G at that point couldn't hurt if he brings energy, "chaos", or whatever to keep the guys on the floor focused and energized. If the lead drops too much or too quickly, then take him out. But with the recent games, the lead drops eventually anyway... :cool:

tommy
02-01-2012, 06:45 PM
I don't think so - have you looked at the other top teams much? Very highly ranked teams like Baylor, Kansas, and even UNC would start Dawkins or Curry in an instant, and be much better for it. I can think of verrrrry few teams (Kentucky? Ohio State?) who would use these guys as bench players.

I've said this before, but our fundamental problem is that these teams would start Curry... at shooting guard. They'd start Dawkins... at shooting guard. And we already have Austin Rivers. So we're stuck putting one of the three at point, and one of the three at small forward. I know we like to think that Coach K doesn't worry too much about rigid positions, but these guys, IMO, aren't guys like Jon Scheyer, Demarcus Nelson, etc who are capable of playing multiple spots on the floor on both sides of the ball. They're talented, and good college players (at the least), but I'm not sure they fit together very well, in a "we're greater than the sum of our parts" way. Not because of attitude or intensity problems, just a non-ideal combination of skill sets.

Yeah, I've been wondering whether some on these boards are a little reluctant to ask folks to consider whether this is just a poorly constructed roster. You know, for a team that's 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country.

Nobody likes to "criticize" K, obviously for good reason. But maybe it isn't well constructed. You're right. We have three guys out of our top 6 or 7 whose best and most natural position, clearly, is shooting guard. We don't have a real small forward, or one who is ready to play, anyway. We don't have a solid, all-around, ready-to-play-32 minutes-against-the-big-boys point guard who makes us comfortable in relegating one of the natural 2's to an off-the-bench status.

What it adds up to is a roster in which two of the five positions on the floor are being filled by ill-fitting pieces, at least for the way K likes to play.

Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.

loldevilz
02-01-2012, 08:01 PM
Seth and Andre would start for almost every team in the nation. Tyler would start at the vast majority as well. Saying they are "sixth man type players" is unfair and inaccurate.

You realize that basically you could say that about every player at Duke for the past 20 years right.

DukieInBrasil
02-01-2012, 08:12 PM
Yeah, I've been wondering whether some on these boards are a little reluctant to ask folks to consider whether this is just a poorly constructed roster. You know, for a team that's 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country.

Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.
I was really hoping that Kelly would be that puzzle piece type player that bridged the gap as a dependable distributor. He had a slightly + a/t his first 2 years, and looked like he was a pretty nifty passer, especially in the interior. We haven't really seen that at all from Ryan this year as he has been a bit turnover prone, both from passes and from handling the ball.
Otherwise, he's been as good or better in other areas than i would have thought. He's shooting the ball great from 3, and is solid at the line and from the floor in general. His rebounding has been solid, not great. Surprisingly, his blocked shot rate is down.

ricks68
02-01-2012, 08:25 PM
I don't think so - have you looked at the other top teams much? Very highly ranked teams like Baylor, Kansas, and even UNC would start Dawkins or Curry in an instant, and be much better for it. I can think of verrrrry few teams (Kentucky? Ohio State?) who would use these guys as bench players.

I've said this before, but our fundamental problem is that these teams would start Curry... at shooting guard. They'd start Dawkins... at shooting guard. And we already have Austin Rivers. So we're stuck putting one of the three at point, and one of the three at small forward. I know we like to think that Coach K doesn't worry too much about rigid positions, but these guys, IMO, aren't guys like Jon Scheyer, Demarcus Nelson, etc who are capable of playing multiple spots on the floor on both sides of the ball. They're talented, and good college players (at the least), but I'm not sure they fit together very well, in a "we're greater than the sum of our parts" way. Not because of attitude or intensity problems, just a non-ideal combination of skill sets.

These have been kinda like my thoughts. For example, it appears to me that when Seth acts like he is supposed to be just the shooting guard, he seems to be more active as far as trying to lose his man, get open, or even drive to the basket. It's as if he has been given the green light to be dynamic and make things happen at a more frenetic pace. In my opinion, it's as if he has been unfettered, and he really gets going. Austin, on the other hand, seems to act that way much more often, but the results aren't as positive due to his lack of good decision making experience. I think that Andre is trying very, very hard to be more outgoing and play with more energy, and it is beginning to show, but it will just take time. I suspect that Quinn is not 100% again, but we are not privy to that information. Considering that he really made quite a splash when initially given a big increase in minutes, what else can explain it other that the supposed lack of adequate defense? If his knee is causing him problems, that could explain his lack of progress in learning to stop his man from blowing past him so often. In addressing the Silent G decrease in playing time again, maybe Coach K is just trying to give his present primary players as much playing time together as possible to establish more much needed chemistry.

What came to mind regarding the seemingly disjointed play that extends for various amounts of time this year, was our performance in the FF years ago against Maryland where we came back from like 22 points behind to win comfortably. Remember, Coach K said that he changed his more controlled tactics at the half and told the players to no longer follow his set plays, but to just go out there and be natural and have fun. Maybe that is what is going on here. I believe the difference with this team, however, is that they have not played anywhere near as much together as that team, and K is probably very reluctant to go that route at this time.

JMHO

ricks

Newton_14
02-01-2012, 08:33 PM
Yeah, I've been wondering whether some on these boards are a little reluctant to ask folks to consider whether this is just a poorly constructed roster. You know, for a team that's 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country.

Nobody likes to "criticize" K, obviously for good reason. But maybe it isn't well constructed. You're right. We have three guys out of our top 6 or 7 whose best and most natural position, clearly, is shooting guard. We don't have a real small forward, or one who is ready to play, anyway. We don't have a solid, all-around, ready-to-play-32 minutes-against-the-big-boys point guard who makes us comfortable in relegating one of the natural 2's to an off-the-bench status.

What it adds up to is a roster in which two of the five positions on the floor are being filled by ill-fitting pieces, at least for the way K likes to play.

Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.

We have both pieces of bread for the sandwich, but are missing the key ingredient in the middle. We have good guards and good bigs. We lack the one or two 6'6-6'8 forwards to compliment the bigs and littles. A Brian Davis, Lance Thomas, Luol Deng, Tony Lang, Kyle Singler, Mike Dunleavy, etc. Any 2 of those guys could help this team tremendously. Or to be honest the Soph/Jr versions of Gbinije/Murphy..

That said, you play the cards dealt to you. K can win with this group. Already has of course. I don't feel we have seen this team at their best yet. They have shown us glimpses but have not put it all together. I also don't feel we have seen the best of Austin Rivers yet either. He has been good, but I think he can be much better. His best games of this season are yet to come in my humble opinion, as are the best games of the team as a whole.

They are already good offensively. Say they improve the offense just a little, improve the defense a notch or two, and finally, learn to focus where they do not relax after building a lead. Small improvements in those 3 areas will make them a much tougher team than the 18-3 team they are right now. It is certainly doable. Tomorrow night is a good measuring stick to see if they can step it up a notch from recent play.

ncexnyc
02-01-2012, 08:43 PM
Now I tried to warn azzefkram, that Kedsy loves him some Curry. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Green, Red, Yellow, Khao sil, Massaman, or Phanaeng. As long as it’s Curry it’s good to go.
I really don’t understand why it’s unfair or inaccurate to say someone is better suited to a 6th man role. Jon seemed to do quite a nice job for us in his second year when he was moved into that position and I don’t recall anyone feeling he was being insulted by filling that role. Danny Green had a nice career as the prototypical 6th man and he seems to be doing well for himself nowadays. Some kids are cut out to be the lead man and some aren’t. I realize I’m old and my memory isn’t that good, but I seem to recall that Seth wasn’t even our first guard off the bench at the start of last season, rather that honor fell to Andre. Things happened and it turned out Seth was better suited to be Nolan’s running mate. Seth’s a very solid player, but he’s not the second coming of his brother. As I’ve mentioned before, even an extremely gifted player like Chris Duhon took a whole year before he was ready to properly lead the team. Having watched Austin and Quinn play it’s very obvious to me that both of these kids have the Alpha Dog mentality, but as has already been mentioned they are freshman and tend to make freshman like decisions from time to time.
Now back in early December I went with the fitting Holiday motif and said that this team reminded me a lot of the Island of Misfit Toys. We have lots of nice parts, but for some reason they just don’t seem to mesh. I’m glad to see some of you are finally catching on.
The comment, “We are what we are”, seems to bug some of you. However, the response many of you give that, “They’ll finally get it” is wearing a bit thin, especially since it’s been put out there week after week. The season is quickly coming to a close and so it seems like it’s now or never to myself and a few others. I also curious why when asked where this epiphany is going to come from, all we get is some vague generalization. That seems like some serious hedging, so should something actually happen you can say, “See, I told you so.” If you honestly believe this team will get it or something radical will happen then have the stones to say who, what, when and or where.
I also find it funny how so many people love to shoot down those people who mention that if team A beats team B, then they should also be able to beat team C. I fully understand that this isn’t the case, but why are the people who are so fast to point this out, also the ones who want to cling to the notion that since we beat teams A, B, and C way back in December that it’s a sure thing that we could do it again or that we’ve improved as a team while these teams are still the same as they were way back then.
Ok, enough of a long rant. I do enjoy watching this team, as frustrating as they may be. They continue to find a way to win despite what appear to be so many self-inflicted wounds

Saratoga2
02-01-2012, 08:44 PM
Yeah, I've been wondering whether some on these boards are a little reluctant to ask folks to consider whether this is just a poorly constructed roster. You know, for a team that's 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country.

Nobody likes to "criticize" K, obviously for good reason. But maybe it isn't well constructed. You're right. We have three guys out of our top 6 or 7 whose best and most natural position, clearly, is shooting guard. We don't have a real small forward, or one who is ready to play, anyway. We don't have a solid, all-around, ready-to-play-32 minutes-against-the-big-boys point guard who makes us comfortable in relegating one of the natural 2's to an off-the-bench status.

What it adds up to is a roster in which two of the five positions on the floor are being filled by ill-fitting pieces, at least for the way K likes to play.

Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.

Not many would want to go where you are going with this post and it is not really constructive, except to bring up the recruiting direction going forward. I do think this team is lacking pieces needed to be very effective. Our front court is pretty solid though. Perhaps having our two small forwards as freshmen, is a problem that will resolve itself in future. Perhaps we will have an issue with so many similar guards next year. The one thing that I do see, is a probable lack of competitiveness against top ACC schools. UNC and FSU remain to be played, with UNC twice. We could wind up third or even fourth depending on how UVa goes forward. That kind of position would not set well with Duke fans although remains a possibility.

I don't see a lot that coach K can do this year, but he is known to pull answers out of the hat, so I will wait to see what he will do to try to improve this team.

ncexnyc
02-01-2012, 09:57 PM
Not many would want to go where you are going with this post and it is not really constructive, except to bring up the recruiting direction going forward. I do think this team is lacking pieces needed to be very effective. Our front court is pretty solid though. Perhaps having our two small forwards as freshmen, is a problem that will resolve itself in future. Perhaps we will have an issue with so many similar guards next year. The one thing that I do see, is a probable lack of competitiveness against top ACC schools. UNC and FSU remain to be played, with UNC twice. We could wind up third or even fourth depending on how UVa goes forward. That kind of position would not set well with Duke fans although remains a possibility.

I don't see a lot that coach K can do this year, but he is known to pull answers out of the hat, so I will wait to see what he will do to try to improve this team.

