PDA

View Full Version : Way Premature 2012-13 top 25



gofurman
04-02-2012, 10:31 PM
Based on known entries - who do you see in top 10 or 25 nxt year. I dont know all years of players

NC State - top 15 w Leslie.. lower 25 without him.
UK - based on reload between 10 and 25.
Duke - More experience than most though not super-athletic. Top 10 or 15
Ohio State - assuming no Sullinger Top 25 but big losses if Craft, Sullinger, and Buford are gone. Deshaun Thomas? yr?
MSU - no Draymond Green but still Top 25
Syracuse - top 25? they are losing a lot I think.
UNC - top 25 w McAdoo and new guys
Arizona? dont know - good recruiting
Memphis?
Louisville top 25 - they could be good, who is coming back?


I cant see any super dominant teams yet.. help me , who am I missing?

BlueDevil16
04-02-2012, 10:46 PM
If UK get Noel, Shabazz, and that other top 10 recruit they'd easily be 1. Really if they get two of them theyd be number one. UCLA could be great depending on Shabazz and others too.

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 10:47 PM
I don't see NCSU in the top 10, with or without Leslie.

Dukehky
04-02-2012, 11:10 PM
I don't see NCSU in the top 10, with or without Leslie.

Really? That team with Leslie would b e absolutely stacked. They add so much depth and upgrades a lot of positions. With Tyler Lewis, you can put Brown at the 2 if you want to when Lewis comes off the bench. Rodney Purvis easily replaces CJ Williams. If Leslie stays, I think State's probably a top 5 team. Maybe that's a big of a hyperbole, but with Leslie, I think they're at least the clear cut favorite in the ACC. Provided Plumlee leaves and Bazz goes elsewhere.

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:15 PM
Really? That team with Leslie would b e absolutely stacked. They add so much depth and upgrades a lot of positions. With Tyler Lewis, you can put Brown at the 2 if you want to when Lewis comes off the bench. Rodney Purvis easily replaces CJ Williams. If Leslie stays, I think State's probably a top 5 team. Maybe that's a big of a hyperbole, but with Leslie, I think they're at least the clear cut favorite in the ACC. Provided Plumlee leaves and Bazz goes elsewhere.

Top team in the ACC does not guarantee top 10 in the country.

They have a good recruiting class coming in, but you never know how well they'll fit in, and you never know how good they'll be...

They never really beat anyone of note this year outside of Georgetown and had double digit losses. Top 25, for sure. But top 10... I'll believe it when I see it.

sporthenry
04-02-2012, 11:22 PM
I don't see NCSU in the top 10, with or without Leslie.

I would put them easily as a preseason top 10 with Leslie. Many analysts considered them the hottest team in the tournament and lost to the runner's up. They would return Leslie, Howell, Brown, and Wood and add Purvis, Warren, and Tyler Lewis. Eve without Leslie, they are probably a top 15-20 team especially if Purvis is the real deal.

Baylor could be a top 5-10 team depending upon departures. I'd assume PJIII leaves but if Quincy Miller stays with Gathers and Austin coming in along with LJ Rose (who used to be a top guard if I remember correctly) could be a potent team.

Florida will lose Erving Walker and probably Beal but if Boynton returns with Murphy, Rosario, and Young will probably be a top 25 team.

Indiana brings in some decent recruits on paper and if Zeller stays, I'd expect them to be up there.

Syracuse will probably be a top 10 team with replacing Melo with Coleman and Rakeem Christmas. MKW will try to replace Kris Joseph and if Dion Waiters stays (not sure if he is even thinking about the NBA), they will have a solid roster.

Louisville should return most of their roster.

KY already has a good recruiting class and they will undoubtedly get a few more top 50 prospects.

Texas is an interesting team if Myck Kabongo develops with Ridley being an impact freshman, Jaylen Bond developing and perhaps one more recruit they could be in the mix.

And wherever some of the other top 20 prospects go like Noels, Bennett, and Muhammad go will probably take teams from either outside the top 10 into the top 10 or from top 10 to top 2-3 (in the case of KY and perhaps Duke).

That said, I don't know much about what mid-majors will return but next year could be another year with 1-2 top 10 mid-major teams if you get a team like SDSU or BYU of last year.

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:26 PM
I would put them easily as a preseason top 10 with Leslie. Many analysts considered them the hottest team in the tournament and lost to the runner's up. They would return Leslie, Howell, Brown, and Wood and add Purvis, Warren, and Tyler Lewis. Eve without Leslie, they are probably a top 15-20 team especially if Purvis is the real deal.

Baylor could be a top 5-10 team depending upon departures. I'd assume PJIII leaves but if Quincy Miller stays with Gathers and Austin coming in along with LJ Rose (who used to be a top guard if I remember correctly) could be a potent team.

Florida will lose Erving Walker and probably Beal but if Boynton returns with Murphy, Rosario, and Young will probably be a top 25 team.

Indiana brings in some decent recruits on paper and if Zeller stays, I'd expect them to be up there.

Syracuse will probably be a top 10 team with replacing Melo with Coleman and Rakeem Christmas. MKW will try to replace Kris Joseph and if Dion Waiters stays (not sure if he is even thinking about the NBA), they will have a solid roster.

Louisville should return most of their roster.

KY already has a good recruiting class and they will undoubtedly get a few more top 50 prospects.

Texas is an interesting team if Myck Kabongo develops with Ridley being an impact freshman, Jaylen Bond developing and perhaps one more recruit they could be in the mix.

And wherever some of the other top 20 prospects go like Noels, Bennett, and Muhammad go will probably take teams from either outside the top 10 into the top 10 or from top 10 to top 2-3 (in the case of KY and perhaps Duke).

That said, I don't know much about what mid-majors will return but next year could be another year with 1-2 top 10 mid-major teams if you get a team like SDSU or BYU of last year.

I think it's possible NCSU is pre-season top 10, but I think it's a paper tiger because they got hot late in the year.

I say they finish top 15-20.

1 24 90
04-02-2012, 11:35 PM
I would put them easily as a preseason top 10 with Leslie. Many analysts considered them the hottest team in the tournament and lost to the runner's up. They would return Leslie, Howell, Brown, and Wood and add Purvis, Warren, and Tyler Lewis. Eve without Leslie, they are probably a top 15-20 team especially if Purvis is the real deal.

Baylor could be a top 5-10 team depending upon departures. I'd assume PJIII leaves but if Quincy Miller stays with Gathers and Austin coming in along with LJ Rose (who used to be a top guard if I remember correctly) could be a potent team.

Florida will lose Erving Walker and probably Beal but if Boynton returns with Murphy, Rosario, and Young will probably be a top 25 team.

Indiana brings in some decent recruits on paper and if Zeller stays, I'd expect them to be up there.

Syracuse will probably be a top 10 team with replacing Melo with Coleman and Rakeem Christmas. MKW will try to replace Kris Joseph and if Dion Waiters stays (not sure if he is even thinking about the NBA), they will have a solid roster.

Louisville should return most of their roster.

KY already has a good recruiting class and they will undoubtedly get a few more top 50 prospects.

Texas is an interesting team if Myck Kabongo develops with Ridley being an impact freshman, Jaylen Bond developing and perhaps one more recruit they could be in the mix.

And wherever some of the other top 20 prospects go like Noels, Bennett, and Muhammad go will probably take teams from either outside the top 10 into the top 10 or from top 10 to top 2-3 (in the case of KY and perhaps Duke).

That said, I don't know much about what mid-majors will return but next year could be another year with 1-2 top 10 mid-major teams if you get a team like SDSU or BYU of last year.

Dion Waiters declared about 5 seconds after they lost to OSU. He's gone.

sporthenry
04-02-2012, 11:37 PM
I think it's possible NCSU is pre-season top 10, but I think it's a paper tiger because they got hot late in the year.

I say they finish top 15-20.

Well just predicting preseason rankings at this point are extremely premature so final rankings will obviously be completely different. Heck, Pittsburgh was a top 10 team a few weeks into the year this year. So I'm not basing my decision on where they will finish but on what they will look like on paper. I agree that they will have to prove a lot and we've seen plenty of teams try to take over Duke/UNC at the top of the ACC and fail miserably. But on paper, they appear to be the most talented team in the ACC and the winner of the ACC will be a top 10 team.

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:39 PM
Well just predicting preseason rankings at this point are extremely premature so final rankings will obviously be completely different. Heck, Pittsburgh was a top 10 team a few weeks into the year this year. So I'm not basing my decision on where they will finish but on what they will look like on paper. I agree that they will have to prove a lot and we've seen plenty of teams try to take over Duke/UNC at the top of the ACC and fail miserably. But on paper, they appear to be the most talented team in the ACC and the winner of the ACC will be a top 10 team.

If NCSU is the top team in the ACC, the media will DEFINITELY say it's a down year for the league.

NashvilleDevil
04-02-2012, 11:40 PM
If UK get Noel, Shabazz, and that other top 10 recruit they'd easily be 1. Really if they get two of them theyd be number one. UCLA could be great depending on Shabazz and others too.

But who would they be playing with? Davis, MKG, Jones, Lamb are probably gone. Miles is graduating and maybe Teague leaves as well. Next year's UK team will not have the mix of vets and freshmen like this year. They will be like the 2010 UK squad plenty of young talent but that will only get them so far.

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:42 PM
But who would they be playing with? Davis, MKG, Jones, Lamb are probably gone. Miles is graduating and maybe Teague leaves as well. Next year's UK team will not have the mix of vets and freshmen like this year. They will be like the 2010 UK squad plenty of young talent but that will only get them so far.

They'll have Wijlter... who honestly, I think would have thrived at Duke.

sporthenry
04-02-2012, 11:43 PM
If NCSU is the top team in the ACC, the media will DEFINITELY say it's a down year for the league.

Well if they win the league with something resembling a 10-6 record, I would agree, but if they go 13-3 or 14-2, against an improving ACC, I doubt they say it will be a down league. If anything, the ACC should be up next year across the board they will just be missing the top teams they've enjoyed the past few years.

gofurman
04-02-2012, 11:44 PM
Based on known entries - who do you see in top 10 or 25 nxt year. I dont know all years of players

NC State - top 15 w Leslie.. lower 25 without him.
UK - based on reload between 10 and 25.
Duke - More experience than most though not super-athletic. Top 10 or 15
Ohio State - assuming no Sullinger Top 25 but big losses if Craft, Sullinger, and Buford are gone. Deshaun Thomas? yr?
MSU - no Draymond Green but still Top 25
Syracuse - top 25? they are losing a lot I think.
UNC - top 25 w McAdoo and new guys
Arizona? dont know - good recruiting
Memphis?
Louisville top 25 - they could be good, who is coming back?


I cant see any super dominant teams yet.. help me , who am I missing?

Baylor could be a top 5-10 team depending upon departures. I'd assume PJIII leaves but if Quincy Miller stays with Gathers and Austin coming in along with LJ Rose (who used to be a top guard if I remember correctly) could be a potent team.

Florida will lose Erving Walker and probably Beal but if Boynton returns with Murphy, Rosario, and Young will probably be a top 25 team.

Indiana brings in some decent recruits on paper and if Zeller stays, I'd expect them to be up there.

Syracuse will probably be a top 10 team with replacing Melo with Coleman and Rakeem Christmas. MKW will try to replace Kris Joseph. Dion Waiters leavin'

Louisville should return most of their roster.

Texas is an interesting team if Myck Kabongo develops with Ridley being an impact freshman, Jaylen Bond developing and perhaps one more recruit they could be in the mix.

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:46 PM
Well if they win the league with something resembling a 10-6 record, I would agree, but if they go 13-3 or 14-2, against an improving ACC, I doubt they say it will be a down league. If anything, the ACC should be up next year across the board they will just be missing the top teams they've enjoyed the past few years.

Yea, but we're talking about a media full of UNC J-school grads....

sporthenry
04-02-2012, 11:46 PM
They'll have Wijlter... who honestly, I think would have thrived at Duke.

Yes, Wiljlter has provided them with crucial minutes this year and looked fairly good doing it. Goodwin will probably slot in nicely at the 2 with Poythress playing at the 3. And they will probably add another 1-2 top 20 recruits especially after tonight. They won't be this dominant but they will still be top 10 and probably top 5 with that talent (assuming they get a few of Bazz, Noels, Parker, Bennett).

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:48 PM
Yes, Wiljlter has provided them with crucial minutes this year and looked fairly good doing it. Goodwin will probably slot in nicely at the 2 with Poythress playing at the 3. And they will probably add another 1-2 top 20 recruits especially after tonight. They won't be this dominant but they will still be top 10 and probably top 5 with that talent (assuming they get a few of Bazz, Noels, Parker, Bennett).

They will miss Jones. They won't have any burly guys to do the dirty work, and Jones could score from the perimeter, too.

They'll miss Davis, too, but Noel will replace some of the shot blocking. Jones is the most irreplaceable of their undergrads, IMO.

sporthenry
04-02-2012, 11:52 PM
They will miss Jones. They won't have any burly guys to do the dirty work, and Jones could score from the perimeter, too.

They'll miss Davis, too, but Noel will replace some of the shot blocking. Jones is the most irreplaceable of their undergrads, IMO.

Well both Jones and MKG do the dirty work but Bazz has shown in the McD AA game he is willing to do the dirty work and he is more skilled than MKG and Jones. Of course it will be tough to replace both but they will struggle more with replacing Teague who was a very good PG assuming he leaves (and Bazz goes to UK).

Chicago 1995
04-02-2012, 11:52 PM
IU will be a top 5 team. They lose little and bring in a great class.

MSU will probably be a top 10 team, even losing Draymond Green.

I think NC State should be the preseason pick frbthe ACC and a top 10ish team.

UK, if the close in recruiting will be up there again.

I don't think we're a top 25 team, FWIW, unless we get some surprises in recruiting. We'll probably be ranked because of our name, but I don't think we're actually a top 25 team. Too many questions. Too many limitations.

turnandburn55
04-02-2012, 11:52 PM
Top team in the ACC does not guarantee top 10 in the country.

Serious question-- has a team in the recent past finished at the top of the ACC and *not* been top 10 in the country anytime in the recent past?

<intentionally ambiguous about how you define "top team in the ACC">

FerryFor50
04-02-2012, 11:56 PM
Serious question-- has a team in the recent past finished at the top of the ACC and *not* been top 10 in the country anytime in the recent past?

<intentionally ambiguous about how you define "top team in the ACC">

Hmm... closest I can find is the 2002-2003 where Duke and Maryland finished 9-10.

Every year since then, the ACC has had a 30+ win team, which nearly guarantees a top 10 finish.

If NCSU hits 30 wins while being the top ACC team, I could see them finishing top 10.

But that's a big if...

sporthenry
04-03-2012, 12:02 AM
I don't think we're a top 25 team, FWIW, unless we get some surprises in recruiting. We'll probably be ranked because of our name, but I don't think we're actually a top 25 team. Too many questions. Too many limitations.

I think Duke has a lot less questions than most other top 25 teams. Duke will more than likely start 3 seniors who can each put up 25 points on any given night (assuming Mason leaves). Additionally, our questions will most likely revolve around sophomores (RS-Freshmen as well) and juniors while most other teams will be relying upon freshmen to make the transition to college basketball. And that is assuming we don't get any more recruits. Who would you rather rely upon, players like Brice Johnson, Perry Ellis, TJ Warren, or Will Cauley who will either start or play meaningful minutes for other top 25 teams or players like Gbinije, Hairston, Marshall Plumlee, and Murphy who were ranked around the same position in last year's class and now have one year under their belt. Not even mentioning Murphy was 15th in the 2012 class.

gofurman
04-03-2012, 12:03 AM
IU will be a top 5 team. They lose little and bring in a great class.

MSU will probably be a top 10 team, even losing Draymond Green.

I think NC State should be the preseason pick frbthe ACC and a top 10ish team.

UK, if the close in recruiting will be up there again.

I don't think we're a top 25 team, FWIW, unless we get some surprises in recruiting. We'll probably be ranked because of our name, but I don't think we're actually a top 25 team. Too many questions. Too many limitations.

--- You really dont think we will be top 25? You could name 24 teams better than us.? I dont think we are some juggernaut - I get the D limitations and need of a great wing player but I dont know that there are 24 better teams - just experience of Senior Curry, Dawkins, Junior Thrton, Soph Cook (I think that could be Key), Junior Kelly, Senior Plum (?) ; RS Freshman Plum, RS Freshman Murphy and Soph Gbinije and Junior Hairston should be better than most. Plus fr Sheed. Heck, if we arent top 25 with that many McD AAs that's bad - how many is that? Cook, Kelly, Plumlee Senior (?) if he stays, Freshman Plumlee, Sheed; at least 4 ... Murphy would have been if he had stayed in HS I think

Chicago 1995
04-03-2012, 12:13 AM
We may be ranked if Mason leaves because we're Duke, but we have no business being ranked. And no, I don't think we're a top 25 team with what we bring back. Our experience has limitations that are significant.

I think you are drastically overrating our seniors, and are discounting losing our two post defenders and rebounders and the only offensive player we have who could creat our own shot. We should have concerns about the team defensively next year, and offensively, there's no post presence and at most one guy who can create off the dribble.

Absent a surprise addition or two, I don't think we'd be the best team in the A10 or CUSA, let alone a team near the tip of the ACC deserving of a Top 25 ranking.

25 teams that will be better?

OSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, NC State, UNC, UK, UF, Arizona, Stanford, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas, Kansas, Memphis

That's 17. I want to look at some Big East, Pac 10 and A10 rosters and recruiting classes.

hurleyfor3
04-03-2012, 12:19 AM
Duke - More experience than most though not super-athletic.

As per the DBR Stylebook, that should be remarkably unathletic.

sporthenry
04-03-2012, 12:22 AM
We may be ranked if Mason leaves because we're Duke, but we have no business being ranked.

I think you are drastically overrating our seniors, and are discounting losing our two post defenders and rebounders and the only offensive player we have who could creat our own shot. We should have concerns about the team defensively next year, and offensively, there's no post presence and at most one guy who can create off the dribble.

Absent a surprise addition or two, I don't think we'd be the best team in the A10 or CUSA, let alone a team near the tip of the ACC deserving of a Top 25 ranking.

I'm sorry but I have to agree with a previous poster that you would struggle to name 24 better teams. I can't think of an A-10 team returning nearly the amount of talent with Temple losing Eric, Moore, and Fernandez, X losing Holloway and Frease, and St. Louis losing Conklin. Yes, we will have more questions than previous Duke teams but lets see, many teams would be happy to slot in a McD AA at Center, yet we get to slot in a red-shirt McD AA or Ryan Kelly. I think you underrate the importance of experience even if it was just weight training and practice at the college level. Quinn Cook got to go against the likes of Rivers and Curry everyday while Marcus Paige was practicing against who? UNC will slot into their starting PG slot a freshmen ranked around the same as Cook was last year with no experience. UNC is set to start a Center ranked around the same as Marshall was last year assuming they don't get Oriakhi.

