PDA

View Full Version : Rodney Hood Transferring



Pages : [1] 2

BlueDevilBrowns
04-08-2012, 11:15 PM
Rodney Hood, Freshman 6'8" SF/PF from Miss. St. is transferring according to Jeff Goodman. Perhaps a player we should keep an eye on if TP and Mr. Jefferson choose to play elsewhere. He was ranked #26 by Scout.com last year and averaged 10 pts and 4 boards in his freshman year.

LINK: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/18408560/mississippi-state-talented-freshman-rodney-hood-transferring

NOTE TO MODS: I didn't know which thread this belonged in so if you feel the need to move it to it's proper place please do so.

FireOgilvie
04-08-2012, 11:44 PM
He's more of a SF/SG than a PF.

Huh?
04-09-2012, 10:28 AM
If he is up to par academically he would be someone to definitely go after, this kid is legit.

CameronBornAndBred
04-09-2012, 10:48 AM
He initially chose between Louisville, 'Bama, FSU, Georgetown, Miss. St. and Marquette. Didn't see any mention or interest from Duke back then, or if there was it wasn't mutual, but of course things change.

Links from his HS days.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Rodney-Hood-82490
http://www.cardchronicle.com/2010/10/13/1750171/rodney-hood-will-announce-college-choice-next-week

CDu
04-09-2012, 10:53 AM
Rodney Hood, Freshman 6'8" SF/PF from Miss. St. is transferring according to Jeff Goodman. Perhaps a player we should keep an eye on if TP and Mr. Jefferson choose to play elsewhere. He was ranked #26 by Scout.com last year and averaged 10 pts and 4 boards in his freshman year.

LINK: http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/18408560/mississippi-state-talented-freshman-rodney-hood-transferring

NOTE TO MODS: I didn't know which thread this belonged in so if you feel the need to move it to it's proper place please do so.

I think that Murphy and Gbinije along with the hopes of getting Jabari Parker and/or Wiggins makes adding Hood kind of unnecessary. He won't fill a need (we're going to be looking for big men, not second-tier SF).

CameronCrazy06
04-09-2012, 06:34 PM
Jeff Goodman ‏ @GoodmanCBS

Duke and Ohio State among the schools that have contacted Mississippi State about Rodney Hood, source told CBSSports.

6:21 PM - 9 Apr 12

Big Pappa
04-09-2012, 06:35 PM
He initially chose between Louisville, 'Bama, FSU, Georgetown, Miss. St. and Marquette. Didn't see any mention or interest from Duke back then, or if there was it wasn't mutual, but of course things change.

Tweet from CBS's Jeff Goodman:

Jeff Goodman ‏ @GoodmanCBS
Duke and Ohio State among the schools that have contacted Mississippi State about Rodney Hood, source told CBSSports.

FireOgilvie
04-09-2012, 07:55 PM
Jeff Goodman ‏ @GoodmanCBS

Duke and Ohio State among the schools that have contacted Mississippi State about Rodney Hood, source told CBSSports.

6:21 PM - 9 Apr 12

Curious. Apparently, we're really making a push for tall/versatile wings... I like it.

This doesn't say much about our recruitment of Shabazz Muhammad because by the time Hood is eligible, Muhammad will be in the NBA. Although, I wish the staff was comfortable enough with Gbinije and Murphy that they didn't feel they had to recruit another SF in their year (roughly).

ncexnyc
04-09-2012, 07:59 PM
I think that Murphy and Gbinije along with the hopes of getting Jabari Parker and/or Wiggins makes adding Hood kind of unnecessary. He won't fill a need (we're going to be looking for big men, not second-tier SF).

There's never anything wrong with kicking the tires and as the old adage goes, "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Yes, it's nice to believe you've actually got a shot at kids like Parker and Wiggins, but let's be honest based on what we saw Saturday night I doubt Wiggins will be interested in coming to Duke. I'm pretty sure he'd be a better fit for Calipari's puppy mill at UK. Can't say anything about Parker as I haven't seen the kid play yet.

Kedsy
04-09-2012, 08:21 PM
Yes, it's nice to believe you've actually got a shot at kids like Parker and Wiggins, but let's be honest based on what we saw Saturday night I doubt Wiggins will be interested in coming to Duke. I'm pretty sure he'd be a better fit for Calipari's puppy mill at UK.

Why? Because he's too good? I don't understand.

ncexnyc
04-09-2012, 08:30 PM
Why? Because he's too good? I don't understand.
If you watched Saturday's game you wouldn't need to ask. This seventeen year old kid was probably the best player on the court. To me he looks ONE AND DONE and I put that in caps to emphasize just how good this kid looked the other night.

Kedsy
04-09-2012, 08:40 PM
If you watched Saturday's game you wouldn't need to ask. This seventeen year old kid was probably the best player on the court. To me he looks ONE AND DONE and I put that in caps to emphasize just how good this kid looked the other night.

Well, I didn't watch, but since we've snagged a one-and-done in each of the last two seasons, I don't understand why him being that good precludes him from considering Duke?

Newton_14
04-09-2012, 09:04 PM
Airowe tweeted this sentiment, and I have to agree, that Duke is going after transfers at an unusual high pace. I can't recall a time where we have shown interest in so many transfers. Not sure if this a strategic change done purposely, or just an anomaly, but at any rate it is odd. The Ziegler kid made sense, due to Duke recruiting him in high school. The Uconn big was a head scratcher to me, beyond being a stopgap if Mason left, but now the Hood kid too? Per CB&B''s research, Duke did not recruit him out of high school. Not saying there is anything at all wrong with the approach, and I am not complaining. Just find it interesting.

There is no argument that 6'5ish/6'6-6'8 wings with length that can defend are great assets to have on a college team, so I am all for having multiple guys that size on the roster.

K constantly evolving and exploring new ways to get it done! The man never stops thinking.

gofurman
04-09-2012, 09:16 PM
agree wgoing after transfers that fit. I would love to see Hood on the team. Seems a rangy guy with a 10pt/5 board avg as fr in the SEC. I like to have as many wings and 3/4 guys as possible. Better competition in practice - Murphy , Gbinije, Hairston.. would love to add a 'Hood' to that. very highly thouhgt of in HS and did well as Freshman in SEC

pfrduke
04-09-2012, 09:20 PM
Airowe tweeted this sentiment, and I have to agree, that Duke is going after transfers at an unusual high pace. I can't recall a time where we have shown interest in so many transfers. Not sure if this a strategic change done purposely, or just an anomaly, but at any rate it is odd. The Ziegler kid made sense, due to Duke recruiting him in high school. The Uconn big was a head scratcher to me, beyond being a stopgap if Mason left, but now the Hood kid too? Per CB&B''s research, Duke did not recruit him out of high school. Not saying there is anything at all wrong with the approach, and I am not complaining. Just find it interesting.

There is no argument that 6'5ish/6'6-6'8 wings with length that can defend are great assets to have on a college team, so I am all for having multiple guys that size on the roster.

K constantly evolving and exploring new ways to get it done! The man never stops thinking.

It's really getting in the way of my efforts to be sarcastic about the rush to assume any high-level D-I player who announces he's transferring should be on Duke's radar, because apparently he is.

Newton_14
04-09-2012, 09:31 PM
It's really getting in the way of my efforts to be sarcastic about the rush to assume any high-level D-I player who announces he's transferring should be on Duke's radar, because apparently he is.

Ha. Good one. I forgot about the humorous thread title you changed when the 2nd or 3rd "transfer on Duke's radar" thread went up. I guess you owe Greg an apology or something:), as your words were unintendly accurate that day. :)

Troublemaker
04-09-2012, 09:49 PM
fyi nbadraft.net has Hood as the #6 overall pick in their current 2013 mock draft (tho that obviously will change after the transfer): http://www.nbadraft.net/2013mock_draft

also, per watzone, check out this article title: http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/05/prospect-rodney-hood-grew-up-a-duke-fan/

Newton_14
04-09-2012, 10:06 PM
fyi nbadraft.net has Hood as the #6 overall pick in their current 2013 mock draft (tho that obviously will change after the transfer): http://www.nbadraft.net/2013mock_draft

also, per watzone, check out this article title: http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/05/prospect-rodney-hood-grew-up-a-duke-fan/

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Best part of that link was seeing Mason's name in the 2013 draft! Another good sign, since he had been listed in the 2012 Mock Draft up until this week. The one odd thing was seeing Ryan Harrow at 15th. Really? The same Ryan Harrow we saw at NC State? Cal must have some magic potion that can transform these kids into bona fide NBA stars!:cool:

The Hood kid looks promising. The site had him listed as 6'8 205lbs, so great size for a true wing. I hope he reciprocates the interest Duke is showing in him. If Duke really was his favorite team growing up, you would think Hood will at least explore Duke as an option.