"You can pay me now, or pay me later." We all loved hearing that Nolan and Kyle were coming back for their senior season at Duke. Do you realize that many of the conversations we are having now were ones we probably would have been having last year? Did the return of Kyle and Nolan retard the growth of Andre and Ryan? Just something to think about.;)

Kedsy
02-01-2012, 10:48 PM
Now I tried to warn azzefkram, that Kedsy loves him some Curry. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Green, Red, Yellow, Khao sil, Massaman, or Phanaeng. As long as it’s Curry it’s good to go.
I really don’t understand why it’s unfair or inaccurate to say someone is better suited to a 6th man role. Jon seemed to do quite a nice job for us in his second year when he was moved into that position and I don’t recall anyone feeling he was being insulted by filling that role. Danny Green had a nice career as the prototypical 6th man and he seems to be doing well for himself nowadays. Some kids are cut out to be the lead man and some aren’t.

There's a difference between having a guy come off the bench because you have 6 or 7 players worthy of starting (like Jon Scheyer in 2008 and Danny Green in 2009) and being dismissed as being "sixth man type of players," in a negative way, which is what I feel azzefkram was saying.

And yes, I like all curries, food and otherwise. I'm also a huge fan of Andre Dawkins. But I didn't say what I said just because I like Seth and Andre. I think azzefkram was making an unfair and inaccurate assessment of our players.


The comment, “We are what we are”, seems to bug some of you. However, the response many of you give that, “They’ll finally get it” is wearing a bit thin, especially since it’s been put out there week after week. The season is quickly coming to a close and so it seems like it’s now or never to myself and a few others.

Two years ago on this date, we were just coming off a shellacking at the hands of Georgetown, just ten days after a similar shellacking at NC State. A lot of people said "we are what we are," and it bugged me then, too.

Greg_Newton
02-01-2012, 11:11 PM
Anyway...

I think there's really one big question that we don't know the answer to. We see Seth, Dre, etc. get blown by on defense when a player decides he wants to, so badly that they don't even make an attempt to recover, and it's just a 2-on-1. Other times, we see them prevent this from happening - maybe not glamorously, but they prevent penetration somehow.

The question is... which scenario is more indicative of their "ability"? Talent, quickness, natural ability, whatever you want to call it.

In other words, are they A) physically disadvantaged defenders that occasionally give a heroic effort against quicker players, in a manner that's not sustainable for 30+ minutes because it forces them to expend a ton of energy just to move how, say, Rivers moves in his sleep? Or are they B) physically capable defenders who just haven't grasped the mindset and fundamentals of on-ball defense, who leave some energy on the floor when playing defense?

To me, it looks like Seth and Andre have to really work to move their feet at the necessary speed to turn a driving high-major wing. But then again, they're often bent at the waist rather than knees, in no semblance of a defensive stance. Like Featherston, I can't quite put my finger on what's really at work here.

ncexnyc
02-01-2012, 11:18 PM
There's a difference between having a guy come off the bench because you have 6 or 7 players worthy of starting (like Jon Scheyer in 2008 and Danny Green in 2009) and being dismissed as being "sixth man type of players," in a negative way, which is what I feel azzefkram was saying.

And yes, I like all curries, food and otherwise. I'm also a huge fan of Andre Dawkins. But I didn't say what I said just because I like Seth and Andre. I think azzefkram was making an unfair and inaccurate assessment of our players.



Two years ago on this date, we were just coming off a shellacking at the hands of Georgetown, just ten days after a similar shellacking at NC State. A lot of people said "we are what we are," and it bugged me then, too.
As Val Kilmer once said, "I'll be your huckleberry."
Let's take a look back at that Championship season you referenced. The State game came after the brutal, extremely emotional win over Wake Forest. I'm sure you recall there was a great deal of bad blood between both teams and that game took a lot out of our kids. They definitely came out flat and disinterested against State and they paid for it.

Move further into the season and you'll see the game immediately preceeding the disaster at Georgetown was none other than FSU. I'm sensing a trend,need I say more?

A quick look at the results from that year shows a constant theme, lots of good defensive efforts by our kids and plenty of lopsided wins as a result of that outstanding D and the blowouts were against good teams as well as the usual cupcakes.

UrinalCake
02-01-2012, 11:21 PM
I've said this before, but our fundamental problem is that these teams would start Curry... at shooting guard. They'd start Dawkins... at shooting guard. And we already have Austin Rivers. So we're stuck putting one of the three at point, and one of the three at small forward.

I totally agree that one of our problems is too many overlapping parts. Some people have labeled this a "chemistry" issue but I think it's more concrete than that. Curry, Thornton, and Cook are each different players, but defensively they're pretty similar as far as the type of player that they're capable of guarding. And Rivers isn't that far off from them either. Inside, all of our bigs do a good job at guarding bigger/slower guys but not so much against smaller, athletic guys. And of course in between we have no one to guard the wings. In years past we've always had a guy who could guard multiple positions (Singler, Nelson, Dunleavy, of course Battier) but this year we just don't. Offensively, as you said we have a lot of shooters but our true point guards are splitting time and/or coming off the bench.

As far as our 18-3 record against the #1 schedule, I think it's a little misleading. Most of our big wins came early in the season, when we had a leg up on our opponents due to the preseason trip. Specifically, they all came in Maui. We haven't beaten a ranked team since then except for UVA, and they had two chances to tie it up at the buzzer, in Cameron. Meanwhile we've had less-than-impressive wins against weaker teams such as GT, Maryland, and SJU. In each game we basically played well for a half. If you look at us being 6-2 over our last eight games, which hasn't been a particularly grueling stretch, that sounds a little more concerning.

With all that said, I think there's still time for the team to gel and to make a late-season run. There's something to be said for peaking at the right time so let's hope that happens as it did in 2010.

azzefkram
02-01-2012, 11:38 PM
There's a difference between having a guy come off the bench because you have 6 or 7 players worthy of starting (like Jon Scheyer in 2008 and Danny Green in 2009) and being dismissed as being "sixth man type of players," in a negative way, which is what I feel azzefkram was saying.

And yes, I like all curries, food and otherwise. I'm also a huge fan of Andre Dawkins. But I didn't say what I said just because I like Seth and Andre. I think azzefkram was making an unfair and inaccurate assessment of our players.


Sorry you feel I was being dismissive. I think Seth, Andre and Tyler are fine players and I am glad they are part of the team. I also think that each has a significant drawback that limits their effectiveness in a starting role. I don't think that is an unfair assessment. As for accuracy, well it's my opinion and you know what people say about those.

-jk
02-01-2012, 11:45 PM
This has been bugging me for a while.

Defense under K is not so much about players' physical gifts or - perhaps - lack thereof. It's where they steer their assignment.

And defense under K has never been about the individual assignment (though K has never declined to use an exceptional defender, of course). Defense is a team project. The exceptional defender is a piece - whether Billy King, Wojo, Hill, Battier, Shelden Williams, or Scheyer - in the greater puzzle.

K has always been about building on the combination of individual and team strengths. This year's team will be more on the "team strength" side of the equation, as we don't seem to have a stopper on the team. But that doesn't preclude the team from having solid team defense. They just can't relax and let that (apparently non-existent) stopper cover their flaws. We don't have a team full of wings, so we hedge rather than switch. And we hedge pretty well. But the guys have to work together.

Which brings us to the question of focus and leadership. We're not getting a stopper this year, so we need communication and organization on the floor. We need one of the guys to step up and direct traffic on defense. It doesn't have to be a star: Zoubs did it in the tourney in '10. (And it was fun to watch, too.)

So who can take on the mantle? I think that's what K is looking for just now.

-jk

hustleplays
02-02-2012, 12:00 AM
This has been bugging me for a while.

Defense under K is not so much about players' physical gifts or - perhaps - lack thereof. It's where they steer their assignment.

And defense under K has never been about the individual assignment (though K has never declined to use an exceptional defender, of course). Defense is a team project. The exceptional defender is a piece - whether Billy King, Wojo, Hill, Battier, Shelden Williams, or Scheyer - in the greater puzzle.

K has always been about building on the combination of individual and team strengths. This year's team will be more on the "team strength" side of the equation, as we don't seem to have a stopper on the team. But that doesn't preclude the team from having solid team defense. They just can't relax and let that (apparently non-existent) stopper cover their flaws. We don't have a team full of wings, so we hedge rather than switch. And we hedge pretty well. But the guys have to work together.

Which brings us to the question of focus and leadership. We're not getting a stopper this year, so we need communication and organization on the floor. We need one of the guys to step up and direct traffic on defense. It doesn't have to be a star: Zoubs did it in the tourney in '10. (And it was fun to watch, too.)

So who can take on the mantle? I think that's what K is looking for just now.

-jk

I agree. K seemed to be virtually pleading for someone, anyone, to step up, to keep the team focused, intense [ie, not to let up] and together. I'm curious about our captains: When Ryan, Miles and Seth were appointed, what "job description" did the coaching staff give them, what did the coaches expect of them? Our captains don't seem to be acting very "captainly," by almost any definition. I'm happy to have someone point out what I haven't been seeing -- that would make me happy.

gep
02-02-2012, 12:07 AM
I agree. K seemed to be virtually pleading for someone, anyone, to step up, to keep the team focused, intense [ie, not to let up] and together. I'm curious about our captains: When Ryan, Miles and Seth were appointed, what "job description" did the coaching staff give them, what did the coaches expect of them? Our captains don't seem to be acting very "captainly," by almost any definition. I'm happy to have someone point out what I haven't been seeing -- that would make me happy.

I forgot when Elliot Williams was inserted into the starting lineup (was it in February?). But if I recall correctly, Zoubs was inserted into the Maryland game in February. I think many of us were a bit surprised, but look at what happened. Well, it's February 1st... so Coach K still has a bit of time. Maybe, this VTech game will be the season-changer. Put me on the *optimistic* wagon... forever:cool:

Kedsy
02-02-2012, 12:45 AM
I'm sensing a trend,need I say more?

Yes, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. My point was after the 2010 Georgetown game (which came approximately at the same point in the season as this year's St. John's game) people (probably including you) were saying "we are what we are" and suggesting the 2010 Duke team would flame out in the 2nd round. Those people could not have been more wrong.

Can this year's team improve like that year's team did? I have no idea, but neither does anybody else. People who say "we are what we are" are wrong, even if it turns out that we don't noticeably improve this season.

Kedsy
02-02-2012, 12:51 AM
I forgot when Elliot Williams was inserted into the starting lineup (was it in February?). But if I recall correctly, Zoubs was inserted into the Maryland game in February. I think many of us were a bit surprised, but look at what happened. Well, it's February 1st... so Coach K still has a bit of time. Maybe, this VTech game will be the season-changer. Put me on the *optimistic* wagon... forever:cool:

Elliot Williams hit the starting lineup on February 19, 2009. Brian Zoubek entered the starting lineup on February 13, 2010. This year, unless it's Quinn Cook, I don't see any surprise new starter coming in two weeks (and even Quinn wouldn't be such a surprise since he's already started four ACC games). The magic's going to have to come from our existing rotation.

gep
02-02-2012, 01:30 AM
Elliot Williams hit the starting lineup on February 19, 2009. Brian Zoubek entered the starting lineup on February 13, 2010. This year, unless it's Quinn Cook, I don't see any surprise new starter coming in two weeks (and even Quinn wouldn't be such a surprise since he's already started four ACC games). The magic's going to have to come from our existing rotation.

Thanks for the details. For whatever it's worth, me, I think/hope it's Miles... after all, I don't think anyone thought Zoubs could have "made the difference". GO DUKE!!!!

RockyMtDevil
02-02-2012, 09:21 AM
Yeah, I've been wondering whether some on these boards are a little reluctant to ask folks to consider whether this is just a poorly constructed roster. You know, for a team that's 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country.