Chicago 1995
04-03-2012, 12:35 AM
And you are drastically overrating out returning talent. Experience only gets you so far. Talent matters too. KU had experience tonight sure, but also talent. Experience helped us in 2010, but we also had a lot of talent. And there are more ad more teams like UK that succeed without experience.

Our returning backcourt wouldn't have started for 40 of the NCAA tourney teams, including powerhouses like Lehigh and Ohio. We just don't have the talent to make the experience important.

I named 17 of the top of my head in the prior post, and did that without going into to many questions like UCLA or Tennessee for example/.

sporthenry
04-03-2012, 12:37 AM
25 teams that will be better?

OSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, NC State, UNC, UK, UF, Arizona, Stanford, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas, Kansas, Memphis

That's 17. I want to look at some Big East, Pac 10 and A10 rosters and recruiting classes.

OSU is losing Buford and will more than likely lose Sullinger with possible departure of Thomas. They have Amir Williams and Craft but their roster of Thomas, Craft, and Williams with no recruits (as of now) is not better than Duke. Indiana is assuming Zeller stays. Wisconsin loses Jordan Taylor and doesn't really add anyone of note. Yes they return everyone else but Taylor made that team go. UF probably loses Beal and maybe Boynton and don't really add anyone of note. Still have Murphy, Young and Rosario. I'll admit to not knowing much about Stanford but not sure what they've done save for winning the NIT and not adding anyone of note. UNC will have more questions with Paige and Brice Johnson than Duke with Marshall/Kelly and Cook/Curry. Texas is losing Brown and will need Kabongo to really develop and probably needs to add another recruit.

sporthenry
04-03-2012, 12:42 AM
And you are drastically overrating out returning talent. Experience only gets you so far. Talent matters too. KU had experience tonight sure, but also talent. Experience helped us in 2010, but we also had a lot of talent. And there are more ad more teams like UK that succeed without experience.

Our returning backcourt wouldn't have started for 40 of the NCAA tourney teams, including powerhouses like Lehigh and Ohio. We just don't have the talent to make the experience important.

I named 17 of the top of my head in the prior post, and did that without going into to many questions like UCLA or Tennessee for example/.

You are pretty much assuming freshmen will be able to come in for other teams and play better than Curry and company. Yes, DJ Cooper and McCollum (an NBA talent would probably start for us) but are you saying Curry doesn't start for Ohio State this year as the 2 guard. Again, you seem to be falling into the trap where somehow Marcus Paige who never played a college basketball game is instantly better than Cook, TT, and Curry.

Chicago 1995
04-03-2012, 12:58 AM
Marcus Paige may or may not be better than our guards, but his surrounding cast is better. Frankly, he's better right now -- or at least more complete -- than TT. And Freshman, gasp, are increasingly better than more experienced players in college basketball. My endorsement if Paige, lukewarm as it may be is less an endorsement than it is condemnation of what we have coming back. Other than Quinn, expecting large developmental steps from TT and Andre an especially 5th year senior Seth Curry is unrealistic. What we see from those guys (and Ryan) is what we get. And that's not good enough to carry a top 25 team.

And yes, to be clear, I'm saying Seth Curry wouldn't have started at SG for OSU. Or a bunch of other teams. Seth's weak with the ball, has an unsure handle and responds poorly to physical D. He's a mediocre defender and he was far too inconsistent or a 4th year junior. His proper role at the highest level is a second guar off the bench brought in for shooting, not a guy you run an offense around and through like we'll be doing next year, it seems. Seth's just got limitations.

Des Esseintes
04-03-2012, 01:09 AM
Marcus Paige may or may not be better than our guards, but his surrounding cast is better. Frankly, he's better right now -- or at least more complete -- than TT. And Freshman, gasp, are increasingly better than more experienced players in college basketball. My endorsement if Paige, lukewarm as it may be is less an endorsement than it is condemnation of what we have coming back. Other than Quinn, expecting large developmental steps from TT and Andre an especially 5th year senior Seth Curry is unrealistic. What we see from those guys (and Ryan) is what we get. And that's not good enough to carry a top 25 team.

And yes, to be clear, I'm saying Seth Curry wouldn't have started at SG for OSU. Or a bunch of other teams. Seth's weak with the ball, has an unsure handle and responds poorly to physical D. He's a mediocre defender and he was far too inconsistent or a 4th year junior. His proper role at the highest level is a second guar off the bench brought in for shooting, not a guy you run an offense around and through like we'll be doing next year, it seems. Seth's just got limitations.

Just so we're, like, super-clear here: you're talking about Duke University's men's basketball team next year? The one with so many top 30 recruits that a few of them will barely see the court, even if we sign no one else and Mason bolts? That team? Because if you are, Donny, I'm sorry but you're out of your element.

Devilsfan
04-03-2012, 01:14 AM
Wait till the year after the year after next. We'll be back, IMO.

dragoneye776
04-03-2012, 01:42 AM
Here is what Andy Katz thinks: http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7767401/indiana-hoosiers-continue-moving-2012-13

I don't think Michigan should be ranked that high and UNC definitely should not be ahead of Duke next year.

Olympic Fan
04-03-2012, 01:58 AM
Wa-a-a-y too early to do this.

State top 10? You guys are nuts, especially since there's not 1 chance in 100 that Leslie is returning. In fact there is a better chance that Lorenzo Brown goes pro than Leslie returns (although I don't think that happens). They'll have a nice perimeter, but they'll be soft in the post.

Kentucky will be top 10, maybe top 5, if they get Muhammad, Noel and Bennett (the other top 10 guy they have a shot at).

But you know what? Duke will be top 10 if Mason stays and they get Muhammad (a better chance of that happening than State keeping Leslie).

UNC will be good -- borderline top 10 with McAdoo ... second 10 without him.

Syracuse, Indiana and Fllorida will have strong lineups next year. Michigan State will miss Green -- a lot. Kansas will lose a ton.

UCLA will be top 10 if they get Muhammad and maybe Parker. But I'll believe that when I see it. That's a disfunctional program.

As for the UNC love ... I think they will be good, but do you really think Bullock, Hairston, McDonald or Strickland is better than Curry? Do you think Paige is better than Rasheed Suliaman (for the record, I don't). McAdoo is a stud, but if he's gone, UNC's post position becomes filled by veterans Desmond Hubert and (walk-on) Jackson Simmons, plus two recruits that failed to make the McDonald's A-A game. Is that better than senior Ryan Kelly, junior Hosh Hairston and former McDonald's A-A Marshall Plumlee -- not to mention Alex Murphy? Over the course of the season, Carolina was a hair better than us -- one game overall and in the ACC/even head-to-head. Yet, they lost their four most productive players (and that doesn't count McAdoo). We've lost our single most productive player and maybe our second or third most productive (Mason). Do you really think that their outlook is better than ours. Yeah, they're bringing in five guys next year, but we're addiing three -- and I'd argue that Sulaiman, Murphy and MP3 are a better addition than their five-man-class.

Look, everybody is in flux for the next two weeks to a month. Come back to this topic at the end of April and look again. Yeah, if we finish the month with Mason gone and no additions, there might be cause for pessimism. But I'll be surprised if Duke strikes out with Mason, Muhammad, Parker, Jefferson and Ziegler. No, we won't get them all, but two or three are a real possibility.

I'm confident we'll be a top 25 team next year ... maybe a lot better than that.

Dukehky
04-03-2012, 02:25 AM
Wa-a-a-y too early to do this.

State top 10? You guys are nuts, especially since there's not 1 chance in 100 that Leslie is returning. In fact there is a better chance that Lorenzo Brown goes pro than Leslie returns (although I don't think that happens). They'll have a nice perimeter, but they'll be soft in the post.

Kentucky will be top 10, maybe top 5, if they get Muhammad, Noel and Bennett (the other top 10 guy they have a shot at).

But you know what? Duke will be top 10 if Mason stays and they get Muhammad (a better chance of that happening than State keeping Leslie).

UNC will be good -- borderline top 10 with McAdoo ... second 10 without him.

Syracuse, Indiana and Fllorida will have strong lineups next year. Michigan State will miss Green -- a lot. Kansas will lose a ton.

UCLA will be top 10 if they get Muhammad and maybe Parker. But I'll believe that when I see it. That's a disfunctional program.

As for the UNC love ... I think they will be good, but do you really think Bullock, Hairston, McDonald or Strickland is better than Curry? Do you think Paige is better than Rasheed Suliaman (for the record, I don't). McAdoo is a stud, but if he's gone, UNC's post position becomes filled by veterans Desmond Hubert and (walk-on) Jackson Simmons, plus two recruits that failed to make the McDonald's A-A game. Is that better than senior Ryan Kelly, junior Hosh Hairston and former McDonald's A-A Marshall Plumlee -- not to mention Alex Murphy? Over the course of the season, Carolina was a hair better than us -- one game overall and in the ACC/even head-to-head. Yet, they lost their four most productive players (and that doesn't count McAdoo). We've lost our single most productive player and maybe our second or third most productive (Mason). Do you really think that their outlook is better than ours. Yeah, they're bringing in five guys next year, but we're addiing three -- and I'd argue that Sulaiman, Murphy and MP3 are a better addition than their five-man-class.

Look, everybody is in flux for the next two weeks to a month. Come back to this topic at the end of April and look again. Yeah, if we finish the month with Mason gone and no additions, there might be cause for pessimism. But I'll be surprised if Duke strikes out with Mason, Muhammad, Parker, Jefferson and Ziegler. No, we won't get them all, but two or three are a real possibility.

I'm confident we'll be a top 25 team next year ... maybe a lot better than that.

I don't think they're better, I know they're better. They are all 6'5 or taller wings with bigger builds who are WAY more athletic. Curry is barely six feet tall, I don't care what he's listed at, if you've seen him in person, he's little. Sure he's crafty, but that talent on both ends of the court, even the upside for those like Hairston, vastly outdoes Curry. I love Seth, but I couldn't agree more that his position for a good basketball program is 6th or 7th man, who comes in to shoot. You cannot run an offense around him, while his skills may improve, his biggest hindrance are his physical limitations because they're there.

I will trade a player of Seth Curry's caliber for any of the those listed above (not saying I would trade seth himself, because he's one of ours, but if we were doing this blind, and looking solely on skills and size, I'm not taking the one who looks like Seth Curry)

KandG
04-03-2012, 02:42 AM
We may be ranked if Mason leaves because we're Duke, but we have no business being ranked. And no, I don't think we're a top 25 team with what we bring back. Our experience has limitations that are significant.

I think you are drastically overrating our seniors, and are discounting losing our two post defenders and rebounders and the only offensive player we have who could creat our own shot. We should have concerns about the team defensively next year, and offensively, there's no post presence and at most one guy who can create off the dribble.

Absent a surprise addition or two, I don't think we'd be the best team in the A10 or CUSA, let alone a team near the tip of the ACC deserving of a Top 25 ranking.

25 teams that will be better?

OSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, NC State, UNC, UK, UF, Arizona, Stanford, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas, Kansas, Memphis

That's 17. I want to look at some Big East, Pac 10 and A10 rosters and recruiting classes.


Whoa, I'm not real high on the team returning next year, but this is more negative than even I would be. ESPN's early line is Duke in the top 15, which isn't all that different from what you're proposing, granted. If Mason doesn't return and Duke adds no other players, I'd say things do look pretty grim -- hinging a bit too much on redshirts and possibly unrealistic leaps in play from the likes of Gbinje, Hairston and Cook. It's a good thing so many other schools are losing players as well.

If Mason does return (still a possibility) and Sulaimon is an impact freshman, then things look up. Shabazz coming to Duke is fairytale daydreaming -- sure it makes the team a title contender, but I'd rather focus on what's realistic.

sporthenry
04-03-2012, 02:50 AM
Marcus Paige may or may not be better than our guards, but his surrounding cast is better. Frankly, he's better right now -- or at least more complete -- than TT. And Freshman, gasp, are increasingly better than more experienced players in college basketball. My endorsement if Paige, lukewarm as it may be is less an endorsement than it is condemnation of what we have coming back. Other than Quinn, expecting large developmental steps from TT and Andre an especially 5th year senior Seth Curry is unrealistic. What we see from those guys (and Ryan) is what we get. And that's not good enough to carry a top 25 team.


I find it hard to believe that you know enough about Marcus Paige to call him more complete than a guy who the best coach in the country decided to start for the second half of the season. As far as his surrounding cast, I would have to disagree as well. In the post, he may get McAdoo back while we may get Mason back. I'd say both seem around equally likely to stay if not Mason has more to stick around for. Additionally, everyone assumes UNC is getting Oriakhi but that is far from a done deal and Duke could easily add either TP or Amile on top of their McD AA from last year. So front court would you rather have Mason/Kelly/Marshall or McAdoo/Oriakhi/James. I'd probably prefer our front court b/c Marshall should be better than James, and b/c of Kelly's versatility. And that appears to be best case scenario for UNC (well apart from them somehow getting Noels) while for Duke could still easily add another body even with the loss of Mason.

As for the back court, well again, I would take Cook who was 31 according to RSCI compared to Paige who is 29 according to RSCI and a year behind. I think Cook is the key to our offense. That said, UNC has two guards who are coming off ACL injuries and Dexter had his occur in late January so it is unclear if he would be ready to start the season. So there are two big question marks for this team. But both teams will need their back courts to do a lot more but Duke has guys returning like Curry who have had to shoulder the load a lot more than Bullock and Hairston. Duke also has more versatility with Sheed, Dre, Curry, TT, and Gbinije than UNC where Bullock and Hairston seem to be identical players and McDonald not far behind. Overall, UNC might have a slight edge for the other 4 positions but I'll take a guy who had a 3.5 A/TO ratio in his freshmen year over an unproven guard going into a system that relies and may not have a dominant big man.

sporthenry
04-03-2012, 03:08 AM
I don't think they're better, I know they're better. They are all 6'5 or taller wings with bigger builds who are WAY more athletic. Curry is barely six feet tall, I don't care what he's listed at, if you've seen him in person, he's little. Sure he's crafty, but that talent on both ends of the court, even the upside for those like Hairston, vastly outdoes Curry. I love Seth, but I couldn't agree more that his position for a good basketball program is 6th or 7th man, who comes in to shoot. You cannot run an offense around him, while his skills may improve, his biggest hindrance are his physical limitations because they're there.

I will trade a player of Seth Curry's caliber for any of the those listed above (not saying I would trade seth himself, because he's one of ours, but if we were doing this blind, and looking solely on skills and size, I'm not taking the one who looks like Seth Curry)

Strickland is only 6'3 and he doesn't use his size on the offensive end. Defensively, he has an edge over Curry but offensively I'd take Curry. Bullock showed some promise towards the end and McDonald was starting to shoot better but these were guys who struggled to hit wide open shots that will dry up without Henson and Zeller on the block. Hairston has more upside but this is college not the pros, heck Dre has more upside than if not for the sole reason he hasn't developed much but that isn't saying much.

You cannot run an offense around him but the guy could be a Daniel Ewing type player. I think if Cook becomes the PG we all hope that our offense won't be run around one guy like Rivers but instead can be run more as a true motion offense assuming Dre or more likely Gbinije, Murphy, or Sheed can also step in. I can easily see Curry being a guy averaging 25-30 minutes a game at 12-15 ppg shooting 40% from 3 and 43% from the field and I don't see how he will hurt the team. While his defense will never be amazing, he played pretty good defense when we also had Nolan and Kyle so I think he can be a valuable contributor.

JNort
04-03-2012, 05:18 AM
We may be ranked if Mason leaves because we're Duke, but we have no business being ranked. And no, I don't think we're a top 25 team with what we bring back. Our experience has limitations that are significant.

I think you are drastically overrating our seniors, and are discounting losing our two post defenders and rebounders and the only offensive player we have who could creat our own shot. We should have concerns about the team defensively next year, and offensively, there's no post presence and at most one guy who can create off the dribble.

Absent a surprise addition or two, I don't think we'd be the best team in the A10 or CUSA, let alone a team near the tip of the ACC deserving of a Top 25 ranking.

25 teams that will be better?

OSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, NC State, UNC, UK, UF, Arizona, Stanford, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas, Kansas, Memphis

That's 17. I want to look at some Big East, Pac 10 and A10 rosters and recruiting classes.

Of all those you mentioned only NC State, Uk, UF and the Cuse would beat us in a series.

NashvilleDevil
04-03-2012, 06:45 AM
In the 2009-10 preseason polls Duke was 8/9 and UNC was 4/6. That year Duke lost Henderson and Williams and UNC lost the top guys on a title team and we all know how that turned out. Next year Duke is losing Rivers and Miles, bringing in a top SG, adding the two redshirts, maybe adding a another top recruit and current players will improve. In Chapel Hill they're losing their top 4 players and maybe another one, they are bringing in a PG, will be returning two kids coming off ACL injuries, may add a transfer and will see current players improve. Honestly I don't see how some posters can be so certain that UNC will be higher ranked next year than Duke.

CDu
04-03-2012, 09:35 AM
25 teams that will be better?

OSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, NC State, UNC, UK, UF, Arizona, Stanford, Syracuse, Louisville, Cincinnati, Texas, Kansas, Memphis

That's 17. I want to look at some Big East, Pac 10 and A10 rosters and recruiting classes.

You might want to rethink that list.

OSU will lose Sullinger and Buford. Wisconsin loses Jordan Taylor. UNC loses virtually their entire starting 5. Syracuse loses their top 2 scorers and their PG, and they may also lose Fab Melo. Cincy lost 11 games this year and loses their best player and their second leading scorer. Texas lost 14 games this year and loses both of their centers and may lose their best player as well. MSU loses the only difference-maker on their team and also their 2 best perimeter shooters. Kansas loses the only 2 guys that could score consistently. Memphis lost 9 games this past year and may very well lose their difference maker. Michigan adds a stud big man but loses at least 3 of their six regulars (waiting to see about Hardaway and Burke). Florida lost 10 games this year and will lose at least 1 and possibly 3 of their starters (including their only inside guy and their best player). Arizona has a stud recruiting class but they lost 12 games in an awful Pac-12 and they lose 2 of their 3 best players.

I'm not saying we'll clearly be better than all of those teams. But I'd say that those teams are all likely to be facing the same challenges we'll be facing. So I think it's unfair to expect us to struggle and them to not struggle. Only UK (who will reload), Louisville (who returns almost everyone), NC State (if Leslie returns), and Indiana (if Zeller returns) are clearly ahead of Duke on your list. The rest all have substantial questions to address just like Duke.

Chicago 1995
04-03-2012, 09:46 AM
Des Essientes writes:


Just so we're, like, super-clear here: you're talking about Duke University's men's basketball team next year? The one with so many top 30 recruits that a few of them will barely see the court, even if we sign no one else and Mason bolts? That team? Because if you are, Donny, I'm sorry but you're out of your element.

I am talking about that same Duke basketball team and I'm basing it not on the pre-college recruiting rankings of guys like Evan Goodman and Dave Telep, but what I've actually seen on the court. As I've made clear in my other posts, I believe based on what we all saw this year, that we're got a whole lot of questions about next year's team and very, very few sure answers. Most of the hope for this team comes from either (1) sheer faith in the unknown that is Gbinijie and MPIII and to a lesser extent Quinn Cook; and (2) unrealistic hope for improvement from experienced players who are at a point in their careers where big growth leaps just don't happen.