BlueDevilBrowns
04-09-2012, 10:09 PM
fyi nbadraft.net has Hood as the #6 overall pick in their current 2013 mock draft (tho that obviously will change after the transfer): http://www.nbadraft.net/2013mock_draft

also, per watzone, check out this article title: http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/05/prospect-rodney-hood-grew-up-a-duke-fan/

Duke being his "dream school" is always a good sign.

And I agree, you can't have too many 6'8" SF's on your team. So while I hope Silent G flourishes the next 3 years the fact of the matter is he showed very little this year. Up to this point, Hood's body of work would suggest him being an upgrade over what we have at the SF position on our current roster. If coach K and staff believe Hood could contribute to the team's success enough to pursue him as a transfer, that's all the proof I need.

NashvilleDevil
04-09-2012, 10:15 PM
Airowe tweeted this sentiment, and I have to agree, that Duke is going after transfers at an unusual high pace. I can't recall a time where we have shown interest in so many transfers. Not sure if this a strategic change done purposely, or just an anomaly, but at any rate it is odd. The Ziegler kid made sense, due to Duke recruiting him in high school. The Uconn big was a head scratcher to me, beyond being a stopgap if Mason left, but now the Hood kid too? Per CB&B''s research, Duke did not recruit him out of high school. Not saying there is anything at all wrong with the approach, and I am not complaining. Just find it interesting.

There is no argument that 6'5ish/6'6-6'8 wings with length that can defend are great assets to have on a college team, so I am all for having multiple guys that size on the roster.

K constantly evolving and exploring new ways to get it done! The man never stops thinking.

I don't remember but did Duke recruit Roshown, Dahntay or Seth out of high school?

SupaDave
04-09-2012, 10:19 PM
I don't remember but did Duke recruit Roshown, Dahntay or Seth out of high school?

Nope. Not a one of them. However, it was widely known that Dahntay and JWill were close and that's one of the reasons we got DJ.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/dahntay-jones

Newton_14
04-09-2012, 10:22 PM
I don't remember but did Duke recruit Roshown, Dahntay or Seth out of high school?

I will have to research that one. It is a definite No on Seth. With Dahntay I think it may be a yes, but not sure. With Roshown I absolutely do not remember. Will look it up though.

Troublemaker
04-09-2012, 10:22 PM
Very interesting. Thanks for the link. Best part of that link was seeing Mason's name in the 2013 draft! Another good sign, since he had been listed in the 2012 Mock Draft up until this week. The one odd thing was seeing Ryan Harrow at 15th. Really? The same Ryan Harrow we saw at NC State? Cal must have some magic potion that can transform these kids into bona fide NBA stars!:cool:

The Hood kid looks promising. The site had him listed as 6'8 205lbs, so great size for a true wing. I hope he reciprocates the interest Duke is showing in him. If Duke really was his favorite team growing up, you would think Hood will at least explore Duke as an option.

Oh I agree with you re: Harrow and that mock draft in general. Seems nbadraft.net are just making complete guesses there. Just thought it was interesting to see Hood listed as a #6 overall prospect, even though the accuracy of it is probably questionable.

Troublemaker
04-09-2012, 10:24 PM
Airowe tweeted this sentiment, and I have to agree, that Duke is going after transfers at an unusual high pace. I can't recall a time where we have shown interest in so many transfers. Not sure if this a strategic change done purposely, or just an anomaly, but at any rate it is odd.

I think accepting transfers will soon become par for the course for the best programs in college basketball. Duke is just ahead of the curve here, once again, imo.

Troublemaker
04-09-2012, 10:32 PM
There is no argument that 6'5ish/6'6-6'8 wings with length that can defend are great assets to have on a college team, so I am all for having multiple guys that size on the roster.

K constantly evolving and exploring new ways to get it done! The man never stops thinking.

Totally agree. One way to combat not being able to get a true back-to-basket stud center in recruiting is to go big on the wings and at guards.

Coach K often talks about players just being bball players and not being set into positions. But does any of Duke's recent rosters really strike you as being all that versatile?

I think Coach K would like to get back to the early 90s style of play with lots of versatile guys on the court.

Here's our 2014 starting lineup, if all goes well: Sheed, Hood, Jabari, Randle/Murphy, Mp3/Randle. Just lots of versatility there, that can compete on the boards because the 1-3 positions are so big, and can switch every screen and force turnovers on defense, and can invert the offense by posting up Sheed and Hood and Jabari, and can space the court to drive and post up.

Ahhh, rosterwanking.

Bob Green
04-09-2012, 10:33 PM
I don't remember but did Duke recruit Roshown, Dahntay or Seth out of high school?

My memory tells me we recruited both Roshown and Dahntay. Of course, my memory tells me lots of things. I believe Roshown headed off to St. John's because Joey Beard headed to Duke. Beard transferred after his freshman year and Roshown became interested in Duke again ultimately leaving St. John's after two seasons.

jimsumner
04-09-2012, 10:44 PM
My memory tells me we recruited both Roshown and Dahntay. Of course, my memory tells me lots of things. I believe Roshown headed off to St. John's because Joey Beard headed to Duke. Beard transferred after his freshman year and Roshown became interested in Duke again ultimately leaving St. John's after two seasons.

If Duke recruited either McLeod or Jones, neither got very far. I'm reasonably certain neither got an offer or made an official visit.

Bob Green
04-09-2012, 10:50 PM
If Duke recruited either McLeod or Jones, neither got very far. I'm reasonably certain neither got an offer or made an official visit.

Thanks Jim. I see my memory is as good as usual. :D

devildeac
04-09-2012, 10:59 PM
Airowe tweeted this sentiment, and I have to agree, that Duke is going after transfers at an unusual high pace. I can't recall a time where we have shown interest in so many transfers. Not sure if this a strategic change done purposely, or just an anomaly, but at any rate it is odd. The Ziegler kid made sense, due to Duke recruiting him in high school. The Uconn big was a head scratcher to me, beyond being a stopgap if Mason left, but now the Hood kid too? Per CB&B''s research, Duke did not recruit him out of high school. Not saying there is anything at all wrong with the approach, and I am not complaining. Just find it interesting.

There is no argument that 6'5ish/6'6-6'8 wings with length that can defend are great assets to have on a college team, so I am all for having multiple guys that size on the roster.

K constantly evolving and exploring new ways to get it done! The man never stops thinking.

Makes it even more intriguing/interesting with AM and MG on the roster with a year "in the system" already.

jennja01
04-10-2012, 12:20 AM
I found it interesting that the mock draft linked above has Andre going in the second round to the Portland Trailblazers. I certainly think Andre has enough natural ability to play in the NBA, but if I'm an NBA gm im not drafting Andre unless he significantly improves his handle. I wonder if NBA scouts/gm see past that or if this draft is just taking a blind guess. Only time will tell...

CameronBornAndBred
04-10-2012, 11:29 AM
I think that Murphy and Gbinije along with the hopes of getting Jabari Parker and/or Wiggins makes adding Hood kind of unnecessary. He won't fill a need (we're going to be looking for big men, not second-tier SF).

I meant to ask this yesterday...why do you consider Hood a "second-tier SF"? He was a 5 star recruit rated 5th for his position, but 16th nationally. To put that in comparison with today, Sulaimon is a 4 star rated 5th for his position and 32 nationally. (Both stats according to Rivals.) I wouldn't consider Sulaimon "second tier" either, and Hood was up above him by a good margin.(I realize the postitions are not the same but the ratings still apply.)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Rasheed-Sulaimon-103516;_ylt=Ajk4ubm7zgMy0AO40Mholo7SO5B4

Greg_Newton
04-10-2012, 11:58 AM
I meant to ask this yesterday...why do you consider Hood a "second-tier SF"? He was a 5 star recruit rated 5th for his position, but 16th nationally. To put that in comparison with today, Sulaimon is a 4 star rated 5th for his position and 32 nationally. (Both stats according to Rivals.) I wouldn't consider Sulaimon "second tier" either, and Hood was up above him by a good margin.(I realize the postitions are not the same but the ratings still apply.)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Rasheed-Sulaimon-103516;_ylt=Ajk4ubm7zgMy0AO40Mholo7SO5B4

To be fair, Rivals is not generally considered to have a great basketball ratings service. Hood was the RSCI #27 recruit in 2011 (Gbinije #28), while Sulaimon is the RSCI #17 recruit in 2012 (and is only that low because Rivals is the only service that has him outside of the top 20).

Of course, Hood did have a good freshman year. But I also think it's confusing that we're going after wings right now.