Nobody likes to "criticize" K, obviously for good reason. But maybe it isn't well constructed. You're right. We have three guys out of our top 6 or 7 whose best and most natural position, clearly, is shooting guard. We don't have a real small forward, or one who is ready to play, anyway. We don't have a solid, all-around, ready-to-play-32 minutes-against-the-big-boys point guard who makes us comfortable in relegating one of the natural 2's to an off-the-bench status.

What it adds up to is a roster in which two of the five positions on the floor are being filled by ill-fitting pieces, at least for the way K likes to play.

Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.

This may be the most insightful post I've seen in a while on the topic of the 2012 Devils. All and all, we don't have a point save Cook, we have Rivers and Curry and Dawkins who all play the same bloody position. We do not have a three, Kelly's inability to guard is exposed because we lack a strong wing defender, we have nobody in the 6'5-6-7 camp who can slash, defend and finish, none of our guards can finish on the break unless they are uncontested.

It's just a goofy roster with serious overlap and not enough diversity. Still, we are 18-3 but in some instances it's been a painful 18-3.

For instance, I watched a bit of Baylor last night and wondered how in the world a small school in Waco, TX can recruit and fill a roster of monster athletes that can guard, run,, jump and finish and Duke can't. It blows my mind. And please don't argue that Mason and Miles are great athletes, I am referring to guards and wings who can create their own shot and slash and finish.

superdave
02-02-2012, 09:29 AM
This may be the most insightful post I've seen in a while on the topic of the 2012 Devils. All and all, we don't have a point save Cook, we have Rivers and Curry and Dawkins who all play the same bloody position. We do not have a three, Kelly's inability to guard is exposed because we lack a strong wing defender, we have nobody in the 6'5-6-7 camp who can slash, defend and finish, none of our guards can finish on the break unless they are uncontested.

It's just a goofy roster with serious overlap and not enough diversity. Still, we are 18-3 but in some instances it's been a painful 18-3.

For instance, I watched a bit of Baylor last night and wondered how in the world a small school in Waco, TX can recruit and fill a roster of monster athletes that can guard, run,, jump and finish and Duke can't. It blows my mind. And please don't argue that Mason and Miles are great athletes, I am referring to guards and wings who can create their own shot and slash and finish.

I'll bake you a nice seafood dinner if Baylor wins a national championship in our lifetime!

OK - maybe that's an exaggeration, but I'll take Duke's skilled players over Baylor's athletes every day. Duke has 4 titles by the way.

greybeard
02-02-2012, 09:33 AM
I still think that this team has failed to find an identity, an ability to find coherence on offense. However, they have come much closer than early in the season, and are appropriately diverse in offensive approaches. I think that the biggest "hurt" that this team presents is a fourth big man. The consequence, Mason as to work too hard and too long on both ends, and on the boards especially suffers, at least when the other teams are effective at taking away Duke's offensive mainstay, the three.

That said, 18 and 3, against the competition Duke has faced, well, most school supporters wouldn't be questioning their team's efficacy.

The other big who is asked to do too much, and too little in one key respect, is Ryan. Ryan is terrifically important on both ends. Offensively, whenj other teams have done the job of shutting down the three ball from exterior players, I think that Duke has to look to Ryan to share part of the inside scoring load. However, while Duke's offense has gotten much better at focusing getting the ball to Mason as a first priority in such circumstances, it has not looked to gear what it does to play to Ryan's inside strengths on pass penetration and see if he can develop a really effective offensive game off of that.

I think that plays need to be run to allow Ryan to catch on the move, or to catch it high, I mean a diversity of high as a pivot to the offense. What am I talking about here folks, dare I say it, to I have the nerve to say it here, an offense like Georgetown's, an offense that at least key elements of Georgetown's aka the Hebbert/Green years--a derivative of the fabled Princeton. Either that, Duke I feel must have as one of its offensive sets a variety of ways to get Ryan the ball in the middle of the paint, or much higher in the post or on the foul line. Right now, it seems that his primary role in the dual low post offense is playing and staying low as an off-side rebounder. I think that he not only is not built for that role, but also it exhausts, and probably dispirits him. It certainly does not provide Duke with a second scoring threat inside, a scoring threat if, as I think it must, have playing through a high post pivot who presents a triple threat (be the initator for the offense, looking first to pass it, inside to Mason, or outside to players who play on the move aka the Princeton (I am sure I have seen other deployments, movement patterns deployed to create threes, give outside players a chance to catch it going to the rim, making great receptions off of great passes that permit a quick finish, and call for ball movement that itself creates mid and three range outside shooting. Of course, what I meant by Ryan's being a triple threat is, in addition to distributing, he gets to play one on one from a spot from which he must be guarded and can beat his defender for a one bounce pull up, or getting to the rim, or giving it up and getting to the rim, off an away from the ball screen off a fixed option.

In the end, however, with tired and often foul troubled bigs, especially Mason, Duke is in trouble on the defensive board especially, and if, that big is Mason, exterior defense suffers because Duke's best backup presence has been taken away. Also, teams with a group of athletic and long outside players have been coached to have bigs moving to the rim and the penetrator to know the angles, spots, keys, and timing to be looking to dish. In other words, I am not so sure that a lock down defender would appreciably change Duke's defensive effectiveness. On the other hand, greater size, strength, smarts, and commitment by a player or two who could really guard more than one exterior position couldn't hurt. On the other hand, with an array of bigs to rely upon, were any of the teams, aka DeMarcus', actually better than this one?

How di the coach say it in Hoosiers, "This is your team." I would only add, there is an awful lot to like.

UrinalCake
02-02-2012, 09:38 AM
We have three guys out of our top 6 or 7 whose best and most natural position, clearly, is shooting guard. We don't have a real small forward, or one who is ready to play, anyway....

What it adds up to is a roster in which two of the five positions on the floor are being filled by ill-fitting pieces, at least for the way K likes to play.

I posted a similar comment, though I do have to say that I had the same thoughts about our 2010 roster. Smith, Scheyer, and Dawkins were all shooting guards. Smith and Scheyer could play point guard, and both learned to do it really well, but their natural position was playing off the ball. At the same time, Kyle, Lance, and Mason were power forwards. Kyle made the transition to the 3 and Mason has since learned to play either inside position, but coming into the season we could have made a similar argument that two of the five starters were playing out of position.

There's been a lot of comparisons to 2010 and perhaps that season spoiled us into thinking that we can win a championship any year, despite roster deficiencies and blowout losses. We'll just have to see how this season takes shape.

wilko
02-02-2012, 09:42 AM
I watched a bit of Baylor last night and wondered how in the world a small school in Waco, TX can recruit and fill a roster of monster athletes that can guard, run,, jump and finish and Duke can't. It blows my mind. And please don't argue that Mason and Miles are great athletes, I am referring to guards and wings who can create their own shot and slash and finish.

I get ya entirely.
Duke tends to prefer basketball "technicians" (for lack of a better descriptor.) Guys that have strong basketball fundamentals and skill-set and game IQ, as opposed to Athletes who happen to play basketball.

Duke has had A LOT of success with this approach, so on one hand its hard to argue that it doesn't bear fruit.

However, its my personal feeling that the way the game is called and judged currently, favors the athlete over the technician. Its more of parks and rec game in terms of officiating and tempo and opposed to the fundamentally sound basketball elegance I remember from my youth.

Lots more physicality and I'm not a fan of it.

That said, I don't call the shots obviously so thats not gonna change.
I think Duke would be better served to adjust better to this aspect of our ever changing game and look to add a raw athlete (non-specialized in basketball) or two.

Duvall
02-02-2012, 09:58 AM
Still, we are 18-3 but in some instances it's been a painful 18-3.

This is our fanbase!


For instance, I watched a bit of Baylor last night and wondered how in the world a small school in Waco, TX can recruit and fill a roster of monster athletes that can guard, run,, jump and finish and Duke can't.

Cheating, mostly.

Olympic Fan
02-02-2012, 11:09 AM
Cheating, mostly.

I wasn'ty going to say it, but since you did ... that's the consensusof opinion in the Big 12 ...

Lunchab1es
02-02-2012, 11:39 AM
Elliot Williams hit the starting lineup on February 19, 2009. Brian Zoubek entered the starting lineup on February 13, 2010. This year, unless it's Quinn Cook, I don't see any surprise new starter coming in two weeks (and even Quinn wouldn't be such a surprise since he's already started four ACC games). The magic's going to have to come from our existing rotation.

Well if you saw it, it wouldn't be much of a surprise now would it? ;)

I think this team is still struggling to "find itself", particularly defensively. This gives me an ever-present anxiety leading up to and during games, hoping we don't implode. We seem to have the potential for individuals to have great games, or have team collapse. I think a few more ACC games will help show which way we can expect to trend for the remainder of the season.

Here's to hoping we trend closer to 2010 than 2007!

ncexnyc
02-02-2012, 11:50 AM
Yes, because I have no idea what you're trying to say. My point was after the 2010 Georgetown game (which came approximately at the same point in the season as this year's St. John's game) people (probably including you) were saying "we are what we are" and suggesting the 2010 Duke team would flame out in the 2nd round. Those people could not have been more wrong.

Can this year's team improve like that year's team did? I have no idea, but neither does anybody else. People who say "we are what we are" are wrong, even if it turns out that we don't noticeably improve this season.

Since I'm lifting lines from movies, let me use this one from, "Full Metal Jacket." "You've got to be ******** me Private Pyle." You point to two terrible losses from the 2010 season and I counter with the fact that both of those games came after very emotional and physically demanding games and somehow that goes right over your head. Sorry, but from the very deep analytical stats posts you put together I know you're a lot better than that.

Kedsy
02-02-2012, 12:11 PM
I still think that this team has failed to find an identity, an ability to find coherence on offense.

And yet our offense has been consistently ranked in the top five nationally all season. I don't think offense is our problem right now.


I think that the biggest "hurt" that this team presents is a fourth big man. The consequence, Mason as to work too hard and too long on both ends, and on the boards especially suffers, at least when the other teams are effective at taking away Duke's offensive mainstay, the three.

In Coach K's time, Duke has only rarely used four bigs in his rotation. 2010 was an anomaly in that regard. Most years we used three, and some years just two (using a four-out, one-in offense). Yet those other Duke teams played good defense. I don't think the lack of a fourth big is what's causing us problems this season.


In the end, however, with tired and often foul troubled bigs, especially Mason, Duke is in trouble on the defensive board especially, and if, that big is Mason, exterior defense suffers because Duke's best backup presence has been taken away.

Mason has only had as many as four fouls three times this season -- against Michigan, Clemson, and Florida State. It might have been troublesome to the team in the Florida State game, but not the others. Mason had three fouls against Ohio State, two fouls against St. John's, and only one against Temple. Miles has had as many as four fouls three times this season -- against Davidson, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. It may have affected the closeness of the game against Virginia, but probably not the others. He had one foul against Ohio State, three fouls against St. John's, and zero against Temple. Ryan Kelly has had as many as four fouls twice this season -- against Maryland and Florida State. He had one foul against Ohio State, three fouls against Temple, and two against St. John's.

So other than the Florida State game, our bigs have not been in foul trouble this season. To describe them as "often foul troubled bigs" is entirely inaccurate. They haven't looked tired to me, either, but obviously I don't have stats for that.


How di the coach say it in Hoosiers, "This is your team." I would only add, there is an awful lot to like.

Well said, Greybeard. I completely agree with this. Sometimes we, as Duke fans, only see the flaws. This team has an awful lot going for it.