You're right that we've got plenty of talent to be a top 25ish team, but at the beginning of the season, until we prove it, I don't think we are.

sporthenry writes:


I find it hard to believe that you know enough about Marcus Paige to call him more complete than a guy who the best coach in the country decided to start for the second half of the season. As far as his surrounding cast, I would have to disagree as well. In the post, he may get McAdoo back while we may get Mason back. I'd say both seem around equally likely to stay if not Mason has more to stick around for. Additionally, everyone assumes UNC is getting Oriakhi but that is far from a done deal and Duke could easily add either TP or Amile on top of their McD AA from last year. So front court would you rather have Mason/Kelly/Marshall or McAdoo/Oriakhi/James. I'd probably prefer our front court b/c Marshall should be better than James, and b/c of Kelly's versatility. And that appears to be best case scenario for UNC (well apart from them somehow getting Noels) while for Duke could still easily add another body even with the loss of Mason.

As for the back court, well again, I would take Cook who was 31 according to RSCI compared to Paige who is 29 according to RSCI and a year behind. I think Cook is the key to our offense. That said, UNC has two guards who are coming off ACL injuries and Dexter had his occur in late January so it is unclear if he would be ready to start the season. So there are two big question marks for this team. But both teams will need their back courts to do a lot more but Duke has guys returning like Curry who have had to shoulder the load a lot more than Bullock and Hairston. Duke also has more versatility with Sheed, Dre, Curry, TT, and Gbinije than UNC where Bullock and Hairston seem to be identical players and McDonald not far behind. Overall, UNC might have a slight edge for the other 4 positions but I'll take a guy who had a 3.5 A/TO ratio in his freshmen year over an unproven guard going into a system that relies and may not have a dominant big man.

I know enough about Tyler Thornton's offense to know that Marcus Paige is a more complete player. Much of what you write besides veers into a best case for Duke, worst case for Carolina. I'm not counting on Strickland in saying I think Paige would be playing with a better backcourt. Limited as they are, Bullock and Hairston are bigger, stronger and more athletic. Both have more room for growth in their games than our returning guards (save Cook). We add Sheed, who I like a great deal, but they add Tokoto to the mix. Even if James/Plumlee is a wash, if Carolina brings back McAdoo, they bring back the best player either team returns. With him, they're clearly better. Without, it's much closer.

I agree, for what it's worth, Cook is the key to our offense next year. With the skill sets that Andre and Seth have, they are a lot more effective when they have someone who can create for them. Cook's clearly the guy who brings that potential to the table. We have to have him playing well and playing a lot next year. Some caution: as good as his stats were last year, he couldn't crack the rotation with any sort of significant contribution and he couldn't beat out Tyler Thornton. Cook's defense has to improve a ton, and I think he's also got to get his knee fully and finally right. Counting on him in projecting the team is a gamble, because despite our need for his skills this year, he couldn't break into the rotation and give us what we need.

I've seen Katz's top 25, and I think that in addition to the 14 he's got ahead of us, Texas, Creighton, Gonazaga, Wisconsin, VCU, SD St and UNLV should be ranked ahead of us. That puts us 21, at best, in my poll. And there are a lot of teams that would merit consideration, at least, as being ahead of us. Maybe we've got a little more upside than some of those teams thanks to Cook, G, Sheed, Murphy and MPIII, but right now, that's a lot of unknowns and what are knowns aren't good enough to merit ranking in my opinion.

Chicago 1995
04-03-2012, 09:56 AM
You might want to rethink that list.

OSU will lose Sullinger and Buford. Wisconsin loses Jordan Taylor. UNC loses virtually their entire starting 5. Syracuse loses their top 2 scorers and their PG, and they may also lose Fab Melo. Cincy lost 11 games this year and loses their best player and their second leading scorer. Texas lost 14 games this year and loses both of their centers and may lose their best player as well. MSU loses the only difference-maker on their team and also their 2 best perimeter shooters. Kansas loses the only 2 guys that could score consistently. Memphis lost 9 games this past year and may very well lose their difference maker. Michigan adds a stud big man but loses at least 3 of their six regulars (waiting to see about Hardaway and Burke). Florida lost 10 games this year and will lose at least 1 and possibly 3 of their starters (including their only inside guy and their best player). Arizona has a stud recruiting class but they lost 12 games in an awful Pac-12 and they lose 2 of their 3 best players.

I'm not saying we'll clearly be better than all of those teams. But I'd say that those teams are all likely to be facing the same challenges we'll be facing. So I think it's unfair to expect us to struggle and them to not struggle. Only UK (who will reload), Louisville (who returns almost everyone), NC State (if Leslie returns), and Indiana (if Zeller returns) are clearly ahead of Duke on your list. The rest all have substantial questions to address just like Duke.

I don't expect us to struggle and those teams not to struggle. I think those teams have fewer questions coming back than we do and have better returning cores than we do. I don't expect people here to agree, but I do hope that expectations here are realistic next year, and if people really think there are only 4 of 5 teams clearly better than us going into next year, expectations are not realistic at all.

CDu
04-03-2012, 10:03 AM
I am talking about that same Duke basketball team and I'm basing it not on the pre-college recruiting rankings of guys like Evan Goodman and Dave Telep, but what I've actually seen on the court. As I've made clear in my other posts, I believe based on what we all saw this year, that we're got a whole lot of questions about next year's team and very, very few sure answers. Most of the hope for this team comes from either (1) sheer faith in the unknown that is Gbinijie and MPIII and to a lesser extent Quinn Cook; and (2) unrealistic hope for improvement from experienced players who are at a point in their careers where big growth leaps just don't happen.

I disagree. I'd say most of the hope for next year comes from (1) returning at least 1 if not 2 All-ACC players, (2) returning a PF who will likely be All-ACC next year, (3) returning a healthy Cook and Gbinije - 2 players who struggled with injuries and inexperience, (4) adding a stud freshman SG, (5) adding a tall, athletic wing who was a top 10-15 recruit before coming a year early and redshirting, and (6) possibly adding a junior Nate James type transfer who might be eligible next year. You seem to be discounting a lot of factors.


I've seen Katz's top 25, and I think that in addition to the 14 he's got ahead of us, Texas, Creighton, Gonazaga, Wisconsin, VCU, SD St and UNLV should be ranked ahead of us. That puts us 21, at best, in my poll. And there are a lot of teams that would merit consideration, at least, as being ahead of us. Maybe we've got a little more upside than some of those teams thanks to Cook, G, Sheed, Murphy and MPIII, but right now, that's a lot of unknowns and what are knowns aren't good enough to merit ranking in my opinion.

With all due respect, I think you're WAY off base here. Creighton loses their second best player and may very well lose their best player as well. Even if McDermott returns, we're better. Wisconsin loses their only offensive weapon in Taylor. SDSU will likely lose their best player to the draft, and they lose their only big man. VCU loses their best player, and they lost all but one of their games against major conference opponents this year. UNLV loses 2 of their starters, and they weren't actually all that good this past year (the UNC win at home inflated their reputation). Gonzaga was okay this year but they lose their 7 footer. Texas loses both of their big men and may lose their best player as well. NONE of those teams should be ranked ahead of Duke next year.

CDu
04-03-2012, 10:07 AM
I don't expect us to struggle and those teams not to struggle. I think those teams have fewer questions coming back than we do and have better returning cores than we do. I don't expect people here to agree, but I do hope that expectations here are realistic next year, and if people really think there are only 4 of 5 teams clearly better than us going into next year, expectations are not realistic at all.

I'm not saying we should be ranked in the top 10. I'm saying that your list is just as unrealistic as saying we should definitely be in the Top-10. You appear to be focusing entirely on our team's weaknesses and completely overlooking other team's weaknesses.

The reality of college basketball is that turnover is a huge problem for nearly everyone. The fortunate thing for Duke is that we have a coach who (a) still recruits well and (b) does an EXTREMELY good job at putting together a gameplan to maximize his team's strengths.

We'll be a top-15 team with or without Mason. With Mason, we'll easily be a top-10 team. That's not to say that next year's team won't have some potential flaws. It's just an acknowledgement that the rest of the good teams from this past year will also have flaws to overcome.

And in looking at Katz's list, I think he's being overly generous to some teams. For example, for MSU he says "don't overlook a Tom Izzo team" even though they return basically nothing noteworthy. For Kansas, he says the same thing (again, even though they return very little of interest outside of Withey). And Memphis without Will Barton just isn't going to be very good. And Syracuse without Joseph, Waiters, Jardine, and Melo is also pretty questionable.

Wander
04-03-2012, 10:17 AM
With all due respect, I think you're WAY off base here. Creighton loses their second best player and may very well lose their best player as well. Even if McDermott returns, we're better. Wisconsin loses their only offensive weapon in Taylor. SDSU will likely lose their best player to the draft, and they lose their only big man. VCU loses their best player, and they lost all but one of their games against major conference opponents this year. UNLV loses 2 of their starters, and they weren't actually all that good this past year (the UNC win at home inflated their reputation). Gonzaga was okay this year but they lose their 7 footer. Texas loses both of their big men and may lose their best player as well. NONE of those teams should be ranked ahead of Duke next year.

I think you're underestimating Texas and Wisconsin. Texas looks like they have a great recruiting class next year, and they were REALLY young this year. They seem like the classic case of a team that's going to make a huge jump. Wisconsin loses their best player, but so do we, and I think Wisconsin was better than us this year. And they bring in a good scorer to replace him. If Mason leaves and we don't get Shabazz I'd put these two teams ahead of Duke.

Mason comes back, it's a whole different story. Pretty hard to rank us without knowing that.

CDu
04-03-2012, 10:24 AM
I think you're underestimating Texas and Wisconsin. Texas looks like they have a great recruiting class next year, and they were REALLY young this year. They seem like the classic case of a team that's going to make a huge jump. Wisconsin loses their best player, but so do we, and I think Wisconsin was better than us this year. And they bring in a good scorer to replace him. If Mason leaves and we don't get Shabazz I'd put these two teams ahead of Duke.

Mason comes back, it's a whole different story.

Texas has a very solid recruiting class, but they do lose both of their big men. If Brown returns and Ridley (the prize of their recruiting class - the rest are not likely to contribute much next year) they should be pretty good. But we should too. And if Brown leaves? That's a huge loss. That puts a lot of pressure on Ridley and Kabongo to be stars next year. If we lose Mason and they keep Brown, I'm okay with them being ahead of us. But I think it's close. If we keep Mason, we're better.

Wisconsin without Taylor was substantially worse than Duke without Rivers. And we bring in a better replacement for Rivers than they do for Taylor. Even if Mason leaves, I think we're better than Wisconsin. That team was scrappy, but Taylor was the straw that stirred their drink. If we keep Mason, it's not close.

Chris Randolph
04-03-2012, 10:24 AM
I disagree. I'd say most of the hope for next year comes from (1) returning at least 1 if not 2 All-ACC players, (2) returning a PF who will likely be All-ACC next year, (3) returning a healthy Cook and Gbinije - 2 players who struggled with injuries and inexperience, (4) adding a stud freshman SG, (5) adding a tall, athletic wing who was a top 10-15 recruit before coming a year early and redshirting, and (6) possibly adding a junior Nate James type transfer who might be eligible next year. You seem to be discounting a lot of factors.



With all due respect, I think you're WAY off base here. Creighton loses their second best player and may very well lose their best player as well. Even if McDermott returns, we're better. Wisconsin loses their only offensive weapon in Taylor. SDSU will likely lose their best player to the draft, and they lose their only big man. VCU loses their best player, and they lost all but one of their games against major conference opponents this year. UNLV loses 2 of their starters, and they weren't actually all that good this past year (the UNC win at home inflated their reputation). Gonzaga was okay this year but they lose their 7 footer. Texas loses both of their big men and may lose their best player as well. NONE of those teams should be ranked ahead of Duke next year.

I wouldn't say that thought was WAY off base. In today's game, rankings outside of the top 5 or 8 are interchangable..... Every fan base is going to find "hope" in next year's team, as we should. But I think the main points concerning Duke are: losing their best player (Rivers, and probably Plumlee) and counting on 3-5 players who have minimal or no experience. Plus right now we haven't landed a transfer or one of the top 3 recruits. You have to understand that these rankings are also influenced by how a team finishes the previous season and I think that could impact Duke quite a bit. The decline in play over the last 2-3 weeks of the season was alarming and the lackluster performance in the tourney where it just didn't look like a Coach K team (not just talking about physical play).

NashvilleDevil
04-03-2012, 10:25 AM
I think you're underestimating Texas and Wisconsin. Texas looks like they have a great recruiting class next year, and they were REALLY young this year. They seem like the classic case of a team that's going to make a huge jump. Wisconsin loses their best player, but so do we, and I think Wisconsin was better than us this year. And they bring in a good scorer to replace him. If Mason leaves and we don't get Shabazz I'd put these two teams ahead of Duke.

Mason comes back, it's a whole different story. Pretty hard to rank us without knowing that.

This is a good point and if Rick Barnes was not the coach I could see them making a deep run next year.

CDu
04-03-2012, 10:30 AM
I wouldn't say that thought was WAY off base. In today's game, rankings outside of the top 5 or 8 are interchangable..... Every fan base is going to find "hope" in next year's team, as we should. But I think the main points concerning Duke are: losing their best player (Rivers, and probably Plumlee) and counting on 3-5 players who have minimal or no experience. Plus right now we haven't landed a transfer or one of the top 3 recruits. You have to understand that these rankings are also influenced by how a team finishes the previous season and I think that could impact Duke quite a bit. The decline in play over the last 2-3 weeks of the season and the lackluster performance in the tourney where it just didn't look like a Coach K team (not just talking about physical play).

I think the "probably" part is debatable with regard to Mason. We've landed a recruit who is better than 2 of the 3 guys we're looking to add (I don't expect we'll add any of the 3 freshman, I do think we'll add at least one of the transfers).

So we return, at minimum, and All-ACC senior guard, a senior 6'10" forward who will likely be All-ACC, a senior shooter who will likely top 1000 points next year, and possibly a senior All-ACC center, and two likely impact freshmen in Murphy and Sulaimon. And that's ignoring anything that Gbinije and Cook (two sophomores who were hampered by injury and inexperience last year) bring to the table, or any role player skills that juniors Thornton and Hairston offer, or anything that Marshall may provide.

We definitely have questions. But we have a lot of talent, too.

DukeGirl4ever
04-03-2012, 10:56 AM
I kind of laugh at this Andy Katz article right now because there are so many uncertainties for next year, and those of you who know me outside of DBR know that I think rankings are pretty much meaningless until the beginning of March.

Anyway, here's the link. It gives us something to talk about until October! :cool:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7767401/indiana-hoosiers-continue-moving-2012-13

DukeWarhead
04-03-2012, 11:02 AM
I don't expect us to struggle and those teams not to struggle. I think those teams have fewer questions coming back than we do and have better returning cores than we do. I don't expect people here to agree, but I do hope that expectations here are realistic next year, and if people really think there are only 4 of 5 teams clearly better than us going into next year, expectations are not realistic at all.

If you really think that there are 20-25 teams that are clearly better that us going in to next year, I'd say that's just as weird. It would suggest you haven't placed the same amount of scrutiny on their potential rosters as you have Duke's.

Kfanarmy
04-03-2012, 11:05 AM
We definitely have questions. But we have a lot of talent, too.
This quote really kind of epitomizes the 2011-2012 collection of players on Duke's roster....unfortunately at the end of the season, though there was clearly some talent, there wasn't a team.

In a way, I think it may be a good thing for Duke to be ranked outside the top 10...lends to some more realistic expectations and reduces pressure on the team....Frankly, as a fan, I'd rather see the team lose a couple of games, but look happy playing together and growing, than to see them win a bunch during the regular season, but never really look like they enjoy playing together and never grow through the season.

I'm not sure where this team will go next year. I have high hopes for Curry and some of the younger guards on the perimeter, but frankly am thinking that Andre would need a drastic change in attitude to be reliable...IMO he makes the entire perimeter weak defensively when he is on the floor, and that as a result of foot speed and attention/effort. So if he isn't REALLY on target offensively, it was at best difficult for Duke to keep up with teams with even average quickness on the perimeter.

Right now, I think 15 is about right...and hope a team can grow out of the talent.

CDu
04-03-2012, 11:19 AM
If you really think that there are 20-25 teams that are clearly better that us going in to next year, I'd say that's just as weird. It would suggest you haven't placed the same amount of scrutiny on their potential rosters as you have Duke's.

Yep. The grass is always greener on the other side. I can't see any reasonable way you could look at MSU's roster for next year and say it's better than ours (even without Mason). Same thing for OSU if Sullinger goes and they don't get Parker. Same thing for Kansas. Same thing for Memphis without Barton. Same thing for Wisconsin without Taylor. Same thing for Cincy without Gates and Dixon. Same thing for Syracuse without Waiters, Joseph, Jardine, and Melo. UNC has some talented guards, but they have a TON of questions about their inside play, their leadership, and their ballhandling. With just a LITTLE effort one can easily see the limitations/questions that those teams face.

Without Mason I wouldn't be comfortable putting Duke in the top-10. But I wouldn't be comfortable with putting any of those teams in the top-10 either.

Des Esseintes
04-03-2012, 11:29 AM
This quote really kind of epitomizes the 2011-2012 collection of players on Duke's roster....unfortunately at the end of the season, though there was clearly some talent, there wasn't a team.

In a way, I think it may be a good thing for Duke to be ranked outside the top 10...lends to some more realistic expectations and reduces pressure on the team....Frankly, as a fan, I'd rather see the team lose a couple of games, but look happy playing together and growing, than to see them win a bunch during the regular season, but never really look like they enjoy playing together and never grow through the season.

Maybe you'd like to see this, not sure why you would, but teams that are losing are also generally unhappy. If a team looks happy in defeat, they are criticized for it. I would also submit that Duke's guys looked plenty happy playing together in Maui, in Chapel Hill, in Tallahassee.


I'm not sure where this team will go next year. I have high hopes for Curry and some of the younger guards on the perimeter, but frankly am thinking that Andre would need a drastic change in attitude to be reliable...IMO he makes the entire perimeter weak defensively when he is on the floor, and that as a result of foot speed and attention/effort. So if he isn't REALLY on target offensively, it was at best difficult for Duke to keep up with teams with even average quickness on the perimeter.

Andre is not a great defender, but this is an exaggeration. Duke's defense was not fatally compromised when he took the floor as a freshman or sophomore. Those years, in fact, we had top five defenses. We had better defenders around him then, as we might next season with a year of growth from everyone. A team can win big with Andre; it already has. I'd love for him to be a stronger defender, and I'd love for him to develop a handle. But even as presently constituted he can help his team. His career has demonstrated that much.