MChambers
04-10-2012, 12:00 PM
Thanks Jim. I see my memory is as good as usual. :D
My memory is that Duke looked at both of them, and liked them, but made offers to others. When they decided to transfer, Duke was somewhat familiar with them. Of course, my memory is no better than Bob's and certainly not as good as Jim's.

The new look at everyone who transfers approach seems like a huge change. Doesn't mean it's bad, but it's a big change.

Jderf
04-10-2012, 12:07 PM
The new look at everyone who transfers approach seems like a huge change. Doesn't mean it's bad, but it's a big change.

To be honest, I suspect that this might reflect a change on the DBR boards more than any change with our coaching staff.

Big Pappa
04-10-2012, 12:17 PM
I think that Murphy and Gbinije along with the hopes of getting Jabari Parker and/or Wiggins makes adding Hood kind of unnecessary. He won't fill a need (we're going to be looking for big men, not second-tier SF).

I've seen this sentiment a few times on this board. Leaving Murphy and G out (since they are already here), I am curious to know how posters feel about Amile Jefferson vs. Rodney Hood. They are certainly comparable in size and somewhat comparable in abilities. If we could have one of them for 3-4 years which one would you want?

jimsumner
04-10-2012, 12:18 PM
My memory is that Duke looked at both of them, and liked them, but made offers to others. When they decided to transfer, Duke was somewhat familiar with them. Of course, my memory is no better than Bob's and certainly not as good as Jim's.

The new look at everyone who transfers approach seems like a huge change. Doesn't mean it's bad, but it's a big change.

Dahntay Jones was in the high school class of 1998. Duke went after Corey Maggette, Dane Fife and Danny Miller from that class. The friendship with Jason Williams would have been irrelevant at that time.

McLeod was in the high school class of 1993. Duke was all in on Joey Beard from that class but also brought in Carmen Wallace, which suggests there was room for McLeod, had their been mutual interest.

-bdbd
04-10-2012, 12:31 PM
If Duke recruited either McLeod or Jones, neither got very far. I'm reasonably certain neither got an offer or made an official visit.

...
Dahntay Jones was in the high school class of 1998. Duke went after Corey Maggette, Dane Fife and Danny Miller from that class. The friendship with Jason Williams would have been irrelevant at that time.

McLeod was in the high school class of 1993. Duke was all in on Joey Beard from that class but also brought in Carmen Wallace, which suggests there was room for McLeod, had their been mutual interest.


Agree with Jim. Having beeen a big recruiting follower since the 80's, I really can't say that I recall either name coming up as Duke prospects before they decided to transfer out of their initial schools.

UrinalCake
04-10-2012, 03:06 PM
...Duke is going after transfers at an unusual high pace. I can't recall a time where we have shown interest in so many transfers. Not sure if this a strategic change done purposely, or just an anomaly, but at any rate it is odd.

I wonder if part of it is that we have four seniors this year, so we're losing a lot of bodies. Bringing in a transfer who would be eligible in 2013 means we add someone with much more experience than a new freshman would. It's kind of like the college equivalent of the one-and-done rule - we get a year or two to evaluate these guys before deciding if we should "recruit" them to join our program. On top of that, we get an "extra" year of them practicing with the team before they become eligible.

gam7
04-10-2012, 03:19 PM
I wonder if part of it is that we have four seniors this year, so we're losing a lot of bodies. Bringing in a transfer who would be eligible in 2013 means we add someone with much more experience than a new freshman would. It's kind of like the college equivalent of the one-and-done rule - we get a year or two to evaluate these guys before deciding if we should "recruit" them to join our program. On top of that, we get an "extra" year of them practicing with the team before they become eligible.

It also may be a response to the fact that our staff is going to be busy with Olympic work this summer and will not have as much time to devote to scouting/recruiting the Class of 2013. They have seen more of guys like Zeigler and Hood and Oriakhi (presumably) than they have of the current high school juniors. As of now, we have only two offers outstanding to the 2013 class, and those are out to the top two players in the class, so competition for them will be fierce.

jimsumner
04-10-2012, 03:41 PM
It also may be a response to the fact that our staff is going to be busy with Olympic work this summer and will not have as much time to devote to scouting/recruiting the Class of 2013. They have seen more of guys like Zeigler and Hood and Oriakhi (presumably) than they have of the current high school juniors. As of now, we have only two offers outstanding to the 2013 class, and those are out to the top two players in the class, so competition for them will be fierce.

Don't forget that Duke has one committment from the class of 2013.

It's been hard for Duke to make offers to the class of 2013 without knowing how all the class-of-2012 stuff would play out. I suspect Duke will offer a number of other players from that class long before the Olympics kick in. Lots of evaluation scheduled for the next few months. Lots.

CDu
04-10-2012, 03:48 PM
I meant to ask this yesterday...why do you consider Hood a "second-tier SF"? He was a 5 star recruit rated 5th for his position, but 16th nationally. To put that in comparison with today, Sulaimon is a 4 star rated 5th for his position and 32 nationally. (Both stats according to Rivals.) I wouldn't consider Sulaimon "second tier" either, and Hood was up above him by a good margin.(I realize the postitions are not the same but the ratings still apply.)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Rasheed-Sulaimon-103516;_ylt=Ajk4ubm7zgMy0AO40Mholo7SO5B4

Hood was #27 nationally according to the RSCI (which is a more comprehensive look than just Rivals). Murphy (#41, but only because he was not rated by one site due to his late reclassification) and Gbinije (#28) were similarly rated. Parker and Wiggins are both top of the class overall. My point was that we have similar players (in the second tier) in Gbinije and Murphy in house who have a year of Duke experience over Hood and we're recruiting even better players at the same position in the next two classes. It doesn't make sense to add Hood.

CameronBornAndBred
04-10-2012, 05:33 PM
Hood was #27 nationally according to the RSCI (which is a more comprehensive look than just Rivals). Murphy (#41, but only because he was not rated by one site due to his late reclassification) and Gbinije (#28) were similarly rated. Parker and Wiggins are both top of the class overall. My point was that we have similar players (in the second tier) in Gbinije and Murphy in house who have a year of Duke experience over Hood and we're recruiting even better players at the same position in the next two classes. It doesn't make sense to add Hood.
That all makes sense. Add to it that he would eat up a scholarship sitting on the bench (which I now know from another thread). I guess if we shoot blanks this year with our 3 remaining scholarships it still couldn't hurt. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to listen to our staff discuss recruiting and contingency plans for target C if targets A and/or B go elsewhere.

ncexnyc
04-10-2012, 05:34 PM
Hood was #27 nationally according to the RSCI (which is a more comprehensive look than just Rivals). Murphy (#41, but only because he was not rated by one site due to his late reclassification) and Gbinije (#28) were similarly rated. Parker and Wiggins are both top of the class overall. My point was that we have similar players (in the second tier) in Gbinije and Murphy in house who have a year of Duke experience over Hood and we're recruiting even better players at the same position in the next two classes. It doesn't make sense to add Hood.
You can call Hood a second tier player all you want, but the kid is already a proven commodity, one who put up better numbers than anyone we put at the SF position this past year.

I'm also wondering why you're lumping Mike and Alex together, I can see Mike being called a 3, but Alex's future on the team looks more like a 4 to me, especially once Ryan leaves, which will leave us with Josh and Alex at the 4.

Greg_Newton
04-10-2012, 06:22 PM
I'm also wondering why you're lumping Mike and Alex together, I can see Mike being called a 3, but Alex's future on the team looks more like a 4 to me, especially once Ryan leaves, which will leave us with Josh and Alex at the 4.

Lord, I hope not, because he came into the program a very pure wing. I would hate to see him bulk up and play out-of-position just because we can't recruit well enough around him.

Hopefully, we'll have at least one of TParker-Jefferson-Randle-JParker - and I don't think two would be an unrealistic hope at all - who can play the post or stretch 4 in 2013-14, along with Marshall and Hairston. That would let Murphy stay on the wing where he belongs, IMO.

ncexnyc
04-10-2012, 07:06 PM
Lord, I hope not, because he came into the program a very pure wing. I would hate to see him bulk up and play out-of-position just because we can't recruit well enough around him.

Hopefully, we'll have at least one of TParker-Jefferson-Randle-JParker - and I don't think two would be an unrealistic hope at all - who can play the post or stretch 4 in 2013-14, along with Marshall and Hairston. That would let Murphy stay on the wing where he belongs, IMO.

ESPN has Alex listed at 6' 8" and 215 lbs. There was talk about him having grown since coming to Duke. For what it's worth Lance Thomas is currently being listed at 6'8" and 225 lbs.

Lance did a pretty good job for us as our 4 during his senior year. If Alex has indeed grown an inch and put on some muscle I'm not sure why he'd be viewed as a SF and not a college PF. Again, Coach K doesn't pigeon hole players by position so we shall have to wait and see exactly who plays where.