Billy Dat
02-02-2012, 12:13 PM
Nhe comment, “We are what we are”, seems to bug some of you. However, the response many of you give that, “They’ll finally get it” is wearing a bit thin, especially since it’s been put out there week after week. The season is quickly coming to a close and so it seems like it’s now or never to myself and a few others. I also curious why when asked where this epiphany is going to come from, all we get is some vague generalization. That seems like some serious hedging, so should something actually happen you can say, “See, I told you so.” If you honestly believe this team will get it or something radical will happen then have the stones to say who, what, when and or where.

As someone who, early in this thread, stated that I didn't think the team was capable of a Final Four run, I wanted to give ncexnyc some support as he battles the assault that started with his "we are what we are" statement.

There are many ways to handle prognostication, and two of the major buckets are to say that anything is possible (which it generally is) or focus on what is going on at a particular point in time.

I agree with Kedsy and others who say that it's impossible to make sweeping statements about the team's potential to make a deep March run because history suggests that anything is possible, especially the last two years examples of Duke and UConn winning unexpected titles, and Butler playing in 2 consecutive finals, and VCU and Tennessee making FF appearances. We've got one of the best defensive coaches and emotional motivators in the history of the game so if anyone can shore up our defense, it should be K.

As the season moves along, I do prefer to do "point in time" analysis which assesses the team's potential based on the current week. But, because message board postings can't be read for intent, I think it's probably important to qualify statements a bit more, such as, 'as of today, I don't think Duke's a Final Four team'. It seems to be message board culture to only respond to things that one disagrees with, especially certain aspects of long posts. Someone can provide 5 well thought out paragraphs on a particular point, and often the only response will be "you spelled JJ's name wrong". Such is the virtual world we live in. So, I agree that it's too early to say "we are what we are" because there are a lot of tough games to be played and, as a result, a lot of opportunities for our defense to improve. But, as of today, we don't look like a Final Four team, and it's a lot easier to say "we are what we are" then it was after the Ohio State loss. Still, I remind myself that after years of my own complaining that we tend to peak in late December, I have hope that we haven't peaked yet.

Kedsy
02-02-2012, 12:25 PM
Since I'm lifting lines from movies, let me use this one from, "Full Metal Jacket." "You've got to be ******** me Private Pyle." You point to two terrible losses from the 2010 season and I counter with the fact that both of those games came after very emotional and physically demanding games and somehow that goes right over your head. Sorry, but from the very deep analytical stats posts you put together I know you're a lot better than that.

Well, OK, I understand. But I think you're looking at it in retrospect. I don't remember too many people explaining away those losses the way you are now. At the time, the theme seemed to be (a) we weren't good enough because we couldn't win a road game (after the Georgetown game we were 1-4 in true road games); and (b) we had a fatal flaw in that we couldn't defend teams who employed spread offenses (e.g., Wisconsin, NC State, Georgetown) and/or had quick, slashing guards or good big men. Many people gave up on the team entirely after the Georgetown loss, saying "we are what we are," and pointing to our lack of backcourt depth, that our perimeter guys couldn't stay in front of their man, that Jon Scheyer wasn't really a point guard, and that we got absolutely no offense from our bigs, who were also too slow and ham-handed and committed too many fouls and couldn't defend guys like Tracy Smith. No way we could win without a big who could score, they said. It was very pessimistic around here.

MChambers
02-02-2012, 12:43 PM
Yeah, I've been wondering whether some on these boards are a little reluctant to ask folks to consider whether this is just a poorly constructed roster. You know, for a team that's 18-3 against the toughest schedule in the country.

Nobody likes to "criticize" K, obviously for good reason. But maybe it isn't well constructed. You're right. We have three guys out of our top 6 or 7 whose best and most natural position, clearly, is shooting guard. We don't have a real small forward, or one who is ready to play, anyway. We don't have a solid, all-around, ready-to-play-32 minutes-against-the-big-boys point guard who makes us comfortable in relegating one of the natural 2's to an off-the-bench status.

What it adds up to is a roster in which two of the five positions on the floor are being filled by ill-fitting pieces, at least for the way K likes to play.

Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.
I think you raise some good points about the team's weaknesses, but I don't think you can criticize roster construction. College recruiting isn't like being a GM of a professional sports team. You can't just kick players off the roster or trade them (unless you are Calipari or Calhoun).

If Andre had developed more of his game, if Silent G was ready to play major minutes, we wouldn't be worried about the small forward spot. And if Quinn hadn't gotten sick and tweaked his knee, he might well be playing 20 minutes a game now, and no one would be questioning whether Duke had a "natural" point guard.

As others have pointed out, the 2010 roster had its obvious flaws, but Coach K found a way to make it work fairly well. Let's wait to see if he can get this roster to perform a little better, especially on defense.

lmb
02-02-2012, 12:52 PM
Well, OK, I understand. But I think you're looking at it in retrospect. I don't remember too many people explaining away those losses the way you are now. At the time, the theme seemed to be (a) we weren't good enough because we couldn't win a road game (after the Georgetown game we were 1-4 in true road games); and (b) we had a fatal flaw in that we couldn't defend teams who employed spread offenses (e.g., Wisconsin, NC State, Georgetown) and/or had quick, slashing guards or good big men. Many people gave up on the team entirely after the Georgetown loss, saying "we are what we are," and pointing to our lack of backcourt depth, that our perimeter guys couldn't stay in front of their man, that Jon Scheyer wasn't really a point guard, and that we got absolutely no offense from our bigs, who were also too slow and ham-handed and committed too many fouls and couldn't defend guys like Tracy Smith. No way we could win without a big who could score, they said. It was very pessimistic around here.

It is awful fun to look back at 2010. The team did struggle on the road in the regular season but ended up winning two tough tournament games on what were essentially the opponent's home courts to claim the title. Who would have predicted that? Of course, the emergence of Zoubs was key. Others have stated that they don't see anybody on the roster that looks to emerge like that. Well, not many saw Zoubs coming either.

The reality is, it's too early to tell. The next two weeks will make the picture more clear. But at this point, anything can happen and players can improve. I'm not trying to squelch debate, since that's what a board is for, but just stating my opinion.

ChillinDuke
02-02-2012, 12:56 PM
As someone who, early in this thread, stated that I didn't think the team was capable of a Final Four run, I wanted to give ncexnyc some support as he battles the assault that started with his "we are what we are" statement.

There are many ways to handle prognostication, and two of the major buckets are to say that anything is possible (which it generally is) or focus on what is going on at a particular point in time.

I agree with Kedsy and others who say that it's impossible to make sweeping statements about the team's potential to make a deep March run because history suggests that anything is possible, especially the last two years examples of Duke and UConn winning unexpected titles, and Butler playing in 2 consecutive finals, and VCU and Tennessee making FF appearances. We've got one of the best defensive coaches and emotional motivators in the history of the game so if anyone can shore up our defense, it should be K.

As the season moves along, I do prefer to do "point in time" analysis which assesses the team's potential based on the current week. But, because message board postings can't be read for intent, I think it's probably important to qualify statements a bit more, such as, 'as of today, I don't think Duke's a Final Four team'. It seems to be message board culture to only respond to things that one disagrees with, especially certain aspects of long posts. Someone can provide 5 well thought out paragraphs on a particular point, and often the only response will be "you spelled JJ's name wrong". Such is the virtual world we live in. So, I agree that it's too early to say "we are what we are" because there are a lot of tough games to be played and, as a result, a lot of opportunities for our defense to improve. But, as of today, we don't look like a Final Four team, and it's a lot easier to say "we are what we are" then it was after the Ohio State loss. Still, I remind myself that after years of my own complaining that we tend to peak in late December, I have hope that we haven't peaked yet.

As someone who has been on the opposite side of the fence on this topic, I want to express my agreement to an extent.

We don't look like a Final Four team in the sense of Final Four teams that I remember. But there have been plenty of Final Four teams that I don't remember. Perhaps we look like one of those at this point.

Listen, what I (and others) are trying to say is not that this Duke team can and will be a Final Four team this year. Obviously. I'm just trying to keep the conversation grounded. We may flame out early. Or we may win in dominant fashion. Or we may keep winning sneakily and with many doses of Pepto Bismol for our fans.

But again, I agree. As a "point in time" analysis, I would not classify us as a Final Four team right now if asked the question by Congress.

However, I have in no way lost the belief that we can get there. And through reasonable means.

- Chillin

shoutingncu
02-02-2012, 01:56 PM
There's been a lot of comparisons to 2010 and perhaps that season spoiled us into thinking that we can win a championship any year, despite roster deficiencies and blowout losses. We'll just have to see how this season takes shape.

This has been a similar thought of mine, but I thought it may be trolling (or at the very least, backhanded) coming from me.

If 2010 were a model for how to build a championship team, then why don't more teams try to emulate it? Hell, Coach K didn't even want to rely on it, hence the 11th hour push for John Wall, and the disappointment in back-to-back misses on big men. That team had flaws that Coach tried to address before the season started.

What makes that team (and championship) special was that it won in spite of it's roster breakdown, not because of it. Maybe this year's team can, too (shudder, says the Carolina guy), but to me, it almost cheapens (for lack of a better word) the accomplishment of 2010 to think that any team with similar flaws can do the same.

Also... and this is not meant to enrage... but if the team loses, say, four more times before the NCAA's (three regular season, one ACC tournament), and then loses Sweet 16 or before... would it then be okay to say that all along, the team was what it is?

greybeard
02-02-2012, 02:01 PM
And yet our offense has been consistently ranked in the top five nationally all season. I don't think offense is our problem right now.

Perhaps I wan't clear enoug. Most people on the Board put it differently, wishing for, or noting, the absence of "a go to guy." The way I see it, they really have no coherent way to get it to any number of guys who are such guys--Dawkins, Rivers, Curry, Ryan, and Mason, especially when they need to. That to me was the failing coming in; Duke has improved tremendously on that score in my opinion because they finally have been directed to get it into Mason early, often, and in ways that he actually can do something with it beyond taking that power left hook. They, the outside players, might actually have been coached on how to do that. It seems obvious that plays are run to get Mason on the move and to get it to him without a defender drapped all over him. Mason has delivered in such circumstances.


In Coach K's time, Duke has only rarely used four bigs in his rotation. 2010 was an anomaly in that regard. Most years we used three, and some years just two (using a four-out, one-in offense). Yet those other Duke teams played good defense. I don't think the lack of a fourth big is what's causing us problems this season.

I do, AND, AS i SAID, those teams that have been mentioned have had (1) no better record than this one, and (2), by my count, have had much more effective shot blockers, and wing players of size and or athletic ability who were deployed in a manner to play inside-out by dribbling to the foul line, taking a jump shot, kicking to an open three or to begin a two pass rotation to get the three, or attack and finish inside the lane. I said at the time, and I will say it again, I thought that the offensive deployment during those years was perhaps K at his creative best.

McRob was 6'11", had impecable timing, and saved most all his energy his sophomore year playing defense and offensive rebounding. K used his three big outside players and McCloud to funnel opponents into a very effective double team with one of the offside outside players keeping the big on the other team off the board. When Singler was a sophomore he played big, and did a terrific job on the defensive board, astoundingly terrific. Some might argue, count me among them, that he was a better power forward on offense, flashing out for threes often, than a three.

The outside players, Scheyer, G, Nelson, and then Smith all of whom rebounded the ball extremely well, had reaches that clogged the passing lanes, and K would bring in McCloud who could and did do everything on the defensive end and played extraordinarily big on defense and the defensive board. There was Lance, his freshman and was it also his Junior year, and Zoubek his freshman year to help out McRob. Like I said, McCloud was unique and played big. His freshman year he played second fiddle to Shelden who was an All American, a terrific scorer, who tired out the other team's bigs who tried to guard him (he touched it inside almost everytime down) and had great timing as a shot blocker, on-ball and help defender, and defensive rebounder. All American present differently and McRob gave Duke a terrific second big. It also didn't hurt that Sheldon played with the guy whom I think was the best college jump shooter, and shooter with range, perhaps ever.