Troublemaker
04-03-2012, 11:43 AM
The biggest reason to have confidence that Duke is a top 25 team, even in some of the worst-case scenarios, is simple: Duke kills the regular season.

I mean, if someone wants to place a friendly wager on whether Duke is top 25 at the end of next season (in the polls, in computer rankings, in seeding, whatever the case), I will gladly accept. Heck, we probably get a 1 seed, knowing us :-)

Kfanarmy
04-03-2012, 11:48 AM
Maybe you'd like to see this, not sure why you would, but teams that are losing are also generally unhappy. If a team looks happy in defeat, they are criticized for it. I would also submit that Duke's guys looked plenty happy playing together in Maui, in Chapel Hill, in Tallahassee. I didn't say I wanted to see them look happy while losing a particular game, rather I'd like to see them happy as a team playing together and growing. Singular moments of accomplishment will create moments, but I don't think you can argue that the team last year looked like it was having fun most of the time. To me they more often looked afraid to lose and individualistic than a team enjoying the opportunity to win and play together.



Andre is not a great defender, but this is an exaggeration. Duke's defense was not fatally compromised when he took the floor as a freshman or sophomore. Those years, in fact, we had top five defenses. We had better defenders around him then, as we might next season with a year of growth from everyone. A team can win big with Andre; it already has. I'd love for him to be a stronger defender, and I'd love for him to develop a handle. But even as presently constituted he can help his team. His career has demonstrated that much. We will have to disagree on whether this is an exageration. You're essentially saying that he needs strong defenders around him to cover his weakness, but that takes great foot speed and places the whole team defense at risk, as someone is always hedging to cover the weaker player. I stand by the opinion that if he isn't REALLY on target offensively, to make up for defensive weakness, the team is weakened.


In any case the lower ranking may be more reflective of the team and may be beneficial.

Chicago 1995
04-03-2012, 11:48 AM
If you really think that there are 20-25 teams that are clearly better that us going in to next year, I'd say that's just as weird. It would suggest you haven't placed the same amount of scrutiny on their potential rosters as you have Duke's.

On the flipside, I'd suggest most of the people here are putting too much faith in our guys, and projecting too much improvement out of our players and not giving other teams the same benefit of the doubt. See, for example, the complaints about the sugggestion that Wisconsin is properly ranked ahead above us. They lose Taylor. Well, we lose Rivers. One seems to matter here more than the other.

I'm not surprised people here disagree. We're a fan site, after all. We're all -- well other than Wheat -- Duke fans. I just have more concerns about what we bring back than most do, obviously, and am not willing to make the leap of faith that our unknowns are going to make huge leaps, at least not right away.

gumbomoop
04-03-2012, 12:17 PM
We're a fan site, after all. We're all -- well other than Wheat -- Duke fans.

A minor point, and hardly central to the debate in this thread re Duke's preseason ranking. But I have picked up some wonderful news in Chicago 1995's throwaway line here: Chicago 1995 mentions only Wheat, leaving out, significantly, ChicagoHeel. So I figure the 2 Chicago folks know each other - small town and all - and that Chicago 1995 is telling us ChicagoHeel is so depressed about the Heel-departures that we have a convert. Pretty good news, I'd say, because ChicagoHeel is a helluva good poster.

Further, I'm betting - well, really, we can pretty much take this to the bank - that ChicagoHeel has also been talking with our other Heel-posters [shoutingncu and ClosetHurleyFan], and they've got inside info that McAdoo's gone, so they're so totally fed up that they're coming over to our side, too. The good news just keeps on coming.

I hope they can persuade Wheat that UNC's glory days are over. That would make it a clean sweep: four great posters, all of whom would presumably retain some Heel-contacts and would thus be able to dish the dirt on player transfers [several, no surprise here, to UCLA] and Roy's coming collapse. I'd think Jerod Haase will apprentice a couple of years at UAB, and be named Roy's replacement in April 2014.

Edit: Sorry, thread relevance: with Mason, preseason consensus #9; without, #13.

1 24 90
04-03-2012, 12:20 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/04/early-look-at-2012-13-mens-college-basketball-rankings/1

I can't wait to see the reaction USA Today's preseason Top 10 gets!

ncexnyc
04-03-2012, 12:30 PM
The biggest reason to have confidence that Duke is a top 25 team, even in some of the worst-case scenarios, is simple: Duke kills the regular season.

I mean, if someone wants to place a friendly wager on whether Duke is top 25 at the end of next season (in the polls, in computer rankings, in seeding, whatever the case), I will gladly accept. Heck, we probably get a 1 seed, knowing us :-)

Probably the smartest thing I've read on this thread.

We'll get our usual jump on the competition and steal a game or two early on in the schedule, which will pad our ranking. What we do from there depends on how the team gels for the long run and whether or not some or our sleepers make baby steps or giant steps in their game.

As for CDu talking about us having a probable ALL-ACC forword, I'd advise holding off on writing Mr. Kelly's name on any ballot until we see how his foot heels. I'd give that same advice to our friends down the road when talking about Strickland and McDonald, especially Strickland as his game was built on speed and agility.

DukeGirl4ever
04-03-2012, 12:31 PM
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/04/early-look-at-2012-13-mens-college-basketball-rankings/1

I can't wait to see the reaction USA Today's preseason Top 10 gets!

Wow from #3 in this article to #15 with Andy Katz?

This is why I say these things are completely ridiculous now.
Of course I remember them saying at the end of last year that UNC would be the favorite this year, and that turned out pretty well I think! :p

It's fun to read, but let me see who comes back next year before I start even thinking about who's Top 10.

langdonfan
04-03-2012, 12:39 PM
I think some people are underestimating the potential for next year's team, simply because this year's team lost in the first round. Let's not forget that, even given its warts, this team was in the running for a #1 seed only a few weeks ago. We bring in three McDonald's All-American caliber recruits, two of which should be able to contribute immediately. Sure Miles and Austin are gone, but every other 1 or 2 seed will likely suffer even more damaging losses. I imagine Duke will easily be somewhere between 10-12, with the potential to move a little higher quite quickly.

FerryFor50
04-03-2012, 12:58 PM
I think some people are underestimating the potential for next year's team, simply because this year's team lost in the first round. Let's not forget that, even given its warts, this team was in the running for a #1 seed only a few weeks ago. We bring in three McDonald's All-American caliber recruits, two of which should be able to contribute immediately. Sure Miles and Austin are gone, but every other 1 or 2 seed will likely suffer even more damaging losses. I imagine Duke will easily be somewhere between 10-12, with the potential to move a little higher quite quickly.

Way too much stock is put into how a team does in the NCAAs in regards to the pre-season rankings.

Writers do realize that hot streaks can wear off over the course of 6 months, right? Especially when players leave...

NashvilleDevil
04-03-2012, 01:15 PM
On the flipside, I'd suggest most of the people here are putting too much faith in our guys, and projecting too much improvement out of our players and not giving other teams the same benefit of the doubt.

Prior to the 2009-10 season no one knew what kind of improvement Nolan was going to have. His last 2 year's he became a Duke legend now you do not think that anyone on this roster can make a Nolan like leap? Because if someone does and you add that to Curry's offensive game and a year improved Mason then that team will be a tough team to beat next year.

CameronBornAndBred
04-03-2012, 02:25 PM
I don't know where we or anyone else will be ranked to start the season (and I think until the NBA draft is over it's a bit goofy to guess) but I do know where we finished.
14th. Bleah. That was with Rivers. So even if we replace him Shabazz, I don't see us moving up majorly into the top 10. That's fine with me, gotta earn it.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

TexHawk
04-03-2012, 02:25 PM
For Kansas, he says the same thing (again, even though they return very little of interest outside of Withey).

As cautious as I was at the beginning of this year for KU, I am equally bullish for '12-'13. "Very little of interest outside of Withey" includes two other soon-to-be senior starters from the national runner-up. Johnson is a different player than Taylor, not as fast, but a better shooter, and (hopefully) more cautious with the ball. (Ignoring a couple back-breaking ones from last night, of course.) He was the most consistent scorer in the last 10-12 games for KU (better than T-Rob), and he is a much much better defender than Taylor. KU does not beat Purdue, UNC, or Ohio State without him. In fact, Johnson-Withey-Releford is just a nasty defensive trio.

KU also brings in it's own stud freshman (Perry Ellis to take Robinson's starting spot), plus 2 guys who were ruled academically ineligible for 2012 (McLemore* and Traylor). One more year of experience for Tharpe and Young, throw in recuits Zach Peters, Landen Lucas, and maybe Parker, that is absolutely a top 5 team.

* If McLemore (rcsi #25) was getting Teahan's minutes last night, that's a completely different game. I know I know... If my aunt were my uncle...

Honestly, the critical loss is Danny Manning. Parker will likely not end up in Lawrence because of it. Whoever fills the open assistant position will have some big shoes to fill.

CDu
04-03-2012, 02:45 PM
As cautious as I was at the beginning of this year for KU, I am equally bullish for '12-'13. "Very little of interest outside of Withey" includes two other soon-to-be senior starters from the national runner-up. Johnson is a different player than Taylor, not as fast, but a better shooter, and (hopefully) more cautious with the ball. (Ignoring a couple back-breaking ones from last night, of course.) He was the most consistent scorer in the last 10-12 games for KU (better than T-Rob), and he is a much much better defender than Taylor. KU does not beat Purdue, UNC, or Ohio State without him. In fact, Johnson-Withey-Releford is just a nasty defensive trio.

That's a very nice defensive trio, but it's a very limited offensive trio. Johnson did become a more consistent scorer down the stretch, but he was absolutely not better than Robinson. In the last 10 games, Johnson averaged 13.5 ppg (topping 15 pts in 4 of those 10), Robinson averaged 17.5 ppg (topping 15 pts in 9 of those 10). And that's in spite of the fact that defenses built their gameplan around defending Robinson and Taylor, leaving Johnson and Releford to beat them.

As an opponent, Withey is the only guy of those three that concerns me offensively. Johnson is a decent scorer but not noteworthy.


KU also brings in it's own stud freshman (Perry Ellis to take Robinson's starting spot), plus 2 guys who were ruled academically ineligible for 2012 (McLemore* and Traylor). One more year of experience for Tharpe and Young, throw in recuits Zach Peters, Landen Lucas, and maybe Parker, that is absolutely a top 5 team.

Ellis is a terrific recruit. I very much doubt that he'll come even remotely close to replacing what Robinson provided. McLemore is nice too, but he's not close to replacing what you lost in Taylor. The rest of the guys you mentioned are 3-star (or less) recruits that are very unlikely to make a big impact next year.

I think you're discounting just how reliant you were on Taylor and Robinson offensively and overstating the readiness of your incoming players.

gofurman
04-03-2012, 11:09 PM
By the way - I fully admit this thread is extremely premature. Its just fun. Will know more in the next few weeks. Hopefully lots of other guys go pro from all the other teams !

subzero02
04-03-2012, 11:33 PM
Our streak of consecutive weeks in the top 10 of the AP poll is in serious jeopardy

sporthenry
04-04-2012, 12:00 AM
I know enough about Tyler Thornton's offense to know that Marcus Paige is a more complete player. Much of what you write besides veers into a best case for Duke, worst case for Carolina. I'm not counting on Strickland in saying I think Paige would be playing with a better backcourt. Limited as they are, Bullock and Hairston are bigger, stronger and more athletic. Both have more room for growth in their games than our returning guards (save Cook). We add Sheed, who I like a great deal, but they add Tokoto to the mix. Even if James/Plumlee is a wash, if Carolina brings back McAdoo, they bring back the best player either team returns. With him, they're clearly better. Without, it's much closer.


How often have you seen Paige play? TT was DC Gatorade POY and regularly got the better of KM. I think many are learning this whole looking to the new guys isn't always the best. Granted K seems to have less trust in freshman than other teams but how many people were bummed we lost out on Tyler Adams, or Deandre Daniels or expected Murphy or Gbinije to play significant roles for us this year? Relying on Freshmen outside the top 10-15 becomes a crapshoot. Freshmen year Kemba Walker only averaged 9 points on 27% from 3 with 2.9 assists and 1.8 TO and he was the #15 recruit for that year. Or how about Alex Murphy's brother, Erik, RSCI #43 above Kawhi Leonard and Erik Bledsoe yet only averaged 9 minutes and 3.5 points his freshmen year or 4.3 points in 10.8 minutes before playing 26 minutes shooting 42% from 3 and averaging 10.5 points. And it isn't like Florida was loaded at the forward position with the likes of Alex Tyus or Vernon Macklin. Or Korie Lucious who was RSCI#87 and only averaged 9 minutes and 3.7 points 1.2 assists with 1 turnover before developing into a solid PG albeit with character issues. Or Gorgui Dieng who played 15.6 minutes averaged 4.4 rebounds and 5.7 points before blowing up. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that many of these other teams usually have a worse lineup than Duke does and it isn't like we need our players to develop into lottery picks or game changing players like Dieng.

And best case for Duke is that Plumlee returns and they add TP (or Amile) along with Bazz. Worst case for Duke is they lose Mason. However, you are wrong about worst case for UNC. You want worst case for UNC, how bout McAdoo leaves and Oriakhi goes elsewhere then you have worst case scenario. And McAdoo did show glimpses but I'm not sure that a senior Mason is behind or that far behind McAdoo. McAdoo is getting drafted off potential like when Mason could have been a lottery pick but came back.

And guards have more room for growth doesn't make them better. They actually have to grow. You seem to think like an NBA GM but this is a one year gig and if they don't actually grow then our known commodities are better, hence they have a lot more questions than us. And JP Tokoto is not a name I've heard in a while probably b/c he dropped a lot. I'll admit I base a lot on the rankings but the guy has dropped to mid 60's and dropping usually isn't good (while you get diamonds in the rough like Jeremy Lamb, its more b/c nobody saw them play not b/c they dropped). But this is my biggest gripe, you put Tokoto in the same sentence as Sheed who just got down playing second fiddle in the McD AA to Bazz, yet you still dismiss Alex Murphy who was a top 20 recruit in that class or Gbinije who was top 30 last year. So I'm going to take Gbinije and Murphy who have had a year to practice against fellow top 30 recruits who are 2-3 years their elder and work under the tutelage of our coaching staff and get stronger than a guy in Wisconsin who seemingly didn't develop much and it appears the rest of the HS players caught up to him. So I'd say between Gbinije and Murphy, there is our upside over UNC.

duke09hms
04-04-2012, 12:19 AM
How often have you seen Paige play? TT was DC Gatorade POY and regularly got the better of KM. I think many are learning this whole looking to the new guys isn't always the best. Granted K seems to have less trust in freshman than other teams but how many people were bummed we lost out on Tyler Adams, or Deandre Daniels or expected Murphy or Gbinije to play significant roles for us this year? Relying on Freshmen outside the top 10-15 becomes a crapshoot. Freshmen year Kemba Walker only averaged 9 points on 27% from 3 with 2.9 assists and 1.8 TO and he was the #15 recruit for that year. Or how about Alex Murphy's brother, Erik, RSCI #43 above Kawhi Leonard and Erik Bledsoe yet only averaged 9 minutes and 3.5 points his freshmen year or 4.3 points in 10.8 minutes before playing 26 minutes shooting 42% from 3 and averaging 10.5 points. And it isn't like Florida was loaded at the forward position with the likes of Alex Tyus or Vernon Macklin. Or Korie Lucious who was RSCI#87 and only averaged 9 minutes and 3.7 points 1.2 assists with 1 turnover before developing into a solid PG albeit with character issues. Or Gorgui Dieng who played 15.6 minutes averaged 4.4 rebounds and 5.7 points before blowing up. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that many of these other teams usually have a worse lineup than Duke does and it isn't like we need our players to develop into lottery picks or game changing players like Dieng.

And best case for Duke is that Plumlee returns and they add TP (or Amile) along with Bazz. Worst case for Duke is they lose Mason. However, you are wrong about worst case for UNC. You want worst case for UNC, how bout McAdoo leaves and Oriakhi goes elsewhere then you have worst case scenario. And McAdoo did show glimpses but I'm not sure that a senior Mason is behind or that far behind McAdoo. McAdoo is getting drafted off potential like when Mason could have been a lottery pick but came back.

And guards have more room for growth doesn't make them better. They actually have to grow. You seem to think like an NBA GM but this is a one year gig and if they don't actually grow then our known commodities are better, hence they have a lot more questions than us. And JP Tokoto is not a name I've heard in a while probably b/c he dropped a lot. I'll admit I base a lot on the rankings but the guy has dropped to mid 60's and dropping usually isn't good (while you get diamonds in the rough like Jeremy Lamb, its more b/c nobody saw them play not b/c they dropped). But this is my biggest gripe, you put Tokoto in the same sentence as Sheed who just got down playing second fiddle in the McD AA to Bazz, yet you still dismiss Alex Murphy who was a top 20 recruit in that class or Gbinije who was top 30 last year. So I'm going to take Gbinije and Murphy who have had a year to practice against fellow top 30 recruits who are 2-3 years their elder and work under the tutelage of our coaching staff and get stronger than a guy in Wisconsin who seemingly didn't develop much and it appears the rest of the HS players caught up to him. So I'd say between Gbinije and Murphy, there is our upside over UNC.

Cmon man, the above part in bold doesnt mean crap. Sure TT might have had some decent games in HS against Kendall, but in college . . . no comparison. AT ALL. Kendall is owning Tyler up and down the court.

What a myth.

sporthenry
04-04-2012, 12:39 AM
Cmon man, the above part in bold doesnt mean crap. Sure TT might have had some decent games in HS against Kendall, but in college . . . no comparison. AT ALL. Kendall is owning Tyler up and down the court.

What a myth.

I wasn't arguing the TT was better or anywhere near KM at this point in time. I never said that although I guess my original post was a bit ambiguous, it was more to justify that the guy is not chopped liver and saying that a kid who has never stepped a foot on college basketball is already decidedly better rubs me the wrong way, that was all I was saying.

Greg_Newton
04-04-2012, 01:32 AM
I think Michigan could be quite dangerous in a likely depleted field, especially if Trey Burke and Hardaway Jr. come back. McGary and Glenn Robinson Jr. are both big-time impact players, and they could easily have one of the best starting fives in the country, plus that sneaky zone.

PackMan97
04-04-2012, 01:55 AM
Top team in the ACC does not guarantee top 10 in the country.

They have a good recruiting class coming in, but you never know how well they'll fit in, and you never know how good they'll be...

They never really beat anyone of note this year outside of Georgetown and had double digit losses. Top 25, for sure. But top 10... I'll believe it when I see it.

NC State was 2-9 against the top 25 RPI. That's almost your double digit losses right there. 22-4 against everyone else. Sure, that's not top 10 material but you can't deny that NC State was playing MUCH better the last month of the season. Pollsters look at the way we played against Duke for 30 minutes, against Carolina in the last two games, against SDSU, GT and KU in the NCAAs. NC State really started to click late in the season and it wasn't the result of hot shooting or one player going nuts (though Leslie did step up) it was team basketball. I also think many folks look at how much having a coach improved our guys and assume there is still some upside to our guys with another year of Gottfried and staff.