A very nice problem to have.

wsb3
04-10-2012, 07:11 PM
I don't remember but did Duke recruit Roshown, Dahntay or Seth out of high school?

Roshown pretty sure yes. Dahntay i think we did but not Seth. I am sure someone will correct as need be.

airowe
04-10-2012, 07:35 PM
Lord, I hope not, because he came into the program a very pure wing. I would hate to see him bulk up and play out-of-position just because we can't recruit well enough around him.

Hopefully, we'll have at least one of TParker-Jefferson-Randle-JParker - and I don't think two would be an unrealistic hope at all - who can play the post or stretch 4 in 2013-14, along with Marshall and Hairston. That would let Murphy stay on the wing where he belongs, IMO.


ESPN has Alex listed at 6' 8" and 215 lbs. There was talk about him having grown since coming to Duke. For what it's worth Lance Thomas is currently being listed at 6'8" and 225 lbs.

Lance did a pretty good job for us as our 4 during his senior year. If Alex has indeed grown an inch and put on some muscle I'm not sure why he'd be viewed as a SF and not a college PF. Again, Coach K doesn't pigeon hole players by position so we shall have to wait and see exactly who plays where.

A very nice problem to have.

Alex has a solid outside shot and a nice handle. He will be able to play defense on 4s, but I suspect he'll play the 3 on offense. Especially with Mason coming back. He's essentially the same size as Kyle Singler played at, if we're making comparisons to former Duke National Champions.

BlueDevilBrowns
04-10-2012, 07:43 PM
Hood was #27 nationally according to the RSCI (which is a more comprehensive look than just Rivals). Murphy (#41, but only because he was not rated by one site due to his late reclassification) and Gbinije (#28) were similarly rated. Parker and Wiggins are both top of the class overall. My point was that we have similar players (in the second tier) in Gbinije and Murphy in house who have a year of Duke experience over Hood and we're recruiting even better players at the same position in the next two classes. It doesn't make sense to add Hood.

The argument could be made that going into this year, it appeared we were plenty deep at the wing/stretch 4 position with Kelly, Gbinije, Murphy, and Hairston all filling those positions. However, Murphy redshirted, Gbinije and Hairston never developed and when Kelly was injured, Hairston couldn't fill his spot effectively so the 3/4 became a position of weakness.

We haven't seen Murphy play 1 minute yet, Gbinije show ANY contribution yet, and none of the 2012/13 recruits in question have actually commited yet so just because it APPEARS we are loaded at the 3/4 for the next 3 years doesn't mean we, in-fact, are set.

I would love to have as many talented players as possible, regardless of position depth. By 2014, having a 3rd year sophomore that produced 10/5 his freshman year in the SEC sure would be a nice luxury to have IMO, and I trust K would find a way to use him quite effectively.

Greg_Newton
04-10-2012, 07:57 PM
Alex has a solid outside shot and a nice handle. He will be able to play defense on 4s, but I suspect he'll play the 3 on offense. Especially with Mason coming back. He's essentially the same size as Kyle Singler played at, if we're making comparisons to former Duke National Champions.

Yes, but I would argue that he moves and plays much more like former national champion wing Mike Dunleavy, who was 6'9 210.

IMO, Alex's best attribute is his slashing ability. I'd just hate to see him lose that by bulking up on focus on being physical inside.

CajunDevil
04-10-2012, 08:48 PM
The argument could be made that going into this year, it appeared we were plenty deep at the wing/stretch 4 position with Kelly, Gbinije, Murphy, and Hairston all filling those positions. However, Murphy redshirted, Gbinije and Hairston never developed and when Kelly was injured, Hairston couldn't fill his spot effectively so the 3/4 became a position of weakness.

We haven't seen Murphy play 1 minute yet, Gbinije show ANY contribution yet, and none of the 2012/13 recruits in question have actually commited yet so just because it APPEARS we are loaded at the 3/4 for the next 3 years doesn't mean we, in-fact, are set.

I would love to have as many talented players as possible, regardless of position depth. By 2014, having a 3rd year sophomore that produced 10/5 his freshman year in the SEC sure would be a nice luxury to have IMO, and I trust K would find a way to use him quite effectively.

I absolutely agree! We need as many stud 6'5" to 6'8" wings as we can get. While watching the video of the '92 squad a few weeks ago, it became apparent to me that Duke used to pride itself on how versatile it was - both on offense and defense. That '92 team was loaded with 6'5"-6'8" studs - Grant Hill, Thomas Hill, Brian Davis, Antonio Lang. Their size (length) and quickness helped out the bigs rebounding, and allowed us to get turnovers, and fill the wings on the break rather impressively. I think having Murphy, Gbinije and picking up Hood, along with a 2013 wing would allow Duke to be much more versatile, hopefully like the early 90's teams :)

UrinalCake
04-10-2012, 09:56 PM
In 2013 we could break out our "long wing" lineup of Rasheed, Hood, Gbinije, Murphy, and Hairston. Everyone between 6'4 and 6'8. Could make for a killer matchup zone defensively (not that that would ever happen :)).

CajunDevil
04-10-2012, 10:16 PM
In 2013 we could break out our "long wing" lineup of Rasheed, Hood, Gbinije, Murphy, and Hairston. Everyone between 6'4 and 6'8. Could make for a killer matchup zone defensively (not that that would ever happen :)).

Or, we could actually have wings that can match-up in a man-to-man and not get devastated on the boards by opposing wings...

gofurman
04-10-2012, 11:16 PM
The argument could be made that going into this year, it appeared we were plenty deep at the wing/stretch 4 position with Kelly, Gbinije, Murphy, and Hairston all filling those positions. However, Murphy redshirted, Gbinije and Hairston never developed and when Kelly was injured, Hairston couldn't fill his spot effectively so the 3/4 became a position of weakness.

We haven't seen Murphy play 1 minute yet, Gbinije show ANY contribution yet, and none of the 2012/13 recruits in question have actually commited yet so just because it APPEARS we are loaded at the 3/4 for the next 3 years doesn't mean we, in-fact, are set.

I would love to have as many talented players as possible, regardless of position depth. By 2014, having a 3rd year sophomore that produced 10/5 his freshman year in the SEC sure would be a nice luxury to have IMO, and I trust K would find a way to use him quite effectively.

wouldnt hood be availabl nxt year in 2012-13 as a sophomore or is he going to have to sit a year? the above bold implies he will not be available until 2014?

Duvall
04-10-2012, 11:22 PM
wouldnt hood be availabl nxt year in 2012-13 as a sophomore or is he going to have to sit a year? the above bold implies he will not be available until 2014?

No. Hood would have to redshirt during the 2012-2013 season.

Big Pappa
04-11-2012, 01:06 AM
Or, we could actually have wings that can match-up in a man-to-man and not get devastated on the boards by opposing wings...

Love your choice of words here, even though I don't think you meant it ironically. The two times we played the "premiere wing" in the ACC (Prince Harry) he had a combined total of seven rebounds. I am certainly in agreement that having a quality wing is important, but I think we probably get "devastated on the boards" more on here and IC than we do on the actual court.

CajunDevil
04-11-2012, 07:55 AM
Love your choice of words here, even though I don't think you meant it ironically. The two times we played the "premiere wing" in the ACC (Prince Harry) he had a combined total of seven rebounds. I am certainly in agreement that having a quality wing is important, but I think we probably get "devastated on the boards" more on here and IC than we do on the actual court.

Good one Big Pappa and yes that was unintended :) I was referring to the UNC guards who out rebounded us in the second game by a huge margin. We couldn't keep them off the boards and it killed us.

Big Pappa
04-11-2012, 09:17 AM
Good one Big Pappa and yes that was unintended :) I was referring to the UNC guards who out rebounded us in the second game by a huge margin. We couldn't keep them off the boards and it killed us.

Fair point about our guards, but getting a premier wing isn't going to make our guards any taller or better at rebounding. Our PF position was most glaringly out-rebounded in both Carolina games. In Chapel Hill, Ryan and Josh combined for 4 rebounds while Henson and McAdoo combined for 20. In Cameron, Ryan and Josh combined for 1 rebound while Henson and McAdoo had 14; for a combined total of -29 on the boards.

I am a HUGE proponent of Ryan and think he will be the focal point of the offense next year, but he must get better on the glass, especially on the defensive end.

COYS
04-11-2012, 09:33 AM
Fair point about our guards, but getting a premier wing isn't going to make our guards any taller or better at rebounding. Our PF position was most glaringly out-rebounded in both Carolina games. In Chapel Hill, Ryan and Josh combined for 4 rebounds while Henson and McAdoo combined for 20. In Cameron, Ryan and Josh combined for 1 rebound while Henson and McAdoo had 14; for a combined total of -29 on the boards.