Mason has only had as many as four fouls three times this season -- against Michigan, Clemson, and Florida State. It might have been troublesome to the team in the Florida State game, but not the others. Mason had three fouls against Ohio State, two fouls against St. John's, and only one against Temple. Miles has had as many as four fouls three times this season -- against Davidson, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. It may have affected the closeness of the game against Virginia, but probably not the others. He had one foul against Ohio State, three fouls against St. John's, and zero against Temple. Ryan Kelly has had as many as four fouls twice this season -- against Maryland and Florida State. He had one foul against Ohio State, three fouls against Temple, and two against St. John's.[/Quote/]

So other than the Florida State game, our bigs have not been in foul trouble this season. To describe them as "often foul troubled bigs" is entirely inaccurate. They haven't looked tired to me, either, but obviously I don't have stats for that.

Well, let's deconstruct this, shall we. First and foremost, REST, especially for Mason and especially early in the games and beginning of second halves. He seems to me to be head and shoulders the team's best offensive and defensive rebounder, the strongest big defender, the creater of run outs off defensive rebounds and plays. He also has run out of gas.

Duke has lost only three games this year, but, as others have lamented, has had trouble holding onto leads and or causing meaningful separation down the stretch. We have seen Ryan, a terrific ball handler, bouncing it off his knees, feet and other body parts including his hands while doing what would otherwise be a piece of cake down the stretch, NOT LOSING THE BALL. He at times down the stretch have thrown some truly attrocious passes.

The Temple game was lost, in my view, because Duke had no game to get it into Mason and in part because Mason tired badly down he stretch.

Teams have now committed to stopping the three ball and conceding Mason and te oher bigs one-on-one play. Only Mason has been deployed to capitalize on it. So, Duke has only one inside ofensive player and who also is the lone big who can dominate on the defensive end and defensive board. Miles does a very credible job, but there too often seems to be a but. Ryan could be fresher with more rest and being used as a high-post pivot (distributer/scorer). He is, however, deployed as often as a three, and I think that that often tires him out.

If a big gets 2 fouls early, he sits a whole lot in the first half, and, when on the floor, plays guardedly, which is to say less effectively, and in a manner that takes much more energy than letting it go--like trying to walk down a mountain instead of bound.

If K puts one of the bigs in the game and he doesn't play to well, the guy who needs a rest doesn't get it. The same with an early third in the second. Should Mason make a couple of bad plays, or needs a blow, in a tightly contested game and the outside offense stalls, he is back in. There have been times down the stretch when he is a step, usually two, slow in getting position for a defensive rebound and lacks his usual elevation.

Miles is at his best offensively, by far, when he is on the court with his brother and gets to play away from the basket. Duke uses neither Miles nor Ryan as a serious inside threat whether Mason is in the game or not.

I think that the absence of a fourth big puts way too much pressure on Mason and causes him to have to play more minutes and more cautiously than K would want. I also think that Duke needs another offensive weapon inside, that that weapon could be Ryan as a face to the basket offensive pivot, but that he is often needed to guard those threes who can shoot mid range over Duke's exterior players. Since he is currently also often deployed on offense as an off side low post presence rebounder, he tires and is less effective on the defensive board as the game wears on.

Teams who commit to stopping the three and have an inside game that collectively can outscore Mason on the inside will give Duke trouble. A fourth big would help, especially a tall shot blocker, rebounder to allow Mason to conserve energy for offense.

On the other hand, you might well be right, that Duke is not short-handed inside. We'll have to look more closely and see.

greybeard
02-02-2012, 02:07 PM
[QUOTE=Kedsy;547195]"And yet our offense has been consistently ranked in the top five nationally all season. I don't think offense is our problem right now."K likes to take a guy out after one, certainly a second mistake. He has to be much more creative in his deployment of his bigs than I think he would like to be.

ME: Perhaps I wan't clear enoug. Most people on the Board put it differently, wishing for, or noting, the absence of "a go to guy." The way I see it, they really have no coherent way to get it to any number of guys who are such guys--Dawkins, Rivers, Curry, Ryan, and Mason, especially when they need to. That to me was the failing coming in; Duke has improved tremendously on that score in my opinion because they finally have been directed to get it into Mason early, often, and in ways that he actually can do something with it beyond taking that power left hook. They, the outside players, might actually have been coached on how to do that. It seems obvious that plays are run to get Mason on the move and to get it to him without a defender drapped all over him. Mason has delivered in such circumstances.


[QUOTE=Kedsy;547195]In Coach K's time, Duke has only rarely used four bigs in his rotation. 2010 was an anomaly in that regard. Most years we used three, and some years just two (using a four-out, one-in offense). Yet those other Duke teams played good defense. I don't think the lack of a fourth big is what's causing us problems this season.[/quote.]

ME: I do, AND, AS i SAID, those teams that have been mentioned have had (1) no better record than this one, and (2), by my count, have had much more effective shot blockers, and wing players of size and or athletic ability who were deployed in a manner to play inside-out by dribbling to the foul line, taking a jump shot, kicking to an open three or to begin a two pass rotation to get the three, or attack and finish inside the lane. I said at the time, and I will say it again, I thought that the offensive deployment during those years was perhaps K at his creative best.

McRob was 6'11", had impecable timing, and saved most all his energy his sophomore year playing defense and offensive rebounding. K used his three big outside players and McCloud to funnel opponents into a very effective double team with one of the offside outside players keeping the big on the other team off the board. When Singler was a sophomore he played big, and did a terrific job on the defensive board, astoundingly terrific. Some might argue, count me among them, that he was a better power forward on offense, flashing out for threes often, than a three.

The outside players, Scheyer, G, Nelson, and then Smith all of whom rebounded the ball extremely well, had reaches that clogged the passing lanes, and K would bring in McCloud who could and did do everything on the defensive end and played extraordinarily big on defense and the defensive board. There was Lance, his freshman and was it also his Junior year, and Zoubek his freshman year to help out McRob. Like I said, McCloud was unique and played big. His freshman year he played second fiddle to Shelden who was an All American, a terrific scorer, who tired out the other team's bigs who tried to guard him (he touched it inside almost everytime down) and had great timing as a shot blocker, on-ball and help defender, and defensive rebounder. All American present differently and McRob gave Duke a terrific second big. It also didn't hurt that Sheldon played with the guy whom I think was the best college jump shooter, and shooter with range, perhaps ever.


Mason has only had as many as four fouls three times this season -- against Michigan, Clemson, and Florida State. It might have been troublesome to the team in the Florida State game, but not the others. Mason had three fouls against Ohio State, two fouls against St. John's, and only one against Temple. Miles has had as many as four fouls three times this season -- against Davidson, Georgia Tech, and Virginia. It may have affected the closeness of the game against Virginia, but probably not the others. He had one foul against Ohio State, three fouls against St. John's, and zero against Temple. Ryan Kelly has had as many as four fouls twice this season -- against Maryland and Florida State. He had one foul against Ohio State, three fouls against Temple, and two against St. John's.

So other than the Florida State game, our bigs have not been in foul trouble this season. To describe them as "often foul troubled bigs" is entirely inaccurate. They haven't looked tired to me, either, but obviously I don't have stats for that.

ME: Well, let's deconstruct this, shall we. First and foremost, REST, especially for Mason and especially early in the games and beginning of second halves. He seems to me to be head and shoulders the team's best offensive and defensive rebounder, the strongest big defender, the creater of run outs off defensive rebounds and plays. He also has run out of gas.

Duke has lost only three games this year, but, as others have lamented, has had trouble holding onto leads and or causing meaningful separation down the stretch. We have seen Ryan, a terrific ball handler, bouncing it off his knees, feet and other body parts including his hands while doing what would otherwise be a piece of cake down the stretch, NOT LOSING THE BALL. He at times down the stretch have thrown some truly attrocious passes.

The Temple game was lost, in my view, because Duke had no game to get it into Mason and in part because Mason tired badly down he stretch.

Teams have now committed to stopping the three ball and conceding Mason and te oher bigs one-on-one play. Only Mason has been deployed to capitalize on it. So, Duke has only one inside ofensive player and who also is the lone big who can dominate on the defensive end and defensive board. Miles does a very credible job, but there too often seems to be a but. Ryan could be fresher with more rest and being used as a high-post pivot (distributer/scorer). He is, however, deployed as often as a three, and I think that that often tires him out.

If a big gets 2 fouls early, he sits a whole lot in the first half, and, when on the floor, plays guardedly, which is to say less effectively, and in a manner that takes much more energy than letting it go--like trying to walk down a mountain instead of bound.

If K puts one of the bigs in the game and he doesn't play to well, the guy who needs a rest doesn't get it. The same with an early third in the second. Should Mason make a couple of bad plays, or needs a blow, in a tightly contested game and the outside offense stalls, he is back in. There have been times down the stretch when he is a step, usually two, slow in getting position for a defensive rebound and lacks his usual elevation.

Miles is at his best offensively, by far, when he is on the court with his brother and gets to play away from the basket. Duke uses neither Miles nor Ryan as a serious inside threat whether Mason is in the game or not.

I think that the absence of a fourth big puts way too much pressure on Mason and causes him to have to play more minutes and more cautiously than K would want. I also think that Duke needs another offensive weapon inside, that that weapon could be Ryan as a face to the basket offensive pivot, but that he is often needed to guard those threes who can shoot mid range over Duke's exterior players. Since he is currently also often deployed on offense as an off side low post presence rebounder, he tires and is less effective on the defensive board as the game wears on.

Teams who commit to stopping the three and have an inside game that collectively can outscore Mason on the inside will give Duke trouble. A fourth big would help, especially a tall shot blocker, rebounder to allow Mason to conserve energy for offense.

On the other hand, you might well be right, that Duke is not short-handed inside. We'll have to look more closely and see.

UrinalCake
02-02-2012, 02:11 PM
Rather than wishing for a fourth big man to emerge, a better way of looking at it might be to hope for Miles to increase his production. That's a far more likely scenario IMO - he's shown glimpses of being effective on offense and can be solid defensively. He and Mason play well together. If he could grab a few more minutes and be more than an afterthought offensively while he's in there, that would get us a long way towards what I think you're hoping for.

greybeard
02-02-2012, 02:15 PM
[

Rather than wishing for a fourth big man to emerge, a better way of looking at it might be to hope for Miles to increase his production. That's a far more likely scenario IMO - he's shown glimpses of being effective on offense and can be solid defensively. He and Mason play well together. If he could grab a few more minutes and be more than an afterthought offensively while he's in there, that would get us a long way towards what I think you're hoping for.

Good suggestion, very. I enjoy this team, and think that Miles might well be primed to do his thing, which might be scary good.

Greg_Newton
02-02-2012, 02:53 PM
What makes that team (and championship) special was that it won in spite of it's roster breakdown, not because of it. Maybe this year's team can, too (shudder, says the Carolina guy), but to me, it almost cheapens (for lack of a better word) the accomplishment of 2010 to think that any team with similar flaws can do the same.

Great post. I sure wonder how the collect perspective and general basketball views of some would be different if, say, Dre's threes against Butler had bounced out and we'd lost... which is kind of crazy, if you think about it.

Kedsy
02-02-2012, 03:10 PM
What makes that team (and championship) special was that it won in spite of it's roster breakdown, not because of it. Maybe this year's team can, too (shudder, says the Carolina guy), but to me, it almost cheapens (for lack of a better word) the accomplishment of 2010 to think that any team with similar flaws can do the same.