I certainly think it's a stretch to have State at #6, but given the losses many of the top teams will suffer and the addition of debt, it's not crazy.

FerryFor50
04-04-2012, 09:36 AM
NC State was 2-9 against the top 25 RPI. That's almost your double digit losses right there. 22-4 against everyone else. Sure, that's not top 10 material but you can't deny that NC State was playing MUCH better the last month of the season. Pollsters look at the way we played against Duke for 30 minutes, against Carolina in the last two games, against SDSU, GT and KU in the NCAAs. NC State really started to click late in the season and it wasn't the result of hot shooting or one player going nuts (though Leslie did step up) it was team basketball. I also think many folks look at how much having a coach improved our guys and assume there is still some upside to our guys with another year of Gottfried and staff.

I certainly think it's a stretch to have State at #6, but given the losses many of the top teams will suffer and the addition of debt, it's not crazy.

I'm not saying the Pack is a bad team. I'm of the opinion that they're on their way up and will be a force to be reckoned with as long as the players don't tune out Gottfried.

As a State alum, I'm perfectly ok with that. However, I also know, as a State alum, to temper my expectations and be realistic. :)

CDu
04-04-2012, 09:51 AM
I'm not saying the Pack is a bad team. I'm of the opinion that they're on their way up and will be a force to be reckoned with as long as the players don't tune out Gottfried.

As a State alum, I'm perfectly ok with that. However, I also know, as a State alum, to temper my expectations and be realistic. :)

I think with the degree of turnover we're seeing from from year to year in college basketball makes it necessary to consider major jumps possible. Add to that the collection of returning talent and incoming talent (I think Purvis is an immediate impact guy - Warren and Lewis are going to be role playing reserves next year) and the addition of more depth/size inside for State, and I think the expectations are going to be very high for them next year if Leslie returns.

There are still question marks. That team really had only one guy comfortable dribbling in the half court (Brown), and down the stretch of games that limitation showed up (combined with the fact that Leslie and/or Howell were off the floor with fouls) in their close losses. They just weren't comfortable creating offense when it got to crunch time and defenses stiffened. The additions of Purvis and Lewis will help there. Those guys are very confident with the ball in their hands, so they can take turns providing relief for Brown.

Talentwise, that's a top-5 team next year if Leslie returns. And with the weakened ACC, they should certainly improve upon their 9-7 mark this past season. A 24-win team returning all but one of its key players (and replacing that one with an upgrade in talent and depth) and adding an additional big man, with 2 candidates for 1st Team All-ACC sure sounds like a top-10 team to me.

I know it feels weird to discuss State in those terms. But when you return all of the key players from a 24-win team and add a top-5 recruiting class to that team, you should expect big things. It's possibly the beginning of a new era in State basketball. We'll see if Gottfried can build on the strong finish and even stronger recruiting class by taking State further next year and continuing to bring in top-notch talent.

gumbomoop
04-04-2012, 10:13 AM
I certainly think it's a stretch to have State at #6, but given the losses many of the top teams will suffer... it's not crazy.

Not at all crazy. In fact, if [1] Leslie returns, and if, [2] as you predict, several of the potential top teams lose guys, NCSt would seem a very likely preseason consensus top 7-10. Pack fans have every reason to be very optimistic.

It's probably in Duke fans' interest for Leslie to leave, both because Pack wouldn't be as strong next year, and because the more guys leave who are likely to be drafted ahead of Mason, maybe Mason worries about sliding to 2d round, and decides to stay.

For some reason, I myself would much prefer that McAdoo leave than Leslie. I guess it's because UNC is the bigger rival, and maybe I think NCSt "deserves" to have a really good season. I might not be thinking that next season if Leslie stays and plays well against Duke.

CDu
04-04-2012, 10:31 AM
Not at all crazy. In fact, if [1] Leslie returns, and if, [2] as you predict, several of the potential top teams lose guys, NCSt would seem a very likely preseason consensus top 7-10. Pack fans have every reason to be very optimistic.

It's probably in Duke fans' interest for Leslie to leave, both because Pack wouldn't be as strong next year, and because the more guys leave who are likely to be drafted ahead of Mason, maybe Mason worries about sliding to 2d round, and decides to stay.

For some reason, I myself would much prefer that McAdoo leave than Leslie. I guess it's because UNC is the bigger rival, and maybe I think NCSt "deserves" to have a really good season. I might not be thinking that next season if Leslie stays and plays well against Duke.

I want them both to leave. :)

That said, I think Leslie leaving has more positive implications for Duke than McAdoo leaving. Leslie just killed us in the game at Duke before foul trouble limited him. We really had no answer for him, and none of the guys we have returning will have an answer either. Without him, that's a very good State team, but it's one that we can match up with much better (though Brown and Purvis will still cause headaches).

McAdoo still needs to prove he's the same matchup nightmare that Leslie was. He's clearly crucial to UNC being really good or just okay, but I don't think he causes the same type of matchup problems that Leslie does. And it's the matchup problems that I worry about. Kelly is a good player and can usually hold his own out there, but Leslie's athleticism is off the charts (I think he was hands down the best athlete in the ACC last year). I'm confident we can beat UNC with McAdoo. State with Leslie and more depth is quite possibly an entirely different animal.

PackMan97
04-04-2012, 10:40 AM
I'm not saying the Pack is a bad team. I'm of the opinion that they're on their way up and will be a force to be reckoned with as long as the players don't tune out Gottfried.

As a State alum, I'm perfectly ok with that. However, I also know, as a State alum, to temper my expectations and be realistic. :)

That's a losers mentality and it's not allowed in Raleigh any more. I have full faith that this coaching staff won't let some good press and a S16 go to the players head. When the positive press started coming out last fall (Howell's weight loss, changes in attitudes, practices, scheduling) I stopped tempering any expectations. This isn't about "being due" or "earning" anything, it's about our players and coaching staff going out and taking it. If you watched the last month of the season this team was hungry and driven. That same attitude will be back in the fall. It's the same drive that the great Duke teams have always had. It's the drive that the championship UNC teams have (which I never saw in them this season).

I don't know how good we'll be, or what record we will end up with, but I'm done being afraid of success and expectations. Gottfried flat out told our guys, 11 ACC wins and you are in the tourney. He didn't hide from it. He didn't only talk about it behind closed doors. He told them exactly what they had to do. The only thing I expect is to see the same effort and intensity. The rest will take care of itself.

gumbomoop
04-04-2012, 10:47 AM
I want them both to leave. :)

That said, I think Leslie leaving has more positive implications for Duke than McAdoo leaving. Leslie just killed us in the game at Duke before foul trouble limited him. We really had no answer for him, and none of the guys we have returning will have an answer either. Without him, that's a very good State team, but it's one that we can match up with much better (though Brown and Purvis will still cause headaches).... State with Leslie and more depth is quite possibly an entirely different animal.

Good points, good matchup details. I guess I want Leslie to leave even more than I want State to have a great season, and as I noted in my post, it's easy for me to say, right now, that I hope State will have a fine season. Not so easy if and when it happens, next season, at Duke's expense.

As I do not follow the NBA at all, I'd be interested in hearing posters comment on whether Leslie is a player without a position at the next level. Either here or on some other, even a new, thread.

CDu
04-04-2012, 11:00 AM
Good points, good matchup details. I guess I want Leslie to leave even more than I want State to have a great season, and as I noted in my post, it's easy for me to say right now that I hope State will have a fine season. Not so easy if and when it happens at Duke's expense.

Yeah, I have several friends who are huge State fans, and for their sake I'd like to see State have a great season. However, when push comes to shove, I'm selfish and would prefer us to have the better year. :) What I'd really like to see is Duke #1, State #2, and UNC #12 in conference. But the most important thing for me is Duke #1.


As I do not follow the NBA at all, I'd be interested in hearing posters comment on whether Leslie is a player without a position at the next level. Either here or on some other, even a new, thread.

Leslie is very much a player without a position right now. He's got ideal SF size and athleticism, but he lacks even PF offensive skills. He's a lot like Tyrus Thomas in terms of size, athleticism, and potential, but also similar in lack of polish. The differences between the two are that Thomas was a better defender and had a "higher motor." Thomas went very high in the draft based on the combination of potential/defense/"motor" and the fact that his team made the final four largely on his defensive dominance. But he never did find a position in the NBA (too small to play PF well, too limited offensively to play SF well). That (combined with the concerns about Leslie's focus and "motor") will probably not do Leslie favors come draft time if he goes this year.

That said, Leslie is the type of guy who could go as high as the lottery and as low as the second round this year. It just takes one GM to fall in love with his athleticism and overlook the lack of a position. I think his career path may very well be similar to Thomas's path once in the NBA, but we'll see.

Chicago 1995
04-04-2012, 11:16 AM
How often have you seen Paige play? TT was DC Gatorade POY and regularly got the better of KM.

Instead of relying on Tyler's high school accolades, I'm relying upon his play at Duke against ACC level competition. Based on that, he's a guy who is very, very limited offensively and an above average but not outstanding defender. He's a limited player who should be a back up PG brought on for energy and defense. I'm not going out on a limb thinking that Paige -- a McDonald's All-American -- is very likely going to be a more complete and therefore better player than Tyler. I've seen Paige play 3 times. He's a lot further along offensively. Rankings matter to you when they benefit Duke -- pointing to the difference in ranking between Tokoto and Sheed, for example -- but here, where both rankings and Tyler's actual play would suggest that we've got a weakness here, and Carolina has an advantage, rankings aren't as important. I don't mind using rankings -- especially for guys that haven't played -- but let's be consistent in doing it.


I think many are learning this whole looking to the new guys isn't always the best. Granted K seems to have less trust in freshman than other teams but how many people were bummed we lost out on Tyler Adams, or Deandre Daniels or expected Murphy or Gbinije to play significant roles for us this year? Relying on Freshmen outside the top 10-15 becomes a crapshoot. Freshmen year Kemba Walker only averaged 9 points on 27% from 3 with 2.9 assists and 1.8 TO and he was the #15 recruit for that year. Or how about Alex Murphy's brother, Erik, RSCI #43 above Kawhi Leonard and Erik Bledsoe yet only averaged 9 minutes and 3.5 points his freshmen year or 4.3 points in 10.8 minutes before playing 26 minutes shooting 42% from 3 and averaging 10.5 points. And it isn't like Florida was loaded at the forward position with the likes of Alex Tyus or Vernon Macklin. Or Korie Lucious who was RSCI#87 and only averaged 9 minutes and 3.7 points 1.2 assists with 1 turnover before developing into a solid PG albeit with character issues. Or Gorgui Dieng who played 15.6 minutes averaged 4.4 rebounds and 5.7 points before blowing up. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that many of these other teams usually have a worse lineup than Duke does and it isn't like we need our players to develop into lottery picks or game changing players like Dieng.

That's absolutely right. Outside of top 8 recruits of so -- I forget where the cut off was in the study I read -- many of these guys aren't impact players as freshman. That cuts both ways though. We're going to need big contributions from Sheed and Murphy and MPIII, but they could struggle as freshmen, redshirt or otherwise, just as much as UNC.


And guards have more room for growth doesn't make them better. They actually have to grow. You seem to think like an NBA GM but this is a one year gig and if they don't actually grow then our known commodities are better, hence they have a lot more questions than us.

I'm not looking at this like a GM. Hairston and Bullock are a rising sophomore and a rising junior, respectively. They are at the points in their careers where the greatest growth is to be expected. On the flip side, Seth's a fifth year senior and Andre a rising senior. You don't see significant growth out of players with that experience. Curry and Dawkins are what the are, and that's good, but with some serious holes and limitations. To think that Bullock and Hairston might improve enough as a duo to be better than Andre and Seth isn't crazy at all.


And JP Tokoto is not a name I've heard in a while probably b/c he dropped a lot. I'll admit I base a lot on the rankings but the guy has dropped to mid 60's and dropping usually isn't good (while you get diamonds in the rough like Jeremy Lamb, its more b/c nobody saw them play not b/c they dropped). But this is my biggest gripe, you put Tokoto in the same sentence as Sheed who just got down playing second fiddle in the McD AA to Bazz, yet you still dismiss Alex Murphy who was a top 20 recruit in that class or Gbinije who was top 30 last year. So I'm going to take Gbinije and Murphy who have had a year to practice against fellow top 30 recruits who are 2-3 years their elder and work under the tutelage of our coaching staff and get stronger than a guy in Wisconsin who seemingly didn't develop much and it appears the rest of the HS players caught up to him. So I'd say between Gbinije and Murphy, there is our upside over UNC.

I wasn't suggesting Tokoto was a key to UNC's season next year, just he's a very athletic wing they are adding to the McDonald, Bullock, Hairston mix. To be honest, I can't put a lot of weight in Gbinijie because despite our desperate need for a player with his skill set and ample playing time to earn at the SF position, Gbinijie couldn't crack the rotation, HS ranking of 30ish or not. I think it's crazy to expect anything from him next year. Yes, he'll improve, but that he couldn't play this year is a huge redflag. I think the same reservations can be had with Cook to a lesser extent. We needed a PG that could create off the dribble and push tempo and provide offense, and Quinn couldn't take over that role this year, despite the need. We saw more from Quinn than from Mike, so I'm more optimistic about his growth and having an increased role this year, but there are reasons for concern there too.

Murphy's an important recruit. I'm not dismissing him. We just don't know a darn thing about him, and his ranking isn't all that different from Marcus Paige, who you dismiss compared to Tyler Thornton.

I know what we have coming back and what we have coming in, and I don't think it's a top 25 team (assuming we've got Mason back) until we see if Cook can make the jump we need him to make, and if Murphy and Sheed are closer than not to impact kinds of players we need them to be. Maybe that means Carolina isn't a top 25 team in my mind either, but it doesn't change the fact that I think we need to temper our expectations for now. Maybe Ziegler and/or Parker and/or Jefferson change the calculus. Less likely Oriakhi or Bazz does. For now though, this is a team, I think, that's got a lot of questions and limitations, and has more to prove to than other teams. That's why I don't think we're a top 25 squad.

CDu
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
I'm not looking at this like a GM. Hairston and Bullock are a rising sophomore and a rising junior, respectively. They are at the points in their careers where the greatest growth is to be expected. On the flip side, Seth's a fifth year senior and Andre a rising senior. You don't see significant growth out of players with that experience. Curry and Dawkins are what the are, and that's good, but with some serious holes and limitations. To think that Bullock and Hairston might improve enough as a duo to be better than Andre and Seth isn't crazy at all.

I don't think either duo will make drastic jumps. I don't think it's crazy to think that Bullock/Hairston will be better than Curry/Dawkins. But I wouldn't expect that to be the case, either. Remember that Curry was All-ACC and Dawkins was a streaky but at times dominant shooter. That duo is currently well ahead of the UNC pair in development. That said, I'd expect McDonald to start over Hairston. And I'd expect Sulaimon to be very much in the mix as well (not to mention the possibility of Zeigler or Muhammad or the development of Gbinije and/or Murphy) so the comparison is somewhat moot.


Murphy's an important recruit. I'm not dismissing him. We just don't know a darn thing about him, and his ranking isn't all that different from Marcus Paige, who you dismiss compared to Tyler Thornton.

Murphy was ranked in the #10-15 range in his (and Paige's) class before he reclassified to enter Duke a year early. But even if you discount that rating difference, he's had a year in the college system, gaining strength and practicing against major college players unlike Paige. I'd expect more out of Murphy than Paige next year.


I know what we have coming back and what we have coming in, and I don't think it's a top 25 team (assuming we've got Mason back) until we see if Cook can make the jump we need him to make, and if Murphy and Sheed are closer than not to impact kinds of players we need them to be. Maybe that means Carolina isn't a top 25 team in my mind either, but it doesn't change the fact that I think we need to temper our expectations for now. Maybe Ziegler and/or Parker and/or Jefferson change the calculus. Less likely Oriakhi or Bazz does. For now though, this is a team, I think, that's got a lot of questions and limitations, and has more to prove to than other teams. That's why I don't think we're a top 25 squad.

No offense, but it seems like your vision of what a top 25 team looks like is very different than what will actually constitute a top 25 team. Both Duke and UNC are EASILY top 25 teams. You keep talking about our questions, but continue to overlook all the questions that the other potential top 25 teams have. Somebody has to be in the top 25, and many if not most of those teams will have substantial questions.

I'd recommend that you take an actual look at the rosters next year for the teams you keep listing as ahead of Duke. Consider who is leaving and what they meant to those teams. Consider what is returning and the strengths and limitations of those players. Consider what prospects are coming in and how they compare to our players. Once you do that, you'll see why we're pretty clearly going to be a top 25 team next year.

TexHawk
04-04-2012, 12:25 PM
That's a very nice defensive trio, but it's a very limited offensive trio. Johnson did become a more consistent scorer down the stretch, but he was absolutely not better than Robinson. In the last 10 games, Johnson averaged 13.5 ppg (topping 15 pts in 4 of those 10), Robinson averaged 17.5 ppg (topping 15 pts in 9 of those 10). And that's in spite of the fact that defenses built their gameplan around defending Robinson and Taylor, leaving Johnson and Releford to beat them.

As an opponent, Withey is the only guy of those three that concerns me offensively. Johnson is a decent scorer but not noteworthy.



Ellis is a terrific recruit. I very much doubt that he'll come even remotely close to replacing what Robinson provided. McLemore is nice too, but he's not close to replacing what you lost in Taylor. The rest of the guys you mentioned are 3-star (or less) recruits that are very unlikely to make a big impact next year.

I think you're discounting just how reliant you were on Taylor and Robinson offensively and overstating the readiness of your incoming players.

My bad on the Johnson scoring averages, must have missed some numbers. I blame the brain cells I lost on Bourbon Street.

I absolutely did not intend to say that Perry Ellis would replace Thomas Robinson. I am quite sure he will struggle with defense and scoring, especially early on in the year. In a very similar situation in '09, Marcus Morris was forced to start as a freshman next to Cole Aldrich, and he put up 8 points a game on a conference champion and Sweet 16 team. Ellis is much stronger and better on the block, but with less range on his jumper. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 8 ppg or a little better.

It is also reasonable to expect each of Johnson-Withey-Releford to score a few more points per game, purely because they will be forced to shoot more. I think they may struggle early, as nobody will be double/triple teaming the PF next year, and they won't have wide open jumpers all game. But I think, as seniors, they can adjust and step up. Also McLemore has been practicing with the team since January, so while he will be a first year player, he won't be fresh out of high school. (He's also been lifting with the best S&C coach in the country.)

I do not expect anything more than mop-up minutes from Lucas and Peters, but they (+ Andrew White and Anrio Adams) do provide depth, something that was sorely missing in '12. The only bench players for KU this year were liabilities, outside of Young's offensive rebounding.


Perhaps you are right, and maybe I've been drinking too much Bill Self koolaid. But this year's team lost a helluva lot more from '11, and finished the year in the title game. No, there are no Thomas Robinsons ready to jump from 14 minutes a game to a NPOY candidate, but the team will be more balanced. And let's be honest, CBB was pretty awful in 2012, and it's going to be a whole lot worse in '13. Predicting KU as a top 5 team is relative to the rest of the country.