I am a HUGE proponent of Ryan and think he will be the focal point of the offense next year, but he must get better on the glass, especially on the defensive end.

That's an excellent analysis of Ryan. His feel for the game, jump shooting ability, and handle all make him incredibly dangerous. If he can improve on his rebounding presence, it would be a HUGE boost to the rest of the team.

Duvall
04-11-2012, 12:08 PM
I meant to ask this yesterday...why do you consider Hood a "second-tier SF"? He was a 5 star recruit rated 5th for his position, but 16th nationally. To put that in comparison with today, Sulaimon is a 4 star rated 5th for his position and 32 nationally. (Both stats according to Rivals.) I wouldn't consider Sulaimon "second tier" either, and Hood was up above him by a good margin.(I realize the postitions are not the same but the ratings still apply.)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Rasheed-Sulaimon-103516;_ylt=Ajk4ubm7zgMy0AO40Mholo7SO5B4

Not that it matters, but Rivals has gotten its mind right and bumpled Sulaimon to five stars and 18th nationally. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2509)

Listen to Quants
04-11-2012, 03:22 PM
That all makes sense. Add to it that he would eat up a scholarship sitting on the bench (which I now know from another thread). I guess if we shoot blanks this year with our 3 remaining scholarships it still couldn't hurt. I'd love to be a fly on the wall to listen to our staff discuss recruiting and contingency plans for target C if targets A and/or B go elsewhere.

I wouldn't mind someone eating up a scholarship at all. I suspect the team would be better off, long term, with a red-shirt/transfer-sit-out than anybody besides Sha-buzz. Imagine the following Red-White game

Marshall - Ryan - Sulaimon - Dre - Quinn
Mason - Murphy - {g} - Curry - Thornton

seems like a good game and shows (to my eye) just how deep next year's team will be without any additions. A red-shirt gain value and retains eligibility.

MChambers
04-11-2012, 04:04 PM
I wouldn't mind someone eating up a scholarship at all. I suspect the team would be better off, long term, with a red-shirt/transfer-sit-out than anybody besides Sha-buzz. Imagine the following Red-White game

Marshall - Ryan - Sulaimon - Dre - Quinn
Mason - Murphy - {g} - Curry - Thornton

seems like a good game and shows (to my eye) just how deep next year's team will be without any additions. A red-shirt gain value and retains eligibility.

I hope you mean Blue-White game!

Listen to Quants
04-11-2012, 04:24 PM
I hope you mean Blue-White game!

lol, right, right, mate. Red-shirt and Blue-White game. I'll repeat at home 100 times, my bad.
:o

NSDukeFan
04-11-2012, 08:42 PM
I just noticed that Hood is left-handed. I believe the perception out there is that Duke can't develop good lefties as Coach Collins often works with the wings and he is not left-handed. All it takes is one or two lefties to come to Duke and be used effectively to change that perception though. I don't think Louie Carnesecca was left-handed but he was still able to coach Chris Mullin. So, maybe it can be done.

(I hope I don't need any smilies for this post.)

BlueDevilBrowns
04-11-2012, 09:29 PM
So after tonight, would it be safe to say Hood is our 3rd option after Jefferson and TP? I'm not saying I believe he should be 3rd on the list but is that the consensus at this point?

If I remember correctly, Duke has 2 schollys left so perhaps we land 1 or 2 of the three remaining targets.

cbnaylor
04-11-2012, 09:35 PM
As crazy as this sounds, if Hood says tomorrow "Coach, I want to be a Blue Devil", you take him. UNC had a shot to get Hurley but they said they were waiting on Kenny Anderson. You saw how that turned out. Now granted, lets not compare apples to oranges. The point is, if you pass up on a player to wait on another, you could miss out.

DukieTiger
04-11-2012, 10:00 PM
As crazy as this sounds, if Hood says tomorrow "Coach, I want to be a Blue Devil", you take him. UNC had a shot to get Hurley but they said they were waiting on Kenny Anderson. You saw how that turned out. Now granted, lets not compare apples to oranges. The point is, if you pass up on a player to wait on another, you could miss out.

While this is true, I feel compelled to point out that Duke still has 7 years of combined eligibility from Alex Murphy and Michael Gbinije. We can afford to wait on both Amile and Jabari. What we should not, and hopefully will not do is take a player that even slightly hurts our chances with Jabari Parker. Not saying Amile or Rodney Hood do that. But, that's a factor here.

CDu
04-11-2012, 10:41 PM
As crazy as this sounds, if Hood says tomorrow "Coach, I want to be a Blue Devil", you take him. UNC had a shot to get Hurley but they said they were waiting on Kenny Anderson. You saw how that turned out. Now granted, lets not compare apples to oranges. The point is, if you pass up on a player to wait on another, you could miss out.

Well, why bring up the comparison if we aren't going to compare apples to oranges? Duke has arguably two similar players in Murphy and Gbinije. They'll be a junior and sophomore by the time Hood becomes eligible. And at that point, we may also have Parker or Wiggins (and we may not, just as easily). But this is not a situation where Hood is some elite player and we have chopped liver otherwise.

In any case, it is a moot point. It doesn't appear that Duke is interested and there is no indication that he's interested in Duke.

cbnaylor
04-11-2012, 10:56 PM
I was implying to comparing talent wise, Kenny and Hurley in comparison to Hood. Now on to your points. If we are looking at this through the perspective of Coach K, there is no such thing as a position; only players. However, I could see how this could affect possible recruits for next year but who says you have to have two forwards? We just need 5 on the court.

CDu
04-11-2012, 11:24 PM
I was implying to comparing talent wise, Kenny and Hurley in comparison to Hood. Now on to your points. If we are looking at this through the perspective of Coach K, there is no such thing as a position; only players. However, I could see how this could affect possible recruits for next year but who says you have to have two forwards? We just need 5 on the court.

Players have to guard players. You would have never seen us start 5 Zoubeks or 5 Hurleys. And while Coach K often says we don't have positions, he and the staff just as frequently refer to positions when talking about the team's strengths and needs. We aren't going to be adding Hood.

DukieTiger
04-11-2012, 11:35 PM
We don't have positions but it was pretty clear this year what type of player Duke needed. If we got Hood, Amile, Jabari to go along with Mike and Alex... we'd just be switching our recent small guards situation for a tweener-wing situation.

OZ
04-12-2012, 12:27 AM
We don't have positions but it was pretty clear this year what type of player Duke needed. If we got Hood, Amile, Jabari to go along with Mike and Alex... we'd just be switching our recent small guards situation for a tweener-wing situation.


In the pursuit of recruiting information, I have been subjected to at least ten thousand posts as to the sizes and kinds (positions played) of players we need and/or don't need at Duke. So far, everyone seems to be either too small, too short, too large, too tall or there are too many of them. I going to suggest in order for us to resolve this obviously perplexing problem, that we just not recruit anyone.

CameronBornAndBred
04-12-2012, 09:16 AM
In the pursuit of recruiting information, I have been subjected to at least ten thousand posts as to the sizes and kinds (positions played) of players we need and/or don't need at Duke. So far, everyone seems to be either too small, too short, too large, too tall or there are too many of them. I going to suggest in order for us to resolve this obviously perplexing problem, that we just not recruit anyone.

2553

dcar1985
04-13-2012, 09:46 PM
Well, why bring up the comparison if we aren't going to compare apples to oranges? Duke has arguably two similar players in Murphy and Gbinije. They'll be a junior and sophomore by the time Hood becomes eligible. And at that point, we may also have Parker or Wiggins (and we may not, just as easily). But this is not a situation where Hood is some elite player and we have chopped liver otherwise.

In any case, it is a moot point. It doesn't appear that Duke is interested and there is no indication that he's interested in Duke.

Recent Duke related tweets floating around...


Wayne Gooch ‏ @Bluedevilsreign

Duke is all in on Miss St transfer Rodney Hood.


Clint Jackson ‏ @clintjackson1

Looks like Duke is pursuing Rodney Hood with some intensity.

Appears Duke is quite interested actually....Im guessing the staff has got at least some indication that Hood would be interested also.

gumbomoop
04-13-2012, 10:46 PM
It is a curious development, this apparent mutual interest between Duke and Hood. For it would seem at first glance that Duke wouldn't "need" Hood when he becomes eligible, as a soph in 2013-'14. This would seem even more the case, doubly or triply so, should Jabari Parker arrive that season.

Consider this pretty amazing list of wings [2s and 3s] for 2013-'14: Gbinije (Jr), Sulaimon (So), Hood (So), Jones (Fr), Parker??? (Fr).

I exclude Murphy from this list simply because, depending on exactly what new recruits come to Duke in the next 3 seasons, Alex might well be a combo wing/4, but might play a lot more 4 than wing.