This is absolutely right. I brought up the 2010 team not to suggest that every team built like that team will win the championship. Simply to say that at this point in the season it is foolish to assume a team "is what it is."

UrinalCake
02-02-2012, 03:38 PM
Great post. I sure wonder how the collect perspective and general basketball views of some would be different if, say, Dre's threes against Butler had bounced out and we'd lost... which is kind of crazy, if you think about it.

I think you meant Baylor, and yes we were very close to losing that game. That happens and we hear the same arguments about how Duke doesn't have athletes, is always overrated in the tournament, etc.

Greg_Newton
02-02-2012, 03:58 PM
Doh, you're right - I meant to type Baylor.

I think the flip side of what you said is that Duke fans as a whole have sort of convinced themselves that pure athleticism and physical talent isn't very important, because, "2010!" (Of course, that may have been our most all-around physically gifted team, man-for-man, of the last few years, but that's another conversation...)

I think the truth probably lies somewhere in-between the annual Gottliebish write-offs of our squads and the 2010-induced comfort we fall back on when we don't look quite as athletic as our competition.

Wander
02-02-2012, 04:17 PM
As others have pointed out, the 2010 roster had its obvious flaws, but Coach K found a way to make it work fairly well.

The flaws were not the kind of flaws that tommy and I are talking about, though.

For a fan base that generally likes to think positions don't matter that much, it sure is funny that our best and most successful team of the last decade used the incredibly traditional lineup of guard, guard, forward, forward, center.

Wander
02-02-2012, 04:28 PM
Whether anyone wants to attribute this to recruiting misses, bad luck, worse-than-expected play by this player or that, it does seem to me that the way this roster is constructed is making it hard for K to find combinations that allow us to play in a way that he is comfortable with, at least for stretches of any significant length.

Yeah, just to be clear, I don't "blame" anyone - the staff I think predicted someone of this and brought in a true forward a year early, after all. But whatever weirdness involved with Murphy's red shirt and Quinn's injury have hurt us. It's fine. These things happen, you can't predict everything, and no one can be a national title favorite every year. The fact that years where Duke is a Sweet 16ish team are "down" years is awesome.

MChambers
02-02-2012, 04:39 PM
The flaws were not the kind of flaws that tommy and I are talking about, though.

For a fan base that generally likes to think positions don't matter that much, it sure is funny that our best and most successful team of the last decade used the incredibly traditional lineup of guard, guard, forward, forward, center.
Well, much of the 2010 season here was spent arguing as to whether we could win without a natural point guard. I think you and Tommy are concerned about that this season, no?

And, to be fair, I was very skeptical that Duke could be successful on defense with such a big, slow team. I pointed to the 1990 team, which had a twin towers approach, and had only a fair season by Coach K standards, but rallied to make the Final Four.

I'm not saying you two are completely wrong, but Coach K is a master at adjusting his strategy to fit his team. Probably the greatest in history at that.

throatybeard
02-02-2012, 09:56 PM
It's just a goofy roster with serious overlap and not enough diversity. Still, we are 18-3 but in some instances it's been a painful 18-3.

19-3. (.863). I can't even communicate to you my personal agony at the pain and ignominy of having to root for a basketball team with an 86% winning percentage. It's hard even showing my face around the community up here in the so-called Midwest. Painful. Mizzou ranked above us. The horror. I'm going to start trumpeting my NC State affiliation and hiding my Duke affiliation. Because of the pain.

Oh, wait.

UrinalCake
02-02-2012, 10:34 PM
For a fan base that generally likes to think positions don't matter that much, it sure is funny that our best and most successful team of the last decade used the incredibly traditional lineup of guard, guard, forward, forward, center.

I think it went more like shooting guard, shooting guard, power forward, power forward, center. Off the bench we had another shooting guard, then a power forward and center. The guy we had playing point guard was three inches taller than the shooting guard, and the small forward was the same height as the power forward and probably heavier. I'd hardly call that a traditional lineup. What made it work is that we used the versatility to our advantage. And everyone played defense like crazy.

shoutingncu
02-03-2012, 01:34 AM
It's hard even showing my face around the community up here in the so-called Midwest. Painful. Mizzou ranked above us. The horror.

I work for Mizzou. I feel your "pain." Rock Chalk, baby!

greybeard
02-03-2012, 01:50 AM
There ill b no replication of the 2010 team, I believe ever. Why? The reason that they won was the WAY Zoubek was deployed on offense and the determination and smarts he brought to a role that destroyed most defenses deployed by coaches who had never seen anything like it, could not come close to replicating it in practice, and were beat to death by a big and strong 7 footer sprinting around the exterior, setting screen after screen to free one of three outstanding shooters for a three or an easy layup. Zoubek's offensive game also brought the other team's big away from the defensive board and a shot blocking position, and made him sprint to chase Zoubek around lest a screen work and the big not be there to show--if the big was late, boom goes the dynamite, the open three is off, and Zoubek, virtually unguarded would sprint to the offensive board and get more than his share of rebounds only to throw it out to a well chosen step in three, which is as good as a three as one can get.

So, what brought Duke a Championship was a tall kid who arrived at Duke with the real makings of an on-the-move inside receiver/scorer, and was discounted by everyone thereafter as a bust. Zoubek was not taking that label, and made himself the focal point of an offense the likes of which no one could have imagined (I know, K designed the system, but he could have had no idea what Zoubek would make of it). Having MADE his place irreplaceable on offense, Zoubek became a controlled shot blocker, inside and help defender, and defensive rebounder. He was a key presemce on the defensive end. And, what made Zoubek's dedication to what I used to call his pulling-guard role all the more astounding is that he proved himself more than capable to score inside when given a well-timed pass that he caught with soft hands on the move, aka, the first few minutes of the Championship game.

Sorry, sports fans, "He bestrode the world like a collosus . . . . This was a Caeser, when comes such another."

tommy
02-03-2012, 02:20 AM
There ill b no replication of the 2010 team, I believe ever. Why? The reason that they won was the WAY Zoubek was deployed on offense and the determination and smarts he brought to a role that destroyed most defenses deployed by coaches who had never seen anything like it, could not come close to replicating it in practice, and were beat to death by a big and strong 7 footer sprinting around the exterior, setting screen after screen to free one of three outstanding shooters for a three or an easy layup. Zoubek's offensive game also brought the other team's big away from the defensive board and a shot blocking position, and made him sprint to chase Zoubek around lest a screen work and the big not be there to show--if the big was late, boom goes the dynamite, the open three is off, and Zoubek, virtually unguarded would sprint to the offensive board and get more than his share of rebounds only to throw it out to a well chosen step in three, which is as good as a three as one can get.

So, what brought Duke a Championship was a tall kid who arrived at Duke with the real makings of an on-the-move inside receiver/scorer, and was discounted by everyone thereafter as a bust. Zoubek was not taking that label, and made himself the focal point of an offense the likes of which no one could have imagined (I know, K designed the system, but he could have had no idea what Zoubek would make of it). Having MADE his place irreplaceable on offense, Zoubek became a controlled shot blocker, inside and help defender, and defensive rebounder. He was a key presemce on the defensive end. And, what made Zoubek's dedication to what I used to call his pulling-guard role all the more astounding is that he proved himself more than capable to score inside when given a well-timed pass that he caught with soft hands on the move, aka, the first few minutes of the Championship game.

Sorry, sports fans, "He bestrode the world like a collosus . . . . This was a Caeser, when comes such another."

Wow. It's amazing that Coach K even permitted Nolan Smith, Jon Scheyer, and Kyle Singler to dress in the same locker room with this God-among-men that you describe.

Richard Berg
02-03-2012, 03:01 AM
Teams have now committed to stopping the three ball and conceding Mason and te oher bigs one-on-one play. Only Mason has been deployed to capitalize on it. So, Duke has only one inside ofensive player and who also is the lone big who can dominate on the defensive end and defensive board. Miles does a very credible job, but there too often seems to be a but. Ryan could be fresher with more rest and being used as a high-post pivot (distributer/scorer).
I do love watching this style of offense. Someone mentioned Hibbert...but considering we don't have any 7-2 bangers, Ilian Evtimov is a better comparison. When he manned the pivot and his teammates were "on", those old NC State teams were really hard to stop (they beat our highly talented 2004 squad, for instance).

Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of stationing a different guy in the high post. We'd have to rejigger essentially our entire offensive scheme. Furthermore, Ryan is the only credible candidate; Miles is not a shooting threat nor quick/savvy enough with the ball. Not sure it's worth so much effort just to accomodate our 4th (-ish?) best player.

Devilsfan
02-03-2012, 09:19 AM
Has anyone else noticed the similarities of Austin's game and the characteristics of NBA play?

COYS
02-03-2012, 09:29 AM
Has anyone else noticed the similarities of Austin's game and the characteristics of NBA play?

You mean consistently draining NBA three's? Or the killer crossovers?

I get your point, though. However, I think the best NBA play for Austin will be the pick n' roll. With his shooting and driving ability, he has the potential to be unstoppable. However, his timing and decision making with Mason and the other Duke bigs in this department is still a bit raw. Plus, he needs to add a midrange pull-up to his arsenal to make that play more effective at the next level. Either way, it is nice to see Austin's progression. He's become one of our most consistent (possibly the best) defenders. He's getting better and better operating off the ball and makes better decisions with the ball in his hands. It's a good sign for Duke as a whole if our star freshman can continue to play at this level (not that he was bad before!).

Devilsfan
02-03-2012, 12:31 PM
Thanks. Every BB fan anywhere can clearly see he's very talented! It's just that "you can't spell his name without a couple of Is.". Duke has always been about WE and it's taking a long time to see him come around to the proven Duke way, IMO.

JNort
02-03-2012, 12:37 PM
Well he has gotten 5 assists in each of the last 2 games so I think he is doing fairly well as a team player. The last game even showed his improvement in passing the ball around, looking up when driving, cutting down on the stupid shots, and he was hustling out there on offense and defense. I think your comments at the moment are unwarranted, earlier in the year I would have agreed. Even his post game comments were good "Everybody's so unselfish now and it makes everything fun".

devildeac
02-03-2012, 01:00 PM
Well he has gotten 5 assists in each of the last 2 games so I think he is doing fairly well as a team player. The last game even showed his improvement in passing the ball around, looking up when driving, cutting down on the stupid shots, and he was hustling out there on offense and defense. I think your comments at the moment are unwarranted, earlier in the year I would have agreed. Even his post game comments were good "Everybody's so unselfish now and it makes everything fun".
Plus, if Seth/Tyler and/or Dre had hit their open shots (not a criticism, just an observation) in the last couple games, we might be talking about Rivers having 6-7 assists in each of those games. Very nice progression of his already outstanding talents.

JNort
02-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Plus, if Seth/Tyler and/or Dre had hit their open shots (not a criticism, just an observation) in the last couple games, we might be talking about Rivers having 6-7 assists in each of those games. Very nice progression of his already outstanding talents.

Most definitely! Also does anyone remember back in China/Dubai when Rivers did not get back on defense after a turnover? Seems so far away now especially after last night when he got back and made the stop in a 2 on 1 break.

Devilsfan
02-03-2012, 01:35 PM
I guess the stories out of China many of which I heard first hand from people in attendance about his actions may have tainted my outlook. I will be as happy as anyone if he is able to maintain his play in the last two games for the remainder of the season. Go Devils!

greybeard
02-04-2012, 02:28 AM
Wow. It's amazing that Coach K even permitted Nolan Smith, Jon Scheyer, and Kyle Singler to dress in the same locker room with this God-among-men that you describe.