Wander
04-04-2012, 12:30 PM
For what it's worth, Parrish and Goodman (who IMO are the best writers of the major websites out there) have us at #18. They assume our worst case scenario of Mason leaving and not getting anyone else. Out of the teams we've been debating about, they have Duke below Memphis, Gonzaga, NC State, UNC, Wisconsin, and UNLV, and above Texas, Ohio State, Creighton and VCU. I don't agree with the exact order but the overall ranking seems reasonable to me.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/18274517/ridiculously-early-top-25-and-one-calipari-kentucky-reload-are-no-1

CDu
04-04-2012, 12:51 PM
I absolutely did not intend to say that Perry Ellis would replace Thomas Robinson. I am quite sure he will struggle with defense and scoring, especially early on in the year. In a very similar situation in '09, Marcus Morris was forced to start as a freshman next to Cole Aldrich, and he put up 8 points a game on a conference champion and Sweet 16 team. Ellis is much stronger and better on the block, but with less range on his jumper. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect 8 ppg or a little better.

It is also reasonable to expect each of Johnson-Withey-Releford to score a few more points per game, purely because they will be forced to shoot more. I think they may struggle early, as nobody will be double/triple teaming the PF next year, and they won't have wide open jumpers all game. But I think, as seniors, they can adjust and step up. Also McLemore has been practicing with the team since January, so while he will be a first year player, he won't be fresh out of high school. (He's also been lifting with the best S&C coach in the country.)

I do not expect anything more than mop-up minutes from Lucas and Peters, but they (+ Andrew White and Anrio Adams) do provide depth, something that was sorely missing in '12. The only bench players for KU this year were liabilities, outside of Young's offensive rebounding.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. But unless you see drastic jumps in performance/skill set from those seniors, I don't see anyone other than Withey (if he has a Cole Aldrich-like emergence offensively) who I worry about defending. Johnson is a good shooter and solid ballhandler, but he's not the matchup problem that Taylor could be. I don't expect Releford to be much more than a complementary offensive player. Maybe McLemore comes in and wows next year.

You are correct that your depth will be better, but the top-end will be greatly weaker next year. And depth (unless it is superstar depth) really isn't all that meaningful once you get into March. You need to have the horses, and barring some unforeseen developments I don't see Kansas having them. Most teams trim the rotation to 7-8 guys, so being better at the 7th - 10th spots in the rotation but worse at the top two spots is a bad tradeoff.


Perhaps you are right, and maybe I've been drinking too much Bill Self koolaid. But this year's team lost a helluva lot more from '11, and finished the year in the title game. No, there are no Thomas Robinsons ready to jump from 14 minutes a game to a NPOY candidate, but the team will be more balanced. And let's be honest, CBB was pretty awful in 2012, and it's going to be a whole lot worse in '13. Predicting KU as a top 5 team is relative to the rest of the country.

Self is a very good coach and his run in the Big-12 has been phenomenal. So I don't mean to suggest that Kansas won't be good. He'll find a way to make them good. I just don't think they'll be elite. I'd put Louisville, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, NC State, Duke (especially if Mason returns), UNC (if McAdoo returns), Baylor, and Florida ahead of Kansas at this point based on what those teams are bringing back. That's not to say that Self can't pull a rabbit out of his hat again. Just that I think those teams have more talent right now. And that's ignoring teams like MSU and Syracuse who (like Kansas) must completely replace the core of their team with much less proven players.

CDu
04-04-2012, 12:59 PM
For what it's worth, Parrish and Goodman (who IMO are the best writers of the major websites out there) have us at #18. They assume our worst case scenario of Mason leaving and not getting anyone else. Out of the teams we've been debating about, they have Duke below Memphis, Gonzaga, NC State, UNC, Wisconsin, and UNLV, and above Texas, Ohio State, Creighton and VCU. I don't agree with the exact order but the overall ranking seems reasonable to me.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/18274517/ridiculously-early-top-25-and-one-calipari-kentucky-reload-are-no-1

I see that to be an unlikely scenario (losing Mason and getting nobody else). I also (clearly) disagree with the ranking, especially when looking at some of the teams they list above Duke (notably MSU, Syracuse, Kansas, and Memphis). For some reason they seem very willing to assume Mason will go but not several of the guys projected much higher than Mason in the draft. We'll see how it all plays out.

If we lose Mason and get nobody back, I'd be fine with a ~#15 ranking. Getting an upgrade at SF, C, or keeping Mason and I think we're easily top-10.

NM Duke Fan
04-04-2012, 01:06 PM
For what it's worth, Parrish and Goodman (who IMO are the best writers of the major websites out there) have us at #18. They assume our worst case scenario of Mason leaving and not getting anyone else. Out of the teams we've been debating about, they have Duke below Memphis, Gonzaga, NC State, UNC, Wisconsin, and UNLV, and above Texas, Ohio State, Creighton and VCU. I don't agree with the exact order but the overall ranking seems reasonable to me.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/18274517/ridiculously-early-top-25-and-one-calipari-kentucky-reload-are-no-1

I had also seen those rankings and they seemed about right to me. If Mason comes back and the guard play improves with Cook and Sheed, then I could see the team closer to the low teens in the rankings. Many teams are going to lose more talent than Duke will, but there are numerous teams with ample talent and experience still ahead of Duke. Curry, Dawkins, and Thornton simply don't match up that well with top ten team types of guards, who tend to be much more complete in their skill sets and have ample lateral quickness. So Cook and Sheed, step up!

Chicago 1995
04-04-2012, 01:29 PM
I don't think either duo will make drastic jumps. I don't think it's crazy to think that Bullock/Hairston will be better than Curry/Dawkins. But I wouldn't expect that to be the case, either. Remember that Curry was All-ACC and Dawkins was a streaky but at times dominant shooter. That duo is currently well ahead of the UNC pair in development. That said, I'd expect McDonald to start over Hairston. And I'd expect Sulaimon to be very much in the mix as well (not to mention the possibility of Zeigler or Muhammad or the development of Gbinije and/or Murphy) so the comparison is somewhat moot.

I don't think there's any way you can say Andre Dawkins is way ahead of either of those guys in development given how inconsistent he is. Dawkins season numbers are almost identical to Bullock's, for what its worth.

As for Curry, his third team All-ACC honor is nice feather in his cap, but I'm not going to go overboard what what that means. Greg Paulus was once third team All-ACC.


Murphy was ranked in the #10-15 range in his (and Paige's) class before he reclassified to enter Duke a year early. But even if you discount that rating difference, he's had a year in the college system, gaining strength and practicing against major college players unlike Paige. I'd expect more out of Murphy than Paige next year.

That's fair.


No offense, but it seems like your vision of what a top 25 team looks like is very different than what will actually constitute a top 25 team. Both Duke and UNC are EASILY top 25 teams. You keep talking about our questions, but continue to overlook all the questions that the other potential top 25 teams have. Somebody has to be in the top 25, and many if not most of those teams will have substantial questions.

I'd recommend that you take an actual look at the rosters next year for the teams you keep listing as ahead of Duke. Consider who is leaving and what they meant to those teams. Consider what is returning and the strengths and limitations of those players. Consider what prospects are coming in and how they compare to our players. Once you do that, you'll see why we're pretty clearly going to be a top 25 team next year.

The presumption that I haven't done this is a little annoying. I have. Y'all disagree, which is fine, but I've looked at those rosters and in some instances, I bet I've seen those teams play more than others here have. Wisconsin, for example, should be and will be ranked ahead of us going into next season. That's been dismissed here largely because they lose Jordan Taylor. Well, they bring back everyone else and they add a recruit who is every bit the impact recruit that Sheed is. UNLV, Gonzaga, San Diego State are all teams people scoff at when looking at these rankings. They all bring back a lot more thn we do on teams that were essentially our caliber last year. Looking at Parrish's list, I don't disagree with the 18 teams ranked ahead of us (UK, IU, Louisville, Kansas, Michigan, Baylor, Syracuse, MSU, SD State, UNC, UF, Memphis, UNLV, Wisconsin, NC State, Gonzaga, Arizona) but I do concede that it's a pretty close call with UNC. I think there are other teams -- Ohio State, VCU, Creighton, K State -- that I would rank ahead of Duke that he has behind us. That's 21 on Parrish's pole alone that I think are pretty clearly in better shape than we are headed into next season. We've got a higher ceiling than several of those teams, but based on the start of the season, I'd expect a loss -- or at least not at all be surprised by a loss -- to any of those teams in November.

The difference here, I think, comes down to (1) how much weight you are willing to give to Cook, Sheed, Murphy, Gbijinie and Plumlee III; and (2) how much faith you have in the returning core. I've explained why I have concerns about two of the guys in group (1), and I'm not as optimistic about a team built around Curry-Kelly-Plumlee II as the rest of you.

fuse
04-04-2012, 01:29 PM
IU will be a top 5 team. They lose little and bring in a great class.

MSU will probably be a top 10 team, even losing Draymond Green.

I think NC State should be the preseason pick frbthe ACC and a top 10ish team.

UK, if the close in recruiting will be up there again.

I don't think we're a top 25 team, FWIW, unless we get some surprises in recruiting. We'll probably be ranked because of our name, but I don't think we're actually a top 25 team. Too many questions. Too many limitations.

You beat me to it. I believe we will be ranked next year, but I'd almost prefer to see how a Duke team would act with a chip on its shoulder either out of the top 25 or at the lower end of the top 25. I think we have all the pieces to be a top 10 team next year but I think the team would respond better pursuing something than a ranking by entitlement.

-g

CDu
04-04-2012, 02:20 PM
The presumption that I haven't done this is a little annoying. I have. Y'all disagree, which is fine, but I've looked at those rosters and in some instances, I bet I've seen those teams play more than others here have. Wisconsin, for example, should be and will be ranked ahead of us going into next season. That's been dismissed here largely because they lose Jordan Taylor. Well, they bring back everyone else and they add a recruit who is every bit the impact recruit that Sheed is. UNLV, Gonzaga, San Diego State are all teams people scoff at when looking at these rankings. They all bring back a lot more thn we do on teams that were essentially our caliber last year. Looking at Parrish's list, I don't disagree with the 18 teams ranked ahead of us (UK, IU, Louisville, Kansas, Michigan, Baylor, Syracuse, MSU, SD State, UNC, UF, Memphis, UNLV, Wisconsin, NC State, Gonzaga, Arizona) but I do concede that it's a pretty close call with UNC. I think there are other teams -- Ohio State, VCU, Creighton, K State -- that I would rank ahead of Duke that he has behind us. That's 21 on Parrish's pole alone that I think are pretty clearly in better shape than we are headed into next season. We've got a higher ceiling than several of those teams, but based on the start of the season, I'd expect a loss -- or at least not at all be surprised by a loss -- to any of those teams in November.

MSU has the following roster: Appling (solid, not better than Curry), Harris (very nice prospect, comparable to Sulaimon), Dawson (talented player, let's see how he recovers from ACL tear), Payne (okay, not as good as Kelly and CERTAINLY not as good as Mason), Nix (big, slow, doesn't rebound much despite his size), Byrd (not much different from Gbinije), Gauna (role player), Tryce (not very good) and a bunch of less talented and less experienced guys than that. I struggle to see how you can look at that team and say its clearly better than our team.

Kansas has Withey (very good, but not a scorer), Johnson (maybe as good as Curry), Releford (solid defender, limited scorer), McLemore (unproven player, probably comparable to Dawkins), Ellis (unproven freshman), Young (nice backup PF), and a bunch of 3-star recruits. Again, you think that team is clearly ahead of us?

Syracuse has Brandon Triche (nice player, not a star), CJ Fair (could be really good), James Southerland (think Josh Hairston), DaJuan Coleman (big body, unproven freshman), Michael Carter-Williams (unproven sophomore like Gbinije), Rakeem Christmas (unproven sophomore). That seems like a lot of question marks to me.

I won't go through all the rest, but those three are why I assume you haven't done the research on what those other teams are losing. It sure seems like you're picturing this year's teams and projecting them onto the floor for next year, when in reality that's just not the case for most of those teams.


The difference here, I think, comes down to (1) how much weight you are willing to give to Cook, Sheed, Murphy, Gbijinie and Plumlee III; and (2) how much faith you have in the returning core. I've explained why I have concerns about two of the guys in group (1), and I'm not as optimistic about a team built around Curry-Kelly-Plumlee II as the rest of you.

I think there are other substantial differences: (3) we clearly disagree on the degree of impact of departures from other teams; and (4) we clearly disagree on the degree of questions about the skill sets of the returning players on those other teams.

Chicago 1995
04-04-2012, 02:41 PM
MSU has the following roster: Appling (solid, not better than Curry), Harris (very nice prospect, comparable to Sulaimon), Dawson (talented player, let's see how he recovers from ACL tear), Payne (okay, not as good as Kelly and CERTAINLY not as good as Mason), Nix (big, slow, doesn't rebound much despite his size), Byrd (not much different from Gbinije), Gauna (role player), Tryce (not very good) and a bunch of less talented and less experienced guys than that. I struggle to see how you can look at that team and say its clearly better than our team.

MSU was better than we were this year. They lose Green and Wood. We lose Rivers and Miles. You're understimating where Payne was defensively by the end of the year, FWIW. They add Gary Harris who is a wash with Sheed, Kenny Kaminski and Matt Costello as well. That's a bit of an advantage for us with Murph and MPIII. Still they were better than we were and like us, they lose their best player. Given that they were better than we were by the end of the season, I don't think it's at all crazy to rank them ahead of us. If Dawson's not back at all next year, it's a closer call.


Kansas has Withey (very good, but not a scorer), Johnson (maybe as good as Curry), Releford (solid defender, limited scorer), McLemore (unproven player, probably comparable to Dawkins), Ellis (unproven freshman), Young (nice backup PF), and a bunch of 3-star recruits. Again, you think that team is clearly ahead of us?

Curry's not as good Johnson. Curry would have taken Connor Teahan's minutes at Kansas, nothing more.

They return four guys off a team that again was better than ours. They lose more in Robinson and Taylor than we do in Rivers and Plumlee, but they add Ellis and McElmore, and McElmore has been practicing with KU all year -- which as it is with Murphy, should be some boost. You're also underrating some of their other incoming recruits and redshirts, but that's neither here nor there.


Syracuse has Brandon Triche (nice player, not a star), CJ Fair (could be really good), James Southerland (think Josh Hairston), DaJuan Coleman (big body, unproven freshman), Michael Carter-Williams (unproven sophomore like Gbinije), Rakeem Christmas (unproven sophomore). That seems like a lot of question marks to me.

Whether it's a lot of question marks or not, there's a lot of you not giving Syracuse the benefit of the doubt and giving it to us that colors your analysis. Brandon Triche is a better guard than anyone we've got coming back. Southerland's a better shooter than Hairston with deeper range. Southerland also doesn't struggle to get enough lift to dunk the ball. He was better than Hairston by a good bit last year, and shows more potential and will be more productive with increased minutes. Christmas showed potential in his playing time absent Melo. Coleman's well ranked, which seems to matter for our recruits. Carter-Williams actually got minutes last year, so to think he's got more upside the Gbinijie makes sense, I think. Syracuse brings back a ton of length and looks to be really, really good defensively again. I've got more faith in that than any aspect of our returning game. [/quote]


[I won't go through all the rest, but those three are why I assume you haven't done the research on what those other teams are losing. It sure seems like you're picturing this year's teams and projecting them onto the floor for next year, when in reality that's just not the case for most of those teams.

I think there are other substantial differences: (3) we clearly disagree on the degree of impact of departures from other teams; and (4) we clearly disagree on the degree of questions about the skill sets of the returning players on those other teams.

Maybe I'm not giving us enough credit, but you are giving us too much, I think. That's where the difference matters most.

langdonfan
04-04-2012, 03:06 PM
I don't think there's any way you can say Andre Dawkins is way ahead of either of those guys in development given how inconsistent he is. Dawkins season numbers are almost identical to Bullock's, for what its worth.

As for Curry, his third team All-ACC honor is nice feather in his cap, but I'm not going to go overboard what what that means. Greg Paulus was once third team All-ACC.



That's fair.



The presumption that I haven't done this is a little annoying. I have. Y'all disagree, which is fine, but I've looked at those rosters and in some instances, I bet I've seen those teams play more than others here have. Wisconsin, for example, should be and will be ranked ahead of us going into next season. That's been dismissed here largely because they lose Jordan Taylor. Well, they bring back everyone else and they add a recruit who is every bit the impact recruit that Sheed is. UNLV, Gonzaga, San Diego State are all teams people scoff at when looking at these rankings. They all bring back a lot more thn we do on teams that were essentially our caliber last year. Looking at Parrish's list, I don't disagree with the 18 teams ranked ahead of us (UK, IU, Louisville, Kansas, Michigan, Baylor, Syracuse, MSU, SD State, UNC, UF, Memphis, UNLV, Wisconsin, NC State, Gonzaga, Arizona) but I do concede that it's a pretty close call with UNC. I think there are other teams -- Ohio State, VCU, Creighton, K State -- that I would rank ahead of Duke that he has behind us. That's 21 on Parrish's pole alone that I think are pretty clearly in better shape than we are headed into next season. We've got a higher ceiling than several of those teams, but based on the start of the season, I'd expect a loss -- or at least not at all be surprised by a loss -- to any of those teams in November.

The difference here, I think, comes down to (1) how much weight you are willing to give to Cook, Sheed, Murphy, Gbijinie and Plumlee III; and (2) how much faith you have in the returning core. I've explained why I have concerns about two of the guys in group (1), and I'm not as optimistic about a team built around Curry-Kelly-Plumlee II as the rest of you.


VCU, Creighton, and K-State ahead of Duke??? What you're saying just isn't adding up...

Duke's players will improve and the team will add new talent just like everyone else from this year's top 25. Murphy and Suilamon are major talents who should help this team immediately. Tyler and Ryan improved quite a bit over this past off-season. They, and others, will continue that trend this summer. I feel like you are placing too much stock into how this team finished the season. From November through February Duke was one of the 8 best teams in the country. This team beat Kansas, Michigan, Michigan State head to head and split games with UNC and FSU. They went undefeated on the road in the ACC, and had they beaten UNC in Durham, they probably would have gotten a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament! No offense to Miles and Austin, but it's not like this team lost Shelden Williams and J.J. Redick, or Kyle and Nolan. No one suggested that those teams would not be top 25 teams the following seasons.

CDu
04-04-2012, 03:15 PM
MSU was better than we were this year. They lose Green and Wood. We lose Rivers and Miles. You're understimating where Payne was defensively by the end of the year, FWIW. They add Gary Harris who is a wash with Sheed, Kenny Kaminski and Matt Costello as well. That's a bit of an advantage for us with Murph and MPIII. Still they were better than we were and like us, they lose their best player. Given that they were better than we were by the end of the season, I don't think it's at all crazy to rank them ahead of us. If Dawson's not back at all next year, it's a closer call.