My general impression is that Duke doesn't have a long list of bigs being pursued in the classes of 2013 and 2014. I think K is of course hoping to bring in Randle (2013) and/or Okafor (2014), but unless at least one of Randle/Okafor show up, and unless neither Jabari Parker nor Hood do come to Duke, Alex is even more likely to be a 4, if still a combo wing/4.

And, occasioned by this surprising pursuit of Hood - thinking big picture, here - it sure does seem that K has sworn never again to be in the position of having a set of small wings. He seems to be moving in such a way as to try to have a whole bunch of athletic, rangy wings, who, collectively - and pretty close to individually - can shoot, run, handle, pass, drive, attack, harass, pursue, defend, and rebound.

Probably a 3-peat in '13, '14, '15. Piece of cake. We're gold, or getting there.

Greg_Newton
04-13-2012, 11:07 PM
The only way I can make sense of this is if Murphy or Hood is planning on spending most of their time at the 4, and they're both pretty pure wings. I suppose the staff may bring Murphy down to the post, but he sure didn't look like a PF last summer. I know he's a little bigger now, but his game was completely guard oriented (unlike Singler, for example).

Not sure what to think. Hood seems like a guy that anyone would love to have, but I also really like our current 6'7 WFs.

Newton_14
04-13-2012, 11:28 PM
The only way I can make sense of this is if Murphy or Hood is planning on spending most of their time at the 4, and they're both pretty pure wings. I suppose the staff may bring Murphy down to the post, but he sure didn't look like a PF last summer. I know he's a little bigger now, but his game was completely guard oriented (unlike Singler, for example).

Not sure what to think. Hood seems like a guy that anyone would love to have, but I also really like our current 6'7 WFs.

I am not sold on Alex as a 4 at all. He has always looked like a pure perimeter 3 to me. In his play prior to Duke, he has always been a great slasher and driver of the ball. Thats what I fell in love with the most when watching him in AAU ball. It will be interesting next season to see how much time if any Alex spends at the 4.

As for Hood, like someone else opined, K seems to be on a mission to load up with bigger, taller wings. I am all for it to be honest. You can get away with a smallish PG if they are surrounded by size on the wings like Hurley and Jason Williams were. Quinn and a bunch of tall wings sounds good actually.

Kedsy
04-14-2012, 12:00 AM
I am not sold on Alex as a 4 at all. He has always looked like a pure perimeter 3 to me. In his play prior to Duke, he has always been a great slasher and driver of the ball. Thats what I fell in love with the most when watching him in AAU ball. It will be interesting next season to see how much time if any Alex spends at the 4.

To be a Duke "4," all he has to do is be able to guard the opposing 4. If Alex is really up to 220, as he is listed on GoDuke, he should have the size and strength to defend the college PF position. That doesn't mean he can't do his slashing and driving thing on offense.

Next year seems pretty full at the wing, and Alex spending time at PF frees up minutes for Michael and/or Andre. If we pick up Hood and/or Jabari Parker, then it may make sense for Alex to defend the PF more often. So, I wouldn't be surprised if Alex plays 10 or so minutes at the "4" in 2012-13, nor would I be surprised if he plays 20+ minutes at the "4" in 2013-14. It will mostly depend on the rest of the roster.

Listen to Quants
04-14-2012, 12:06 AM
I am not sold on Alex as a 4 at all. He has always looked like a pure perimeter 3 to me. In his play prior to Duke, he has always been a great slasher and driver of the ball. Thats what I fell in love with the most when watching him in AAU ball. It will be interesting next season to see how much time if any Alex spends at the 4.

As for Hood, like someone else opined, K seems to be on a mission to load up with bigger, taller wings. I am all for it to be honest. You can get away with a smallish PG if they are surrounded by size on the wings like Hurley and Jason Williams were. Quinn and a bunch of tall wings sounds good actually.

Okay to all that ... on offense. But seems to me that an offense can run fine with 4 or even 5 wing or stretch players as long as they can shoot and pass (and drive, I hope). Defense is another matter. Depending upon the opponent, 2 defenders had better be able to bang/defend inside. Perhaps Alex and/or Hood or Parker or a stronger {g}*can* do that. Rebounding help would also appear to follow from big athletic wings.

FireOgilvie
04-14-2012, 12:27 AM
The only way I can make sense of this is if Murphy or Hood is planning on spending most of their time at the 4, and they're both pretty pure wings. I suppose the staff may bring Murphy down to the post, but he sure didn't look like a PF last summer. I know he's a little bigger now, but his game was completely guard oriented (unlike Singler, for example).

Not sure what to think. Hood seems like a guy that anyone would love to have, but I also really like our current 6'7 WFs.


I am not sold on Alex as a 4 at all. He has always looked like a pure perimeter 3 to me. In his play prior to Duke, he has always been a great slasher and driver of the ball. Thats what I fell in love with the most when watching him in AAU ball. It will be interesting next season to see how much time if any Alex spends at the 4.

As for Hood, like someone else opined, K seems to be on a mission to load up with bigger, taller wings. I am all for it to be honest. You can get away with a smallish PG if they are surrounded by size on the wings like Hurley and Jason Williams were. Quinn and a bunch of tall wings sounds good actually.

I agree with the Newtons. I am all for long and athletic wings, but Murphy is not an ideal 4, especially if we don't have a massive Zoubekian center playing behind him. And yes, Alex Murphy is no Kyle Singler (unless he has adamantium infused into his bones in the offseason).

CDu
04-14-2012, 01:09 AM
Appears Duke is quite interested actually....Im guessing the staff has got at least some indication that Hood would be interested also.

Well, color me surprised. Guess I was wrong about Duke's interest. I must concur with those who think Coach K must be stockpiling tall wings with the plan to be more athletic at the PF spot, because if we get even one of the three targets we have over the next three years, we'll have 3 6'7"-6'8" athletic wing players to go along with 2 6'4"-ish SG. That means either they'll play a lot at PF or two will be very unhappy.


Okay to all that ... on offense. But seems to me that an offense can run fine with 4 or even 5 wing or stretch players as long as they can shoot and pass (and drive, I hope). Defense is another matter. Depending upon the opponent, 2 defenders had better be able to bang/defend inside. Perhaps Alex and/or Hood or Parker or a stronger {g}*can* do that. Rebounding help would also appear to follow from big athletic wings.


I agree with the Newtons. I am all for long and athletic wings, but Murphy is not an ideal 4, especially if we don't have a massive Zoubekian center playing behind him. And yes, Alex Murphy is no Kyle Singler (unless he has adamantium infused into his bones in the offseason).

I think we need to dispel the myth that a PF needs to be a big, physical, low-post banger. That's just not the reality of college basketball. In fact, most teams use a very athletic PF. I'd argue that this was actually one of our weaknesses, as Kelly and Miles/Mason were generally much less quick than their counterparts at PF (in some cases glaringly so). Let's take a look at the probable starting PF around the ACC next year:

BC: Ryan Anderson (6'8", 215, good athlete)
Clemson: Milton Jennings (6'9", 225, but hardly a banger)
FSU: Okaro White (6'8", 205, very athletic but not a banger)
Georgia Tech: Cameron Holsey (6'8", 225, somewhat physical but certainly not imposing)
Maryland: Ashton Pankey (6'9", 220)
Miami: Kenny Kadji (6'11", 250 - the only true big-body PF)
UNC: James McAdoo (6'9", 220, very athletic but not a banger)
NC State: Calvin Leslie (6'8, 210, athletic freak, but most certainly not a banger)
Virginia: Darion Atkins (6'8", 220) or Akil Mitchell (6'8", 235) depending on whether or not they find another big man
Virginia Tech: Dorian Finney-Smith (6'8", 185, clearly more athlete than banger)
Wake: I'm not even sure they'll field a team next year.

Aside from Kadji, there's nobody that Murphy can't match up with physically if he's up to 210+ by next year. And he'd have a huge quickness edge on Kadji, so that's somewhat offset. So I don't see where the concern is with his ability to defend at PF.

And also importantly, having an athletic PF makes us less susceptible to mismatches generated by successive screens. If we have a guy who can defend the 2, 3, and 4, it's much harder for the opponent to set up the mismatch you want.

I guess I'm feeling more comfortable with the idea of a smaller, quicker PF the more I talk/type about it. Of course, my comfort with such an approach would hinge on also being bigger at SG and SF (I don't want to see us on the smaller side at 3-4 positions). But given that we're adding Sulaimon, Jones, and we have Gbinije, such an approach might not be an issue.

FireOgilvie
04-14-2012, 02:15 AM
Well, color me surprised. Guess I was wrong about Duke's interest. I must concur with those who think Coach K must be stockpiling tall wings with the plan to be more athletic at the PF spot, because if we get even one of the three targets we have over the next three years, we'll have 3 6'7"-6'8" athletic wing players to go along with 2 6'4"-ish SG. That means either they'll play a lot at PF or two will be very unhappy.