If I remeberf correctly, Singler, Nolan, G and the Plumlees didn't fair nearly as well the next year. Nor did a team that had Sheldon, JJ, McRoberts, and who were the other guards--they could play, no? By the way, I have it from the horse's mouth that when my theory was put to K after Duke won it all he just broke into a big grin. And, notwithstanding the Bob Ryan's of the world, I called Duke's going deep and a likely candidate to win it all precisely because of Z's unique roll on offense and the astounding way he embraced and executed it. I was right then and I am right now.

I'm not saying that the players you mention were not terrific. What made them unstoppable was Z and the role he embraced with ferosity and smarts. It softened other team's bigs, and took and kept the other team's best shotblocker and rebounders away from the basket and kept them there. Now, people talk alot about the pick and roll or the pick and pop. Who talks about one screen, then another, then another--all outside the three line, in a wide variety of sequences and timing, depending where the ball and other players on the court were. By the way, how do you defend a big who sets a screen, but neither rolls nor pops, but rather lays back or proceeds immediately to another area of the court in preparation of a well timed next screen? Anyone have answers? Where where does the show defender go, how do the rest of the defenders rotate to stop the role and, if they don't rotate, whose their to stop the outside player coming off the screen and taking it to the rim. And, how do you account for Z sprinting to the rim and beating his defender who by that time is both confused and tired, and is territory that he has never had to patrol for as long as a possession lasts? Now, without the help big in the middle, and without all the practicing of different rotations off a pick and pop or pick and roll, is it really surprising that Nolan, Scheyer and Singler had lots of easy runs at the basket and lots of open threes?

We haven't yet begun to speak of Zoubek's role on defnse. If you're a penetrator, how would you like slamming into a seven footer with the mass of muscle Z displayed his senior year, and encounter a guy over whom he simply could not shoot, certainly nothing resembling a normal shot. And you move quickly for a rebound or dart in from outside, and Z turns and goes for the ball and you slam into him, please. And, there is a 6'9" center who is used to backing a defender down only he has to work like crazy to make any progress against Z, and then confront a defender who doesn't have to jump and his hands reach higher than your release point on your jump shot. And, then there is the amazing synchronicty between Z and Lance on defense, how each knew when the other was about to get beat, would slide over to meet the guy with the ball, while the other retreated to take the help defender's guy. This from a 7'1" guy who had to be among the most muscled centers in the game and as smart a player as there was on the court.

Without Z, the 2010 team would have won lots of games, but would, in my view, been no different than the other Duke teams in the past number of years. You think differently, that's what makes horse races.

Nope, without Z, the 2010 team was the same as the ones that preceded and followed it. Terrific to watch, exciting, wonderfully successful, but in the end early outs. Duke was not an early out because their offense was impossible to shut down, and it was impossible to shut down because no one had seen anything like it before and there were no answers. And, when Z needed a blow, how would you like to see subs like the Plumlees come in to bang people around and rebound the ball, and set screens (not nearly as effective as Z's, even today not in the same universe as Z's).

Olympic Fan
02-04-2012, 11:41 AM
Thanks. Every BB fan anywhere can clearly see he's very talented! It's just that "you can't spell his name without a couple of Is.". Duke has always been about WE and it's taking a long time to see him come around to the proven Duke way, IMO.

I'm sorry, but this smear irritates me to no end. It has become mantra on UNC and Kentucky boards -- that Austin is a selfish player. It's one of those myths like "Duke gets all the calls" or "K never plays anybody out of conference" or (the new one) "the NCAA always gives Duke an easy path to the Final Four)."

Where does this smear come from?

From the very beginning, Coach K has asked Austin to be one of the team's main scoring options ... but Austin has always been anxious to set up his teammates. He had six assists in his second game. He's going to have more assists as a freshman that Kyle Singler (he had 48 ... Austin already has 47) or Jon Scheyer (51), JJ Redick (58) or Trajan Langdon (also 48) -- just to name four wings who saw comparable minutes. He'll also have more than guys like Nolan Smith or Daniel Ewing, who played a lot less in their first year. Were those all selfish players?

Then there is his defense ... he told us easlier this year that one of the reasons he came to Duke was to learn defense from Coach K. His defense -- like many Duke players this year -- has been erratic. But DBR posted a link a week ago to the ACC Sports Journal which included a defensive breakdown on the team and concluded that Austin had the best defensive plus/minus numbers on the team. I don't buy that. but last week Coach K was asked about his defense and he said Austin had played very good defense at times ... and he was doing it more often.

I just don't see the selfishness. If anything, he's trying too hard to be unselfish. Late in the FSU game, when FSU got the lead for the first time, he drove the lane -- but kicked out to Seth for the open 3. Seth missed it and Duke had to foul. We came back down and this time Austin kept it himself and made the game-tying layup with under 10 seconds left. Against St. John's, he scored back-to-back driving layups when things got tight -- but in the same sequence, he set up Dawkins and Curry for open jumpers -- which they missed.

Please, please ... we don't need Duke fans spreading this UNC/Kentucky lie. Rivers isn't the polished college player that Kyrie was before his injury. He's a talented freshman, trying to fit his game to the demands of the college game. That includes making decisions on when to keep it on the drive and when to kick out. He's made some bad decisions at times, but I don't see how that reflects selfishness -- a large share of the bad decisions were when he passed it out when he should have tried to finish. He is not -- and has never been at Duke -- a selfish player.

PS: In 37 games, Harrison Barnes had 53 assists last season (and averaged 13.5 shots per game, hitting 42 percent) ... Austin has 47 assists in 22 games (and has averaged just under 11.0 shots a game, hitting 44.6 percent). So does that make Harrison Barnes a selfish player?

tommy
02-04-2012, 02:47 PM
I'm sorry, but this smear irritates me to no end. It has become mantra on UNC and Kentucky boards -- that Austin is a selfish player. It's one of those myths like "Duke gets all the calls" or "K never plays anybody out of conference" or (the new one) "the NCAA always gives Duke an easy path to the Final Four)."

Where does this smear come from?

Agree with you. Where does it come from? I think it goes something like this:

Austin comes from a very comfortable family. Comfortable = privilege.

In high school, he had the ball in his hands all the time, nobody could come close to staying with him, so he shot the ball a lot, and his moves were (and remain) flashy. Fair or not, flashy translates for some people into "me" or "me first." When combined with how many shots he took, that fed into a perception of "me" or "me first." (the reality is that most high school stars are so much better than their teammates that they take most of the shots too.)

Then a guy who folks might already be prone to think is a "me first" player, and who comes from privilege, enrolls at a school like Duke, who many sneer at as being privileged an elitist anyway, and it reinforces the preconceived notion that he is "me" or "me first" and selfish. I just don't see any way the media and opposing fans would have the same opinion of him, certainly not as strongly, if he was playing at Florida.

And far be it from most of these people to actually watch him play. Cuz while he has had a tendency to overpenetrate and take unnecessarily tough shots when his drives get cut off, that doesn't make him selfish, it makes him a kid who needs to learn to see open teammates when he gets cut off. And of course anyone watching this team play knows that Austin has made great strides in that area over the last several weeks.

The assumption too is that an entitled, privileged kid can't possibly be a good defensive player. That has been disproven already as well, again as anyone who closely watches these games could tell you.

BluDvlsN1
02-04-2012, 03:01 PM
I posted this yesterday on the may or may not thread, but given the previous post's here I'm reposting just in case it may have been missed!

It's a phone interview the other day with Austin and goes a long way in letting him explain! himself and the journey he has been and is,on!

I'm attaching a link to the article!

I think it tells a lot about him and how he thinks!


http://www.roanoke.com/sports/acc/wb/304279

ricks68
02-04-2012, 03:08 PM
I'm sorry, but this smear irritates me to no end. It has become mantra on UNC and Kentucky boards -- that Austin is a selfish player. It's one of those myths like "Duke gets all the calls" or "K never plays anybody out of conference" or (the new one) "the NCAA always gives Duke an easy path to the Final Four)."

Where does this smear come from?

From the very beginning, Coach K has asked Austin to be one of the team's main scoring options ... but Austin has always been anxious to set up his teammates. He had six assists in his second game. He's going to have more assists as a freshman that Kyle Singler (he had 48 ... Austin already has 47) or Jon Scheyer (51), JJ Redick (58) or Trajan Langdon (also 48) -- just to name four wings who saw comparable minutes. He'll also have more than guys like Nolan Smith or Daniel Ewing, who played a lot less in their first year. Were those all selfish players?

Then there is his defense ... he told us easlier this year that one of the reasons he came to Duke was to learn defense from Coach K. His defense -- like many Duke players this year -- has been erratic. But DBR posted a link a week ago to the ACC Sports Journal which included a defensive breakdown on the team and concluded that Austin had the best defensive plus/minus numbers on the team. I don't buy that. but last week Coach K was asked about his defense and he said Austin had played very good defense at times ... and he was doing it more often.

I just don't see the selfishness. If anything, he's trying too hard to be unselfish. Late in the FSU game, when FSU got the lead for the first time, he drove the lane -- but kicked out to Seth for the open 3. Seth missed it and Duke had to foul. We came back down and this time Austin kept it himself and made the game-tying layup with under 10 seconds left. Against St. John's, he scored back-to-back driving layups when things got tight -- but in the same sequence, he set up Dawkins and Curry for open jumpers -- which they missed.

Please, please ... we don't need Duke fans spreading this UNC/Kentucky lie. Rivers isn't the polished college player that Kyrie was before his injury. He's a talented freshman, trying to fit his game to the demands of the college game. That includes making decisions on when to keep it on the drive and when to kick out. He's made some bad decisions at times, but I don't see how that reflects selfishness -- a large share of the bad decisions were when he passed it out when he should have tried to finish. He is not -- and has never been at Duke -- a selfish player.

PS: In 37 games, Harrison Barnes had 53 assists last season (and averaged 13.5 shots per game, hitting 42 percent) ... Austin has 47 assists in 22 games (and has averaged just under 11.0 shots a game, hitting 44.6 percent). So does that make Harrison Barnes a selfish player?

As usual, I gotta go with Olympic Fan again. I have noticed the same thing about Rivers. He appears to be a really good kid who is really cooperative and very into learning from both his coaches and teammates. I have also noticed that he really appears to be "growing" on his team, so to speak. There seems to be more positive reactions from others on the team towards his efforts during the games. I think that he is just one of a number of past players that we have had that sometimes get maligned due to them often "wearing their emotions on their sleeves".

ricks

NSDukeFan
02-04-2012, 04:54 PM
If I remeberf correctly, Singler, Nolan, G and the Plumlees didn't fair nearly as well the next year. Nor did a team that had Sheldon, JJ, McRoberts, and who were the other guards--they could play, no? By the way, I have it from the horse's mouth that when my theory was put to K after Duke won it all he just broke into a big grin. And, notwithstanding the Bob Ryan's of the world, I called Duke's going deep and a likely candidate to win it all precisely because of Z's unique roll on offense and the astounding way he embraced and executed it. I was right then and I am right now.
I don't believe that one tournament loss should be the sole determinant of the success of a season. Singler, Nolan and the Plumlees did fair as well the next year, even though they did lose 3 senior starters in Lance, Zoubs, and Scheyer. That team entered the NCAA tournament with a pre-season tournament championship, an ACC title and a 30-4 record. Zoubs' title team entered the tournament with a pre-season championship, an ACC title and a 29-5 record. Unfortunately, in Smith and Singler's senior year, getting Kyrie back involved in the team didn't go as smoothly as hoped, but I think it is a stretch to say that team didn't fair well, one game against a hot-shooting Arizona not-withstanding.