They were probably better than we were (we did beat them, remember) by the end of the year. But losing Green changes everything. You're underestimating just how important he was to that team. He made everything go. Losing Wood and Thornton (their two best outside shooters) hurts. We were much deeper than them, and the guy they lost was more important to what they do than the guy we lost. I think you're also underselling the difference between Murphy and Marshall (who were better prospects and are a year older and stronger and more experienced than the MSU incoming guys) and Kaminski and Costello. That's a big edge in our favor. Payne was a very solid defender. He was not a factor offensively.


Curry's not as good Johnson. Curry would have taken Connor Teahan's minutes at Kansas, nothing more.

They return four guys off a team that again was better than ours. They lose more in Robinson and Taylor than we do in Rivers and Plumlee, but they add Ellis and McElmore, and McElmore has been practicing with KU all year -- which as it is with Murphy, should be some boost. You're also underrating some of their other incoming recruits and redshirts, but that's neither here nor there.

Johnson was a better defensive player, Curry a better offensive player. I certainly wouldn't say Johnson is clearly superior to Curry. And you overlook the rest of the team as though it suddenly makes Kansas the clearly better team. That's a team that struggled offensively against good teams and loses its only two impact offensive players. I'll gladly take Cook, Thornton, Curry, Sulaimon, Dawkins, Gbinije, and Murphy over Johnson, McLemore, Releford, and the borderline major-conference players they have backing those guys up. And I'll also gladly take Kelly, Hairston, and the Plumlees over Withey, Young, and Ellis.

As with Green at MSU, you're underrating just how important Taylor and Robinson were to everything Kansas did. McLemore isn't as good as Murphy. Ellis is likely to have less immediate impact than Sulaimon. I don't think I'm underrating their recruits/redshirts all that much. They were 3/4 star recruits. If you're going to discount Marshall Plumlee and our 5-star recruits then I'm going to even further discount Kansas' 3/4 star recruits.


Whether it's a lot of question marks or not, there's a lot of you not giving Syracuse the benefit of the doubt and giving it to us that colors your analysis. Brandon Triche is a better guard than anyone we've got coming back. Southerland's a better shooter than Hairston with deeper range. Southerland also doesn't struggle to get enough lift to dunk the ball. He was better than Hairston by a good bit last year, and shows more potential and will be more productive with increased minutes. Christmas showed potential in his playing time absent Melo. Coleman's well ranked, which seems to matter for our recruits. Carter-Williams actually got minutes last year, so to think he's got more upside the Gbinijie makes sense, I think. Syracuse brings back a ton of length and looks to be really, really good defensively again. I've got more faith in that than any aspect of our returning game.

I don't even know what that first question means. What am I not giving them the benefit of the doubt on that's coloring my analysis. If there are question marks, there are question marks. They have no proven PG. Triche is no better than Curry (different, but no better). Southerland is no better than Hairston, regardless of shooting range. Christmas showed potential, but he's not as good as Mason. CJ Fair is talented. Can Triche, Fair, and Christmas make up for the lack of a PG? Do they even have more than 2 guards on the roster? Carter-Williams most certainly didn't distinguish himself from Gbinije. They are both very similar question marks. to say he's got more upside is to be guilty of seeing the negatives on one side and ignore them on the other. Gbinije was roughly the same rating out of high school and neither player played substantively in the spring.

They'll be good defensively. They'll have HUGE questions offensively.


Maybe I'm not giving us enough credit, but you are giving us too much, I think. That's where the difference matters most.

I think your lack of consideration of how much talent those other teams will lose makes just as much difference as our differences of opinions on our returning talent. Several of your statements suggest "we lost this, they lost this" but it ignores that loss relative to what the team needed. We lost our backup big man (for whom we have two backups) and our leading scorer (but a guy who bogged down the offense and played our deepest position). MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse are losing virtually the entirety of what made them tick this year.

wilko
04-04-2012, 03:36 PM
This thread should be retitled " Yeah its early but State still looks like they need a hug"

dcar1985
04-04-2012, 03:40 PM
They were probably better than we were (we did beat them, remember) by the end of the year. But losing Green changes everything. You're underestimating just how important he was to that team. He made everything go. Losing Wood and Thornton (their two best outside shooters) hurts. We were much deeper than them, and the guy they lost was more important to what they do than the guy we lost. I think you're also underselling the difference between Murphy and Marshall (who were better prospects and are a year older and stronger and more experienced than the MSU incoming guys) and Kaminski and Costello. That's a big edge in our favor. Payne was a very solid defender. He was not a factor offensively.

Agree 100%




Johnson was a better defensive player, Curry a better offensive player. I certainly wouldn't say Johnson is clearly superior to Curry. And you overlook the rest of the team as though it suddenly makes Kansas the clearly better team. That's a team that struggled offensively against good teams and loses its only two impact offensive players. I'll gladly take Cook, Thornton, Curry, Sulaimon, Dawkins, Gbinije, and Murphy over Johnson, McLemore, Releford, and the borderline major-conference players they have backing those guys up. And I'll also gladly take Kelly, Hairston, and the Plumlees over Withey, Young, and Ellis.



As with Green at MSU, you're underrating just how important Taylor and Robinson were to everything Kansas did. McLemore isn't as good as Murphy. Ellis is likely to have less immediate impact than Sulaimon. I don't think I'm underrating their recruits/redshirts all that much. They were 3/4 star recruits. If you're going to discount Marshall Plumlee and our 5-star recruits then I'm going to even further discount Kansas' 3/4 star recruits.

FWIW McLemore was ranked higher than Murphy coming out last year...you can't say Alex was ranked top 15 2 years ago in a class he didn't even graduate in..final RSCI rankings have Alex at 49, ESPN around 40



I don't even know what that first question means. What am I not giving them the benefit of the doubt on that's coloring my analysis. If there are question marks, there are question marks. They have no proven PG. Triche is no better than Curry (different, but no better). Southerland is no better than Hairston, regardless of shooting range. Christmas showed potential, but he's not as good as Mason. CJ Fair is talented. Can Triche, Fair, and Christmas make up for the lack of a PG? Do they even have more than 2 guards on the roster? Carter-Williams most certainly didn't distinguish himself from Gbinije. They are both very similar question marks. to say he's got more upside is to be guilty of seeing the negatives on one side and ignore them on the other. Gbinije was roughly the same rating out of high school and neither player played substantively in the spring.

They'll be good defensively. They'll have HUGE questions offensively.

Cuse is losing A LOT! Scoop, Waiters, Joseph, Melo....No way they're better than us next year....Southerland is way better than Josh though c'mon




I think your lack of consideration of how much talent those other teams will lose makes just as much difference as our differences of opinions on our returning talent. Several of your statements suggest "we lost this, they lost this" but it ignores that loss relative to what the team needed. We lost our backup big man (for whom we have two backups) and our leading scorer (but a guy who bogged down the offense and played our deepest position). MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse are losing virtually the entirety of what made them tick this year.

Chicago 1995
04-04-2012, 03:49 PM
MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse are losing virtually the entirety of what made them tick this year.

And we don't?

Rivers was the only player on our team that could break down his opponent off the dribble or create his own shot. Losing him is, to us, every bit as big as losing T-Rob or Draymond Green. People here are drastically overrrating our returning backcourt and drastically underrating how much Austin meant to us, I think.

We disagree, and it's clear we're not going to convince the others. A team built around a returning core of Curry-Dawkins-Kelly-Plumlee-Thornton-Hairston doesn't return anywhere near as much as most here seem to think it does. Four of those six guys wouldn't start for nearly any other school we've discussed. And the two who would aren't good enough to make up for that.

CDu
04-04-2012, 04:02 PM
FWIW McLemore was ranked higher than Murphy coming out last year...you can't say Alex was ranked top 15 2 years ago in a class he didn't even graduate in..final RSCI rankings have Alex at 49, ESPN around 40

That's actually not quite accurate. Go check the final ratings again. Murphy was rated higher than McLemore in all but one of the recruiting sites. The difference was that Hoop Scoops and Prep Stars didn't ever rate Murphy (because he switched classes so late in the game), and that brought down Murphy's average rating. Had Murphy been rated by those guys (assuming he got the same rough estimate that he got from the others), he'd have been 5 spots spots ahead of McLemore at #36 - ahead of Mo Harkless, by the way. So McLemore only rated higher on a technicality.

And the reason I brought up the top-15 is because I think it's relevant. Compared with the guys who were his peers at the time, he was the #15 recruit. When compared to guys a year more advanced, he was the #36 recruit (again, correcting for the omission of a rating). The scouts do take age and development into account, and only the most elite of prospects aren't penalized by reclassifying.

In any case, based on the RSCI we have two guys rated higher than McLemore in Gbinije and Murphy, and each has a similar level of college experience.


Cuse is losing A LOT! Scoop, Waiters, Joseph, Melo....No way they're better than us next year....Southerland is way better than Josh though c'mon

I don't think Southerland is appreciably better than Hairston. He's gotten slightly more opportunity than Hairston, but that's because Syracuse had fewer guys in front of him. He's definitely not way better than Hairston.

CDu
04-04-2012, 04:10 PM
And we don't?

Rivers was the only player on our team that could break down his opponent off the dribble or create his own shot. Losing him is, to us, every bit as big as losing T-Rob or Draymond Green. People here are drastically overrrating our returning backcourt and drastically underrating how much Austin meant to us, I think.

Rivers meant a lot. He also kind of forced our hand a lot, too, by virtue of his limited skill set (great at what he could do, but could only really do one thing - iso). Losing him hurts, and if we try to do exactly what we did last year again we'd be in the kind of trouble you think we'll be in. But we won't. We'll change our style of play to continue to utilize the shooting of Kelly, Curry, Dawkins, and Sulaimon while working to incorporate the skill sets of Cook, Gbinije, Murphy, and (maybe) Zeigler.

The talent we have coming back is more than the talent that MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse have coming back. All of these teams will have to adapt substantially. We'll just have more good pieces with which to adapt.


We disagree, and it's clear we're not going to convince the others. A team built around a returning core of Curry-Dawkins-Kelly-Plumlee-Thornton-Hairston doesn't return anywhere near as much as most here seem to think it does. Four of those six guys wouldn't start for nearly any other school we've discussed. And the two who would aren't good enough to make up for that.

You say this as though it's a given that those are going to be the 6 core guys. For all your talking up of other teams' prospects, you ignore that we have an elite guard recruit, an upper-tier forward recruit with a year's experience, another upper-tier wing recruit with a year's experience and better health, and an upper-tier PG who will hopefully finally be fully healthy from his knee problems of last year and also has a year's worth of experience now. Several of those guys (and possibly a transfer) are going to absolutely be in the core - probably moreso than one or more of the guys you list as the core.

If we aren't top-25 next year, I'll gladly come and acknowledge that I was wrong. But I don't think I'll have to do so.

Chicago 1995
04-04-2012, 04:25 PM
You say this as though it's a given that those are going to be the 6 core guys. For all your talking up of other teams' prospects, you ignore that we have an elite guard recruit, an upper-tier forward recruit with a year's experience, another upper-tier wing recruit with a year's experience and better health, and an upper-tier PG who will hopefully finally be fully healthy from his knee problems of last year and also has a year's worth of experience now. Several of those guys (and possibly a transfer) are going to absolutely be in the core - probably moreso than one or more of the guys you list as the core.

If we aren't top-25 next year, I'll gladly come and acknowledge that I was wrong. But I don't think I'll have to do so.

Let me be clear, I hope I'm wrong, and will gladly admit it if we're better than I suspect we'll be at the outset of the season. I think we can improve and be better -- I've said that at different points -- but my point is that at the beginning of the season, I don't think we're going to be a top 25 team.

Whether or not we improve will depend to what extent Cook/Gbinijie/Sheed/Murphy/MPIII develop and contribute and become core members of the team. If Cook's healthy and playing 30 minutes a night as an effective PG, we're going to be a lot better by the end of the year, and if we get development and signficant contributions out of Sheed and Murphy on the wings, we could be dangerous come March. But if those guys struggle and we're relying on what we bring back, that's a bleak outcome for me.

And if we lose Mason in addition to Austin, our ceiling drops pretty significantly. We lose a shot blocker and our strongest and most athletic post defender. He'd be a giant loss for us.

dcar1985
04-04-2012, 04:28 PM
That's actually not quite accurate. Go check the final ratings again. Murphy was rated higher than McLemore in all but one of the recruiting sites. The difference was that Hoop Scoops and Prep Stars didn't ever rate Murphy (because he switched classes so late in the game), and that brought down Murphy's average rating. Had Murphy been rated by those guys (assuming he got the same rough estimate that he got from the others), he'd have been 5 spots spots ahead of McLemore at #36 - ahead of Mo Harkless, by the way. So McLemore only rated higher on a technicality.

And the reason I brought up the top-15 is because I think it's relevant. Compared with the guys who were his peers at the time, he was the #15 recruit. When compared to guys a year more advanced, he was the #36 recruit (again, correcting for the omission of a rating). The scouts do take age and development into account, and only the most elite of prospects aren't penalized by reclassifying.

In any case, based on the RSCI we have two guys rated higher than McLemore in Gbinije and Murphy, and each has a similar level of college experience.



I don't think Southerland is appreciably better than Hairston. He's gotten slightly more opportunity than Hairston, but that's because Syracuse had fewer guys in front of him. He's definitely not way better than Hairston.


You do realize that Alex didn't come in a year early right? He was originally c/o 2011...2012 would've been a 5th year of HS for Alex so he would have been a year older than most of the 2012 kids and his actual peers would be the class he went back to.

FWIW though I do believe Alex to be the better player, more skilled and versatile w/ McLemore being the better athlete.

CDu
04-04-2012, 04:31 PM
Let me be clear, I hope I'm wrong, and will gladly admit it if we're better than I suspect we'll be at the outset of the season. I think we can improve and be better -- I've said that at different points -- but my point is that at the beginning of the season, I don't think we're going to be a top 25 team.

Whether or not we improve will depend to what extent Cook/Gbinijie/Sheed/Murphy/MPIII develop and contribute and become core members of the team. If Cook's healthy and playing 30 minutes a night as an effective PG, we're going to be a lot better by the end of the year, and if we get development and signficant contributions out of Sheed and Murphy on the wings, we could be dangerous come March. But if those guys struggle and we're relying on what we bring back, that's a bleak outcome for me.

And if we lose Mason in addition to Austin, our ceiling drops pretty significantly. We lose a shot blocker and our strongest and most athletic post defender. He'd be a giant loss for us.

Well, I'm positive we'll be a preseason top-25 (with or without Mason). And I think we'll warrant that rating, too. Unless we really struggle early, it's going to be hard to prove that wrong, I guess, so I'm admittedly in an easier position. We'll likely pile up early-season wins like we always do. I suspect we'll also pile up wins in a watered-down ACC as well.

CDu
04-04-2012, 04:36 PM
You do realize that Alex didn't come in a year early right? He was originally c/o 2011...2012 would've been a 5th year of HS for Alex so he would have been a year older than most of the 2012 kids and his actual peers would be the class he went back to.

I'm well aware of that. But that does not put him in a very exclusive club. It's becoming very common for guys to come into college a year later than kids did 15-20 years ago. Lots of guys are essentially 5th year guys coming out of high school these days. So I don't think it's necessarily fair to discount where he had been rated in this year's class. Obviously it's not the rating he left high school with, but it's relevant data to consider.


FWIW though I do believe Alex to be the better player, more skilled and versatile w/ McLemore being the better athlete.

I'm not sure McLemore is necessarily even the better athlete. Murphy is really athletic. His big question mark is strength. But no need to quibble any further since we're in agreement that Murphy is the better player.

FellowTraveler
04-04-2012, 04:36 PM
Triche is no better than Curry (different, but no better). Southerland is no better than Hairston, regardless of shooting range. Christmas showed potential, but he's not as good as Mason. CJ Fair is talented. Can Triche, Fair, and Christmas make up for the lack of a PG? Do they even have more than 2 guards on the roster? Carter-Williams most certainly didn't distinguish himself from Gbinije. They are both very similar question marks. to say he's got more upside is to be guilty of seeing the negatives on one side and ignore them on the other. Gbinije was roughly the same rating out of high school and neither player played substantively in the spring.

There's a better case to be made that Carter-Williams was as productive as Hairston last year than there is that "Southerland is no better than Hairston."

Southerland:
593 minutes, 121.5 offensive rating, 55.5 efg%, 15.0 dReb%, 6.5 oReb%, 1.1 A/TO, 3.2 steal%, 6.4 block%,

Hairston:
246 minutes, 98.1 offensive rating, 44.9 efg%, 8.5 dReb%, 10.9 oReb%, 0.3 A/TO, 0.9 steal%, 1.4 block%

Southerland scored more, scored more efficiently, rebounded better, handed out more assists, turned the ball over less, blocked more shots, fouled less, and recorded more steals. Many of those things by large margins. On the other hand, Hairston got more offensive rebounds. Southerland had the 74th best offensive rating in the country; Hairston's was below average. There's just no real comparison between the two from a 2011-2012 performance standpoint.

Now, Carter-Williams:
269 minutes, 113.2 offensive rating, 49.1 efg%, 11.5 dReb%, 3.8 OReb%, 3.4 A/TO, 4.5 steal%, 2.9 block%

Carter-Williams scored slightly less than Hairston but did it more efficiently, handed out 10 times as many assists with an A/TO ratio 10 times as good, recorded more steals and blocks, fouled less, and rebounding was a wash.

Not going to bother typing out everything for Gbinije, but basically he played fewer than half as many minutes as Hairston/Carter-Williams with an O-rating and rebounding comparable to Carter-Williams but much worse assist, turnover, foul, block & steal numbers.

It's certainly possible for Hairston & Gbinije to improve more than Southerland & Carter-Williams and end up better players. But so far there has been a massive gap in actual performance in favor of the Syracuse players.

dcar1985
04-04-2012, 04:39 PM
I'm well aware of that. But that does not put him in a very exclusive club. It's becoming very common for guys to come into college a year later than kids did 15-20 years ago. Lots of guys are essentially 5th year guys coming out of high school these days. So I don't think it's necessarily fair to discount where he had been rated in this year's class. Obviously it's not the rating he left high school with, but it's relevant data to consider.



I'm not sure McLemore is necessarily even the better athlete. Murphy is really athletic. His big question mark is strength. But no need to quibble any further since we're in agreement that Murphy is the better player.

Depends on how you look at it though...assuming the top 24-25 players are McDonalds AA kids every year....5th year seniors don't qualify to play in the game, so all those guys who are supposed to be the top players in the class did so in 4 years....

CDu
04-04-2012, 04:41 PM
There's a better case to be made that Carter-Williams was as productive as Hairston last year than there is that "Southerland is no better than Hairston."