I think we need to dispel the myth that a PF needs to be a big, physical, low-post banger. That's just not the reality of college basketball. In fact, most teams use a very athletic PF. I'd argue that this was actually one of our weaknesses, as Kelly and Miles/Mason were generally much less quick than their counterparts at PF (in some cases glaringly so). Let's take a look at the probable starting PF around the ACC next year:

BC: Ryan Anderson (6'8", 215, good athlete)
Clemson: Milton Jennings (6'9", 225, but hardly a banger)
FSU: Okaro White (6'8", 205, very athletic but not a banger)
Georgia Tech: Cameron Holsey (6'8", 225, somewhat physical but certainly not imposing)
Maryland: Ashton Pankey (6'9", 220)
Miami: Kenny Kadji (6'11", 250 - the only true big-body PF)
UNC: James McAdoo (6'9", 220, very athletic but not a banger)
NC State: Calvin Leslie (6'8, 210, athletic freak, but most certainly not a banger)
Virginia: Darion Atkins (6'8", 220) or Akil Mitchell (6'8", 235) depending on whether or not they find another big man
Virginia Tech: Dorian Finney-Smith (6'8", 185, clearly more athlete than banger)
Wake: I'm not even sure they'll field a team next year.

Aside from Kadji, there's nobody that Murphy can't match up with physically if he's up to 210+ by next year. And he'd have a huge quickness edge on Kadji, so that's somewhat offset. So I don't see where the concern is with his ability to defend at PF.

And also importantly, having an athletic PF makes us less susceptible to mismatches generated by successive screens. If we have a guy who can defend the 2, 3, and 4, it's much harder for the opponent to set up the mismatch you want.

I guess I'm feeling more comfortable with the idea of a smaller, quicker PF the more I talk/type about it. Of course, my comfort with such an approach would hinge on also being bigger at SG and SF (I don't want to see us on the smaller side at 3-4 positions). But given that we're adding Sulaimon, Jones, and we have Gbinije, such an approach might not be an issue.

Our main competition would have Leslie and McAdoo and I don't see Murphy matching up with either one of those guys particularly well down low. He's not the rebounder that most of these guys are. PFs in the Final Four this year:

Terrence Jones (6'9" - 252)
Thomas Robinson (6'10" - 237)
DeShaun Thomas (6'7" - 225), Eric Ravenel (6'8" - 260)
Chane Behanan (6'6" - 250, freshman)

Those are really tough matchups (which is why they were in the Final Four). I think we'd have a much higher ceiling with Murphy at SF and someone else at PF in 2013-2014, but who knows what will happen.

Devilsfan
04-14-2012, 04:17 AM
This is a true deficiency along with a top point guard. Once those areas are filled we will be back in the Final Four again, IMO.

dukedoc
04-14-2012, 08:43 AM
Back in 2009 Watzone interviewed Hood, and asked him what his dream school was growing up. His answer?

"Did you have a dream school growing up?

It was Duke"

LINK (http://bluedevilnation.net/2009/05/prospect-rodney-hood-grew-up-a-duke-fan/)

The rest is premium, but at least this morsel jives with the notion that he might be reciprocating interest right now.

CDu
04-14-2012, 08:52 AM
Our main competition would have Leslie and McAdoo and I don't see Murphy matching up with either one of those guys particularly well down low. He's not the rebounder that most of these guys are.

I disagree. Neither is a big physical rebounder. And neither has a big, physical post game down low. Both are athletes who get to the boards and get their points with quickness and leaping ability. Murphy definitely has the quickness to stay with them and he has the size to body them up. He's not as good a rebounder as them, but I think he has a better shot at defending them than, say, Ryan Kelly or Mason Plumlee (both of whom got schooled by Leslie's athleticism last year).


PFs in the Final Four this year:

Terrence Jones (6'9" - 252)
Thomas Robinson (6'10" - 237)
DeShaun Thomas (6'7" - 225), Eric Ravenel (6'8" - 260)
Chane Behanan (6'6" - 250, freshman)

Those are really tough matchups (which is why they were in the Final Four). I think we'd have a much higher ceiling with Murphy at SF and someone else at PF in 2013-2014, but who knows what will happen.

OSU rarely used Ravenel at the PF spot, and when they did they became far less effective. They were much more effective when they had Thomas on the floor, and Thomas is very similar in size and offensive style to what Murphy reportedly brings (perimeter skills, slashing).

Terrence Jones and Thomas Robinson would be tough to handle. But they'd also be a nightmare for Kelly, Parker, etc. Those guys are too athletic for a true big and too big for a SF. But remember that Robinson got exploited by Thomas against OSU. It wasn't until Thomas got in foul trouble (and they had to go with Ravenel) that the Jayhawks made their run. Unless we're adding a Jones or Robinson, we are going to have a mismatch their either way. At least we might be able to punish them on the other end with a quickness advantage.

Troublemaker
04-14-2012, 09:24 AM
Hood could play the 2, imo. And Sheed might be a PG before his career is done (again, the Nolan comparison).

That's how all these wings could play together.

CDu
04-14-2012, 09:30 AM
Hood could play the 2, imo. And Sheed might be a PG before his career is done (again, the Nolan comparison).

That's how all these wings could play together.

I certainly wouldn't mind having a tall, athletic PG and a tall, athletic SG to go along with a tall, athletic SF and an athletic PF. Of course, that's assuming 3 guys are comfortable playing an unnatural position. But if Murphy shows he can handle the PF spot and Sulaimon shows he can handle the PG spot we could have a very interesting potential lineup in the 2014 season (with or without Hood).

Listen to Quants
04-14-2012, 12:16 PM
Anybody actually know what Mr. Murphy's current weight, height and arm span are? (Google failed me, 'old' numbers).

CDu
04-14-2012, 02:24 PM
Anybody actually know what Mr. Murphy's current weight, height and arm span are? (Google failed me, 'old' numbers).

I'm guessing the best you'll get is a rough guesstimation unless he goes to a summer camp that takes "official" measurements.

Lunchab1es
04-14-2012, 02:47 PM
So I see some great logic for recruiting him now, but does anyone know if we actually are? I haven't read anything about current suitors nor his interests (beyond Duke being his dream school years ago).

ChicagoCrazy84
04-14-2012, 03:28 PM
So I see some great logic for recruiting him now, but does anyone know if we actually are? I haven't read anything about current suitors nor his interests (beyond Duke being his dream school years ago).


Yes we are. We were reportedly the first school to reach out to him after his announcement. Apparently, its us and Ohio St that reached out so we are very much interested. Rodney himself has not made an announcement on who he is interested in, but I would imagine he would at least accept an invitation to visit.

Greg_Newton
04-14-2012, 03:45 PM
To be a Duke "4," all he has to do is be able to guard the opposing 4. If Alex is really up to 220, as he is listed on GoDuke, he should have the size and strength to defend the college PF position. That doesn't mean he can't do his slashing and driving thing on offense.

That's kind of an oversimplification though. Spending time defending/rebounding the 4 means developing your body with that in mind, training your skills with that in mind, having a different mindset during games, and getting beat up and worn out banging in the post.

IMO, that worked perfectly with Singler, who lived for contact and kind of dribbled the ball like a tight end running after the catch anyway. Murphy, OTOH, is much more likely Dunleavy - smooth, run and jump athlete, guard-oriented mindset, not the strongest lower body, much better of one foot than two, etc. I haven't seen him recently, but he came into the program as a pure wing, and I'd hate to see him get put in a position where he can't develop and exploit his skills in an ideal manner for who he is as a player.

However... TBH, I typed all that out having completely forgotten that Dunleavy was our PF in 2002, and kind of did okay with it. I always think of him as floating on the wing as a FR/SO, but I suppose he held up pretty well down there in his third year. Perhaps you're right, and the plan is for Alex to do the same in his third year.

Haven't heard K or anyone allude to that specifically, but it sure would explain a lot.

superdave
05-03-2012, 04:21 PM
Any news on Mister Hood?

English
05-03-2012, 05:41 PM
Any news on Mister Hood?

Per the Columbus Dispatch, which is a decidedly Buckeye-friendly publication obviously, Rodney is looking to reveal his list--which includes OSU and Duke--quite soon. According to the article, this information comes from Rodney's father:

"Hood, who finishes the semester at Mississippi State on Thursday, is expected to reveal this week the schools he will visit. His father told The Dispatch last week that Ohio State will be one, and Duke is believed to be another."