...[Great points about how Zoubek changed the collection of the championship team]...
Without Z, the 2010 team would have won lots of games, but would, in my view, been no different than the other Duke teams in the past number of years. You think differently, that's what makes horse races.

Nope, without Z, the 2010 team was the same as the ones that preceded and followed it. Terrific to watch, exciting, wonderfully successful, but in the end early outs. Duke was not an early out because their offense was impossible to shut down, and it was impossible to shut down because no one had seen anything like it before and there were no answers. And, when Z needed a blow, how would you like to see subs like the Plumlees come in to bang people around and rebound the ball, and set screens (not nearly as effective as Z's, even today not in the same universe as Z's).

I agree Zoubek added a whole dimension to the championship team, but I don't think we should draw too many conclusions about how much better it was than the next year's team because of the Arizona game.

tommy
02-04-2012, 07:53 PM
Nope, without Z, the 2010 team was the same as the ones that preceded and followed it. Terrific to watch, exciting, wonderfully successful, but in the end early outs. Duke was not an early out because their offense was impossible to shut down, and it was impossible to shut down because no one had seen anything like it before and there were no answers.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your larger point, that Z was an integral part of the team's success down the stretch in 2010, that Duke had not previously played the style we employed with him in the lineup, that he was extremely effective in his role, both offensively and defensively, and that we love Z, and of course have fond memories of that team and that run.

But I do think you're mythologizing this guy to the point where it's almost becoming cartoonish. He wasn't the second coming of Bill Walton or Bill Russell.

Just a few facts. From the first game he started, which was against Maryland on February 13, 2010, through the finals against Butler, Zoubek only averaged a little less than 24 minutes per game. Kyle, Nolan, and Jon were ALL routinely playing 38, 39, even all 40 minutes. No less than 35 per game by any of them.

With Z as a starter, the team averaged 71 points per game the rest of the year. In the 3 games we played in the ACC tournament, we averaged 66. In the six NCAA games, it was 71 ppg. Hardly the "impossible to shut down" offense you seem to remember. In the games that year that preceded Maryland, the team was averaging 80. Yes, we averaged less after the lineup change than we had been averaging before the change.

So yes, Zoubek was an indispensable cog in the machine that that team became. We wouldn't have won it without him, no question. But it is likewise 100% true that we don't win that championship without Kyle Singler. We don't win it without Nolan Smith. And we don't win it without Jon Scheyer. A strong case could be made that we don't win it without Lance Thomas too.

I'm not sure where or why the mythologizing of Zoubek is coming from. Just a little reality check here.

greybeard
02-04-2012, 11:06 PM
I don't think anyone would disagree with your larger point, that Z was an integral part of the team's success down the stretch in 2010, that Duke had not previously played the style we employed with him in the lineup, that he was extremely effective in his role, both offensively and defensively, and that we love Z, and of course have fond memories of that team and that run.

But I do think you're mythologizing this guy to the point where it's almost becoming cartoonish. He wasn't the second coming of Bill Walton or Bill Russell.

Just a few facts. From the first game he started, which was against Maryland on February 13, 2010, through the finals against Butler, Zoubek only averaged a little less than 24 minutes per game. Kyle, Nolan, and Jon were ALL routinely playing 38, 39, even all 40 minutes. No less than 35 per game by any of them.

With Z as a starter, the team averaged 71 points per game the rest of the year. In the 3 games we played in the ACC tournament, we averaged 66. In the six NCAA games, it was 71 ppg. Hardly the "impossible to shut down" offense you seem to remember. In the games that year that preceded Maryland, the team was averaging 80. Yes, we averaged less after the lineup change than we had been averaging before the change.

So yes, Zoubek was an indispensable cog in the machine that that team became. We wouldn't have won it without him, no question. But it is likewise 100% true that we don't win that championship without Kyle Singler. We don't win it without Nolan Smith. And we don't win it without Jon Scheyer. A strong case could be made that we don't win it without Lance Thomas too.

I'm not sure where or why the mythologizing of Zoubek is coming from. Just a little reality check here.

A. Duke didn't win it with all those other guys you mentioned, nor did it come close. The guy that got the others their best looks on offense was Z, and he did it in a way that there was nothing anyone could do anything about it. None of the other players you mentioned could do that same thing for one another.

B. Z busted the bank, as I've said numerous times, in the place that Duke has gotten killed for years now, which would be in the battle of the bigs; I can picture it now how Gerald, Singler and E Will would attack the rim from the wings and get met by a big and have their attempted dunks, er, fail. Couldn't happen with Z on the court, and, as I've pointed out, a big having to chase Z all around the exterior to be present and show on numerous screens on every possession many of which went late into the clock (Duke didn't run at all that year) took an awful lot out of him (them) not to mention taking a lot out of the outside defenders that had to deal with those screens. Do we count the number of offensive rebounds that lead to step in threes, and the percentage of those that were made? Do we count the alteration of shots, the benefits of having a mountain of a presence inside to present on defense (again, how much does it take out of inside scorers to have to deal with behemoth like Z for 23 minutes.

Finally, you are forgetting not only about K himself, but also about just about every talking head as Duke went deep talking about Zoubek and the extraordinary role that he was playing (where they were going in when they all were saying on Mr. Tony's show that Duke was going out easily and early I should not know).

I ain't making Z into anything. He became the dominant essential ingredient on that team after the Maryland game, and was a difference maker in a way that no one else could replicate. The year before, Duke had Singler, G, Scheyer, Smith, E Williams, Paulus, Lance, Miles, and McClore--they weren't anywhere near the team they were when Z started doing his thing.

And last year, they had Mason as a go-to offensive weapon only didn't use him as such, Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, Hairston and Thorton to add to Miles Singler, and Smith (who grew so much as a player that it was difficult to recognize him from the year before), and did go out, as in loose the last game, with a backcourt of Irving and Smith

duke09hms
02-04-2012, 11:27 PM
A. Duke didn't win it with all those other guys you mentioned, nor did it come close. The guy that got the others their best looks on offense was Z, and he did it in a way that there was nothing anyone could do anything about it. None of the other players you mentioned could do that same thing for one another.

B. Z busted the bank, as I've said numerous times, in the place that Duke has gotten killed for years now, which would be in the battle of the bigs; I can picture it now how Gerald, Singler and E Will would attack the rim from the wings and get met by a big and have their attempted dunks, er, fail. Couldn't happen with Z on the court, and, as I've pointed out, a big having to chase Z all around the exterior to be present and show on numerous screens on every possession many of which went late into the clock (Duke didn't run at all that year) took an awful lot out of him (them) not to mention taking a lot out of the outside defenders that had to deal with those screens. Do we count the number of offensive rebounds that lead to step in threes, and the percentage of those that were made? Do we count the alteration of shots, the benefits of having a mountain of a presence inside to present on defense (again, how much does it take out of inside scorers to have to deal with behemoth like Z for 23 minutes.

Finally, you are forgetting not only about K himself, but also about just about every talking head as Duke went deep talking about Zoubek and the extraordinary role that he was playing (where they were going in when they all were saying on Mr. Tony's show that Duke was going out easily and early I should not know).

I ain't making Z into anything. He became the dominant essential ingredient on that team after the Maryland game, and was a difference maker in a way that no one else could replicate. The year before, Duke had Singler, G, Scheyer, Smith, E Williams, Paulus, Lance, Miles, and McClore--they weren't anywhere near the team they were when Z started doing his thing.

And last year, they had Mason as a go-to offensive weapon only didn't use him as such, Curry, Dawkins, Kelly, Hairston and Thorton to add to Miles Singler, and Smith (who grew so much as a player that it was difficult to recognize him from the year before), and did go out, as in loose the last game, with a backcourt of Irving and Smith

I feel like you two are arguing and agreeing on the same point. Yes, Brian Zoubek was an absolutely necessary piece of the national championship team in 2010. We don't win without him, and his performance elevated the team to new heights. But it's not like his performances guaranteed we would win the championship - if Dre's 3s don't fall against Baylor, well then we're an Elite 8 team just like UNC last year. So many factors are necessary for a championship and a good amount of luck.

toooskies
02-05-2012, 12:21 AM
Yes, 2010 had a special offense when everything for Zoubek "clicked". The man could set a screen.

But everyone seems to underestimate what exactly this team is doing that has it 19-3 against an excellent schedule and is rated 3rd in the country, and just two points per 100 possessions shy of that unstoppable Duke offense.

I think the key here isn't any one thing; it's everything put together. There are at least 5 players on the team who are legitimate threats to score 20 points in a night, and you have to guard all of them well to succeed. I think that makes it so there isn't a successful game plan to defend us, because you need to play defense against everybody.

And so you have pundits everywhere claiming that this year's Duke team doesn't have a good enough offense; just the other night, Gottlieb went on about how Carolina's defense wasn't as good as Duke's but Duke's offense was terrible. What's going on here is, we always have a great way to put points on the board, whether it's an inside game (Mason) or three-point shots (Dawkins, Rivers, Curry, Kelly, Thornton) or dribble penetration (Rivers, Curry, Cook, Kelly) or late-game foul shooting (Curry, Kelly). We don't need a gimmick system. No one stands out because we have five or six great options.

Ratcheting up the offense isn't really what this team needs; all it needs is a will to keep its intensity up and play defense, and we can play with anybody.

oldnavy
02-05-2012, 09:34 AM
I don't think Austin is selfish, I think he is a kid that is learning how to play with other really good players. His improvement over the season has been remarkable to me.

Also, this team if you want to measure it is about 7 cinderblocks on a 10 cinderblock scale... but moving in the right direction.

cptnflash
02-05-2012, 10:08 AM
I ain't making Z into anything. He became the dominant essential ingredient on that team after the Maryland game, and was a difference maker in a way that no one else could replicate. The year before, Duke had Singler, G, Scheyer, Smith, E Williams, Paulus, Lance, Miles, and McClore--they weren't anywhere near the team they were when Z started doing his thing.


The great thing about the 2010 team was that all five of our starters were essential ingredients. Take any one of those five guys off the team, and we don't win the championship.

Devilsfan
02-05-2012, 12:00 PM
I think you nailed it. They (2010) were the essence of Coach K's fist vs. five fingers analogy. I just haven't seen that with this team YET. Hope I do in the next six weeks. I believe many others haven't either as judged by the rare ticket availability. I love Duke basketball but have been somewhat less enamored by this team as the teams of the last 15 years except those that played on the team where K was ill and stopped coaching after the first 9 games or so and the teams where Paulus ran the point. This team reminds me of the Paulus teams, very talented but not lovable. This is probably the first year in the last fifteen where I have missed a couple of games in Cameron because of business but wasn't so upset I couldn't stand it. I am contemplating not traveling to Atlanta for the ACC Tournament. As I said I love Duke basketball so I will probably still travel. Go Devils!

Kedsy
02-05-2012, 12:22 PM
I think you nailed it. They (2010) were the essence of Coach K's fist vs. five fingers analogy. I just haven't seen that with this team YET. Hope I do in the next six weeks. I believe many others haven't either as judged by the rare ticket availability. I love Duke basketball but have been somewhat less enamored by this team as the teams of the last 15 years except those that played on the team where K was ill and stopped coaching after the first 9 games or so and the teams where Paulus ran the point. This team reminds me of the Paulus teams, very talented but not lovable. This is probably the first year in the last fifteen where I have missed a couple of games in Cameron because of business but wasn't so upset I couldn't stand it. I am contemplating not traveling to Atlanta for the ACC Tournament. As I said I love Duke basketball so I will probably still travel. Go Devils!

So, you didn't think the 1995 team or the 2007 team were "lovable"? Did their win/loss record play into that?