Southerland:
593 minutes, 121.5 offensive rating, 55.5 efg%, 15.0 dReb%, 6.5 oReb%, 1.1 A/TO, 3.2 steal%, 6.4 block%,

Hairston:
246 minutes, 98.1 offensive rating, 44.9 efg%, 8.5 dReb%, 10.9 oReb%, 0.3 A/TO, 0.9 steal%, 1.4 block%

Southerland scored more, scored more efficiently, rebounded better, handed out more assists, turned the ball over less, blocked more shots, fouled less, and recorded more steals. Many of those things by large margins. On the other hand, Hairston got more offensive rebounds. Southerland had the 74th best offensive rating in the country; Hairston's was below average. There's just no real comparison between the two from a 2011-2012 performance standpoint.

Now, Carter-Williams:
269 minutes, 113.2 offensive rating, 49.1 efg%, 11.5 dReb%, 3.8 OReb%, 3.4 A/TO, 4.5 steal%, 2.9 block%

Carter-Williams scored slightly less than Hairston but did it more efficiently, handed out 10 times as many assists with an A/TO ratio 10 times as good, recorded more steals and blocks, fouled less, and rebounding was a wash.

Not going to bother typing out everything for Gbinije, but basically he played fewer than half as many minutes as Hairston/Carter-Williams with an O-rating and rebounding comparable to Carter-Williams but much worse assist, turnover, foul, block & steal numbers.

It's certainly possible for Hairston & Gbinije to improve more than Southerland & Carter-Williams and end up better players. But so far there has been a massive gap in actual performance in favor of the Syracuse players.

Southerland was more productive than Hairston. I never said otherwise. I said Southerland isn't a better plan than Hairston. Southerland was a role player who happened to get more opportunity than Hairston. Hairston was a role player who was stuck behind one additional player this year.

The sample size of game time for all 3 players is too small to glean any truly meaningful comparative information about any of those guys.

Kfanarmy
04-04-2012, 04:48 PM
... It's becoming very common for guys to come into college a year later than kids did 15-20 years ago. Lots of guys are essentially 5th year guys coming out of high school these days..... Why do you believe "Lots of guys" are coming out of HS at the 5 year mark....outside a very small % of athletes, I haven't heard of any.

CDu
04-04-2012, 04:53 PM
Depends on how you look at it though...assuming the top 24-25 players are McDonalds AA kids every year....5th year seniors don't qualify to play in the game, so all those guys who are supposed to be the top players in the class did so in 4 years....

Not all of the top-25 are McDonald's guys, though it's true that the top-20 guys are usually McDonald's guys. But every year we see a few guys who were rated much lower (like Marshall Plumlee) get in the game and a few top-20 guys not be eligible.

In 2011, for example, Amir Williams (RSCI #50) and Marshall Plumlee (RSCI #61) played while Quincy Miller, Andre Drummond, Nick Johnson, Dorian Finney-Smith, DeAndre Daniels, Jabari Brown, BJ Young, Tony Wroten, and Josiah Turner (all Top-20 RSCI guys) did not. Of course, Drummond was a case like Murphy of reclassifying back into his "natural" class.

Miller was 19 as a high school senior, as was Daniels. I believe some of the others were too.

TexHawk
04-04-2012, 04:53 PM
I'm not sure McLemore is necessarily even the better athlete. Murphy is really athletic. His big question mark is strength. But no need to quibble any further since we're in agreement that Murphy is the better player.

There is very little I can confidently say about McLemore without seeing him in game action. But his athleticism is not something Kansas is worried about. Practice observers and Coach Self have said he's the most athletic player at KU since Kenny Gregory in the 90s, and the best athlete Self has ever recruited. Now, whether he can shoot and play defense is another topic altogether. (If Kenny Gregory is the ceiling, we'll get lots of fun alley-oops, and not any Final Fours.)

Interesting thread... I saw 3 preseason polls before today that had KU 3, 4, and 3. Luke Winn pegged them at #18 this afternoon. Should be an interesting year.

Troublemaker
04-04-2012, 04:56 PM
And we don't?

Rivers was the only player on our team that could break down his opponent off the dribble or create his own shot. Losing him is, to us, every bit as big as losing T-Rob or Draymond Green. People here are drastically overrrating our returning backcourt and drastically underrating how much Austin meant to us, I think.


I agree that Austin was our best player. I would say though that the separation between him and Duke's 2nd/3rd/4th best player wasn't as wide as Robinson or Green's separation from their respective teams. Those two were great college players; Austin as a freshman was closer to good than great, and I think Sulaimon can be 90% of Rivers (with an outside chance of being better [I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't be shocked]). Not sure if Robinson or Green have as adequate a replacement.

dcar1985
04-04-2012, 04:56 PM
Not all of the top-25 are McDonald's guys, though it's true that the top-20 guys are usually McDonald's guys. But every year we see a few guys who were rated much lower (like Marshall Plumlee) get in the game and a few top-20 guys not be eligible.

In 2011, for example, Amir Williams (RSCI #50) and Marshall Plumlee (RSCI #61) played while Quincy Miller, Andre Drummond, Nick Johnson, Dorian Finney-Smith, DeAndre Daniels, Jabari Brown, BJ Young, Tony Wroten, and Josiah Turner (all Top-20 RSCI guys) did not. Of course, Drummond was a case like Murphy of reclassifying back into his "natural" class.

Right and that might be some of the reason behind it.....Last year Quincy Miller, and Mike G were both 5th year guys who didn't qualify, had that not been you probably wouldn't have seen Marshall making the team...but yea sometimes players just get snubbed

Greg_Newton
04-04-2012, 05:01 PM
There is very little I can confidently say about McLemore without seeing him in game action. But his athleticism is not something Kansas is worried about. Practice observers and Coach Self have said he's the most athletic player at KU since Kenny Gregory in the 90s, and the best athlete Self has ever recruited. Now, whether he can shoot and play defense is another topic altogether. (If Kenny Gregory is the ceiling, we'll get lots of fun alley-oops, and not any Final Fours.)

Interesting thread... I saw 3 preseason polls before today that had KU 3, 4, and 3. Luke Winn pegged them at #18 this afternoon. Should be an interesting year.

Yeah, I saw McLemore in HS, and he is an absolute freak of nature. Alex is a great, smooth athlete and I have high hopes for him as an overall player, but McLemore and Shaq Johnson are going to be the best two athletes in college basketball next year.

CDu
04-04-2012, 05:04 PM
Why do you believe "Lots of guys" are coming out of HS at the 5 year mark....outside a very small % of athletes, I haven't heard of any.

Last year, the following players among the top 40 recruits were 19 year olds (i.e., were in high school a year later than they should have been):

Quincy Miller
Josiah Turner
Jabari Brown
DeAndre Daniels
Nick Johnson

That's 5 of the top 20 recruits. I think it's pretty common these days.

CDu
04-04-2012, 05:18 PM
I agree that Austin was our best player. I would say though that the separation between him and Duke's 2nd/3rd/4th best player wasn't as wide as Robinson or Green's separation from their respective teams. Those two were great college players; Austin as a freshman was closer to good than great, and I think Sulaimon can be 90% of Rivers (with an outside chance of being better [I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't be shocked]). Not sure if Robinson or Green have as adequate a replacement.

Exactly. MSU could do very little without Green and they aren't replacing him next year. Kansas lost their best player by far and they lost their quickest and best perimeter player, and most importantly they lost the only two guys who could consistently create offense despite being focal points for the opposition. They have a few talented players coming in, but those guys shouldn't be expected to come close to what Robinson and Taylor provided. Syracuse is losing both of its ballhandlers, both of its starting post guys, and 3 of their top 5 scorers, and they don't have any guards of note coming in.

We're losing our best player, but we're replacing him with a pretty darn good player at the same position. And the guy coming in appears to be quicker, more explosive, more unselfish, and more versatile (though less of a pure ballhandler and an inch or two shorter). And we're adding a tall, athletic, and very talented wing player that Coach K has raved about. We will more easily replace what we lost than MSU, Kansas, and Syracuse. Unless Mason goes and we don't get Parker/Oriakhi. Then, I think we're a borderline top 25-30 team instead of a top 10-15 (or better) team.

Luke Winn is probably the closest to accurate (of course, that may be because his thoughts are most consistent with my own). He's the only one who hasn't simply said "MSU has Tom Izzo" and "Kansas has Bill Self" and ranked those two in the Top 10. I quibble with his rating of Syracuse, but I guess someone will have to do well in the Big East. For what it's worth, he appears to be basing his rating on Mason going pro, but probably overrating Marshall. He also has McAdoo staying. I'd expect us in the 8-10 range if Mason returns, and I'm guessing he'd do the same if we find that Mason has returned.

FellowTraveler
04-04-2012, 05:22 PM
The sample size of game time for all 3 players is too small to glean any truly meaningful comparative information about any of those guys.

Well, ok. But I was responding to a comparison you made. What was that based on? Their years-ago high school performance? James Southerland has been out of high school for three years. Josh Hairston for two. At this point, I'll take the small sample of their on-court performance in college over several-years-old high school rankings.

Chicago 1995
04-04-2012, 05:29 PM
I agree that Austin was our best player. I would say though that the separation between him and Duke's 2nd/3rd/4th best player wasn't as wide as Robinson or Green's separation from their respective teams. Those two were great college players; Austin as a freshman was closer to good than great, and I think Sulaimon can be 90% of Rivers (with an outside chance of being better [I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't be shocked]). Not sure if Robinson or Green have as adequate a replacement.

I think the gap is larger than you do between Austin and our second best player, especially on the perimeter.

I also think if we're expected that from Rasheed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Rivers led us in scoring -- the first freshman since Dawkins in '83 -- and was a third team All-American by NABC and the Wooden voters at least. He was one of the 20 best players in college basketball last year probably. If Suliamon is 90% of that player, he's going to be a top 30 ish player Nationally and probably all-ACC as a freshman. He might do that, but it's a big expectation for a kid who isn't a top 5 player in his class like Austin was.

Greg_Newton
04-04-2012, 05:35 PM
Last year, the following players among the top 40 recruits were 19 year olds (i.e., were in high school a year later than they should have been):

Quincy Miller
Josiah Turner
Jabari Brown
DeAndre Daniels
Nick Johnson

That's 5 of the top 20 recruits. I think it's pretty common these days.

I'd say so - Austin Rivers, Michael Gbinije, Mason Plumlee, Miles Plumlee and Marshall Plumlee were all 19 when they began their freshman years, and Alex Murphy would have been too had he not reclassified.

Interestingly, Ryan Kelly is over a year younger than Mason.

ncexnyc
04-04-2012, 05:39 PM
This thread should be retitled " Yeah its early but State still looks like they need a hug"
Or maybe CDu vs Chicago 1995.

After several pages of back and forth isn't someone supposed to say, "Let's just agree to disagree."

toooskies
04-04-2012, 05:42 PM
I agree that Austin was our best player. I would say though that the separation between him and Duke's 2nd/3rd/4th best player wasn't as wide as Robinson or Green's separation from their respective teams. Those two were great college players; Austin as a freshman was closer to good than great, and I think Sulaimon can be 90% of Rivers (with an outside chance of being better [I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't be shocked]). Not sure if Robinson or Green have as adequate a replacement.

I agree. I'm glad Austin played on the team, but I don't think the team developed well after he hit the shot in the UNC game. Up to that point, it was probably debatable whether Austin was the best player on the team; and that left the offense and leadership of the team in a bit of flux. I actually think that defining a leader on the team (and defining Austin as that leader) actually hurt them, because it meant some other players deferred too much. As much as Austin added, nearly every player produced more points when they shot the ball.

But next year's team is poised to see this year's maybe-leaders turn into real leaders. They have some adversity to get through, and they don't have anything to be proud of at the end of this year; I have no doubt that Coach K will be able to turn that into a motivating factor this offseason. Especially on the defensive end.

To previous commenters, I think this team also has a lot of growth potential. I think Quinn could be a top-flight PG if he can control his knee issues and lock down his defense. I think Ryan has shown steady progress, and may be the best player on the team and in the discussion for best in the conference.

CDu
04-04-2012, 06:02 PM
I think the gap is larger than you do between Austin and our second best player, especially on the perimeter.

I also think if we're expected that from Rasheed, we're setting ourselves up for failure. Rivers led us in scoring -- the first freshman since Dawkins in '83 -- and was a third team All-American by NABC and the Wooden voters at least. He was one of the 20 best players in college basketball last year probably. If Suliamon is 90% of that player, he's going to be a top 30 ish player Nationally and probably all-ACC as a freshman. He might do that, but it's a big expectation for a kid who isn't a top 5 player in his class like Austin was.

I don't think anyone is expecting Sulaimon to match Rivers next year. He doesn't have to be. The point was that we have more coming back than those other teams, and Sulaimon more closely replaces what we lost than the guys those other teams are bringing in. Or do you expect Ellis to match Robinson? Or anyone on MSU to match Green?

We return 70% of our scoring, 70% of our rebounding, 80% of our assists if Mason returns. And we add a top 20 recruit, a top 40 wing recruit with a year's experience, and a top 60 7 footer with a year's experience. MSU loses 40% of their scoring and 45% of their rebounding and assists, including a 1st Team All-American, and brings in a top 20 guard and some decent but not great big men. Kansas loses 54% of its scoring, 43% of its rebounding, and 50% of its assists, including a 1st Team All-American, and replaces it with good players but not nearly the players they lose. Syracuse loses 58% of its scoring, 43% of its rebounding, and 64% of its assists.

Yes, those teams were better than us by season's end (Syracuse all season). But they lose a lot more of their teams than we do and don't bring in as much talent as we do.

CDu
04-04-2012, 06:05 PM
Well, ok. But I was responding to a comparison you made. What was that based on? Their years-ago high school performance? James Southerland has been out of high school for three years. Josh Hairston for two. At this point, I'll take the small sample of their on-court performance in college over several-years-old high school rankings.

The comparison was based simply on both players being small part players who play a similar position and who shouldn't be expected to be impact players next year. It was not intended to be a quantitatively rigorous analysis.

TexHawk
04-04-2012, 06:58 PM
You are correct that your depth will be better, but the top-end will be greatly weaker next year. And depth (unless it is superstar depth) really isn't all that meaningful once you get into March. You need to have the horses, and barring some unforeseen developments I don't see Kansas having them. Most teams trim the rotation to 7-8 guys, so being better at the 7th - 10th spots in the rotation but worse at the top two spots is a bad tradeoff.

In every year but this one, Self has run with an 8 man rotation once he got to March. The 6-8 horses did not exist in '12, so you saw a team that basically went through the starting 5 for everything. Teahan and Young provided no consistent scoring, just warm bodies to hopefully rebound and not turn the ball over. (Did anybody else cringe when Teahan was matched up on MKG? Ye gods.) This team was certainly the anomaly in comparison to his others. KU will be better at 6-8 in '12-'13, not just 7-10.

In one year, Robinson jumped from 7 ppg to 17. Taylor went from 9 ppg to 16. While I am more positive about Johnson-Releford-Withey than you are, trust me, I am not expecting THAT kind of superstar improvement. If you assume a modest increase of 2-3 ppg for those three, plus ~7-9 ppg each from McLemore and Ellis, that replaces about 24-25 points of those 33 ppg from Taylor/Robinson. (Teahan/Young put up ~8 ppg off the bench.) The 6-8 rotation guys will come from a group of Tharpe, Young, Traylor, White, Adams, and Lucas/Peters if there is foul trouble. I don't think it's completely ridiculous to think you can find anywhere from 10-13 ppg in that group of three. Of course, that's still less scoring than was there in '12, so there may be more pressure on the defense. But Taylor/Robinson were average at best on that end (liabilities at worst), and that was likely by design. No idea how Ellis/McLemore will fit there, so that's an unknown.

And again, you have to look at the competition. Baylor may be ok, Texas will be above average. But outside of that, the Big12 will be awful, and KU should be favored to win it again. That team could/should hover around the Top 5-10 all season, similar to this one.

I do think you bring up an interesting point about superstars in March. A more well-balanced offense may not mean a successful tourney run, but let's be honest, none of us can come close to predicting THAT right now. Sometimes leaning on two guys for every big basket is a better direction for KU's offense. I dunno, will be fun to see how it goes.

Des Esseintes
04-04-2012, 07:13 PM
And again, you have to look at the competition. Baylor may be ok, Texas will be above average. But outside of that, the Big12 will be awful, and KU should be favored to win it again. That team could/should hover around the Top 5-10 all season, similar to this one.


K-State probably deserves a mention here. I know Martin executed a Lateral Odom to South Carolina, depriving the program of a recruit or two. But don't they bring back a pretty strong core? Rodney Macgruder is a slightly poorer man's Jacob Pullen, and there's a lot of talent elsewhere. Weber has shown he can win with another guy's players, if not his own. On paper, they are probably behind the teams you mentioned, but that is a steady veteran group.

CDu
04-04-2012, 07:15 PM
In every year but this one, Self has run with an 8 man rotation once he got to March. The 6-8 horses did not exist in '12, so you saw a team that basically went through the starting 5 for everything. Teahan and Young provided no consistent scoring, just warm bodies to hopefully rebound and not turn the ball over. (Did anybody else cringe when Teahan was matched up on MKG? Ye gods.) This team was certainly the anomaly in comparison to his others. KU will be better at 6-8 in '12-'13, not just 7-10.

In one year, Robinson jumped from 7 ppg to 17. Taylor went from 9 ppg to 16. While I am more positive about Johnson-Releford-Withey than you are, trust me, I am not expecting THAT kind of superstar improvement. If you assume a modest increase of 2-3 ppg for those three, plus ~7-9 ppg each from McLemore and Ellis, that replaces about 24-25 points of those 33 ppg from Taylor/Robinson. (Teahan/Young put up ~8 ppg off the bench.) The 6-8 rotation guys will come from a group of Tharpe, Young, Traylor, White, Adams, and Lucas/Peters if there is foul trouble. I don't think it's completely ridiculous to think you can find anywhere from 10-13 ppg in that group of three. Of course, that's still less scoring than was there in '12, so there may be more pressure on the defense. But Taylor/Robinson were average at best on that end (liabilities at worst), and that was likely by design. No idea how Ellis/McLemore will fit there, so that's an unknown.

And again, you have to look at the competition. Baylor may be ok, Texas will be above average. But outside of that, the Big12 will be awful, and KU should be favored to win it again. That team could/should hover around the Top 5-10 all season, similar to this one.

I do think you bring up an interesting point about superstars in March. A more well-balanced offense may not mean a successful tourney run, but let's be honest, none of us can come close to predicting THAT right now. Sometimes leaning on two guys for every big basket is a better direction for KU's offense. I dunno, will be fun to see how it goes.

To be fair, I don't think Kansas will be bad by any means. Just that I think Duke has a better outlook than Kansas does next year. That's not a negative, in my opinion. I thinK Duke will be very good next year, and can be really really good if things go right. I agree with your expectations of performance. I just see that as a very good team, not a Top-5 team. It's not, in my opinion, as good as NC State with Leslie back and adding a 7-footer, a stud guard recruit, and two more McDonald's All-Americans to replace their 5th and 7th best players. It's not likely to be as good as Kentucky's team (if Calipari stays and gets another stud or two), Indiana (if Zeller returns), Louisville, Florida, Baylor, or Duke (if Mason returns).