It's unclear if Rodney's father directly told the Dispatch author that Duke was among the schools on his son's list or if he was citing popular belief ("Duke is believed to be another" isn't the most definitive quote), but it sounds encouraging that Duke is entrenched in the hunt.

Of course, the articles goes further to draw the connection between rising OSU soph LaQuinton Ross and Rodney, as they played on the same AAU team and remain friends.

http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/blogs/hoops-and-scoops/2012/05/05-01-12-osu-receives-della-valles-loi.html

airowe
05-03-2012, 10:50 PM
Duke expects to get a visit from Rodney. Sometime soon.

Newton_14
05-03-2012, 10:53 PM
Duke expects to get a visit from Rodney. Sometime soon.

Good deal. Thanks Airowe. Congrats to Mrs Airowe on the new job at Duke as well.

I would love to see Hood become a Blue Devil. Would be a nice replacement for Mike G.

dukedoc
05-16-2012, 07:51 AM
What's the latest on Mr. Hood? I know he's supposed to visit soon. Does Amile's commitment affect Rodney at all? My understanding is Rodney is a 3 and Amile, at present, is more of a 4. Just curious though whether Amile's commitment might change things with respect to our pursuit of Hood or whether we're still hoping to add him to the fold for 2013-14 in addition to whatever commitments we garner from the 2013 class.

BlueDevilBrowns
05-16-2012, 02:41 PM
What's the latest on Mr. Hood? I know he's supposed to visit soon. Does Amile's commitment affect Rodney at all? My understanding is Rodney is a 3 and Amile, at present, is more of a 4. Just curious though whether Amile's commitment might change things with respect to our pursuit of Hood or whether we're still hoping to add him to the fold for 2013-14 in addition to whatever commitments we garner from the 2013 class.

Pure speculation on my part, but I would think Duke is still interested in Rodney. Per Watzone's comments in the Amile thread, Duke has felt confident in Jefferson commiting for some time. So to invited Hood on campus for a visit two weeks ago and to "go all in" pursuing him when he announced a transfer last month, I would say Jefferson and Hood are not mutually exclusive.

CDu
05-16-2012, 02:51 PM
Pure speculation on my part, but I would think Duke is still interested in Rodney. Per Watzone's comments in the Amile thread, Duke has felt confident in Jefferson commiting for some time. So to invited Hood on campus for a visit two weeks ago and to "go all in" pursuing him when he announced a transfer last month, I would say Jefferson and Hood are not mutually exclusive.

As noted, Hood and Jefferson play different positions. So I don't think getting Jefferson means Duke isn't interested in Hood anymore. I do wonder if it affects Hood's interest in Duke. Before, there was the possibility that Murphy could move to PF and he and Hood could share the forward spots. With Jefferson in place (and with the team so actively pursuing Parker and Randle next year) it would seem like Duke would be a bad fit for Hood.

It'd be great to get Hood as I certainly won't count on us getting either Parker or Randle. But I wouldn't be shocked if Hood decides that the numbers game isn't in his favor.

Duvall
05-16-2012, 03:33 PM
As noted, Hood and Jefferson play different positions. So I don't think getting Jefferson means Duke isn't interested in Hood anymore. I do wonder if it affects Hood's interest in Duke. Before, there was the possibility that Murphy could move to PF and he and Hood could share the forward spots. With Jefferson in place (and with the team so actively pursuing Parker and Randle next year) it would seem like Duke would be a bad fit for Hood.

It'd be great to get Hood as I certainly won't count on us getting either Parker or Randle. But I wouldn't be shocked if Hood decides that the numbers game isn't in his favor.

Not shocking, certainly. But it seems like the relevant number would be the eight returning and incoming players Duke is set to have in 2013-2014 at this time. There's still plenty of room for Hood even with Jefferson. (And Parker, for that matter.)

Greg_Newton
05-16-2012, 03:37 PM
I would still LOVE to get Hood; he's a SF/SG - not a SF/PF - who really does play the game like a guard, and we're looking to land at least two wings guys like that in 2013. If one of them ends up effectively being him, it would basically be like getting a top-10 recruit, in terms of how ready-to-play he'd be.

Pghdukie
05-16-2012, 10:20 PM
Duke expects to get a visit from Rodney. Sometime soon.

Where does Andre Dawkins fit into the equation?

CDu
05-16-2012, 10:37 PM
Not shocking, certainly. But it seems like the relevant number would be the eight returning and incoming players Duke is set to have in 2013-2014 at this time. There's still plenty of room for Hood even with Jefferson. (And Parker, for that matter.)

Well, I'd disagree. The relevant number is the number of players who would be at Hood's position. That could very well include Murphy and Dawkins (if Dawkins redshirts) and potentially Parker as well. It doesn't matter if we have 8 or 12 players. If there are 1-2 players already at his position and the potential for more, there's only so much PT to go around. So while we could certainly fit him on the roster, we'd also very conceivably have a situation like this year (in terms of somebody getting his minutes squeezed).

gofurman
05-16-2012, 11:17 PM
I would still LOVE to get Hood; he's a SF/SG - not a SF/PF - who really does play the game like a guard, and we're looking to land at least two wings guys like that in 2013. If one of them ends up effectively being him, it would basically be like getting a top-10 recruit, in terms of how ready-to-play he'd be.

exactly - unless a recruit is top 3 or so Ill take a Hood transfer anyday - a guy who has already proven as a FR to get 10pt 5reb a game in SEC ! Could be a future Junior with a 15 pt / 8 reb average. Hood is a proven (and proven well) commodity. I would love to get him with Murphy Jefferson Sheed and Jones - that would be a v strong 2 - 4 position lineup

airowe
05-17-2012, 09:47 PM
Where does Andre Dawkins fit into the equation?

Wherever he feels comfortable. No rush on Andre making a decision.

Pghdukie
05-18-2012, 10:13 PM
Wherever he feels comfortable. No rush on Andre making a decision.

Thanks for your VALUED input. I only hope that their is a very strong bond between Andre and Duke.

UrinalCake
05-18-2012, 11:22 PM
I think the question about Andre was intended with respect to Hood. In other words, if Andre does in fact redshirt, would Hood be less likely to come since he would have to compete with Andre for minutes in 2013-2014? I don't think any of us have the answer to that question.

CLW
05-23-2012, 05:32 PM
For what its worth article below indicates its down to Duke and Ohio State for Hood.


http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/blogs/hoops-and-scoops/2012/05/05-23-12-duke-vs.-osu-for-hood.html

BlueDevilBrowns
05-23-2012, 06:48 PM
For what its worth article below indicates its down to Duke and Ohio State for Hood.


http://www.buckeyextra.com/content/blogs/hoops-and-scoops/2012/05/05-23-12-duke-vs.-osu-for-hood.html

Just had to laugh at the following opinion from the article: "Various reports through this process have said Hood was a Duke fan growing up but did not get an offer from the Blue Devils out of high school. Weigh that against what Ohio State has to sell, which is coach Thad Matta's NBA-style offense, which gives players the space to show their skills".

Didn't know Coach K and Duke were running the Wishbone Offense over in Durham.;)

My guess, though, is if Duke throws "the full-court press and all the fixin's" at Hood during his visit, Rodney will be a Blue Devil.

Class of '94
05-24-2012, 09:02 AM
Just had to laugh at the following opinion from the article: "Various reports through this process have said Hood was a Duke fan growing up but did not get an offer from the Blue Devils out of high school. Weigh that against what Ohio State has to sell, which is coach Thad Matta's NBA-style offense, which gives players the space to show their skills".

Didn't know Coach K and Duke were running the Wishbone Offense over in Durham.;)

My guess, though, is if Duke throws "the full-court press and all the fixin's" at Hood during his visit, Rodney will be a Blue Devil.

I apologize if another poster already answered this question: Could the acquisition of Hood negatively impact Duke's recruitment of Jabari Parker? I know there was a question about Hood could affect Andre; but I think it would be a bigger impact on Parker. With Amile committing to Duke and Alex Murphy already on board, we could potentiall have 6'8 wings Jefferson, Murphy, Hood and Parker (if he chose Duke) playing in the 2013-14 season. It would be a great problem to have in terms of figuring out how to play these guys (and the team would have tremendous flexibility in terms of rotations); but I wonder if this could be seen as a negative (or at least used by other schools as negative) to Parker.

What do you think?

CDu
05-24-2012, 09:14 AM
I apologize if another poster already answered this question: Could the acquisition of Hood negatively impact Duke's recruitment of Jabari Parker? I know there was a question about Hood could affect Andre; but I think it would be a bigger impact on Parker. With Amile committing to Duke and Alex Murphy already on board, we could potentiall have 6'8 wings Jefferson, Murphy, Hood and Parker (if he chose Duke) playing in the 2013-14 season. It would be a great problem to have in terms of figuring out how to play these guys (and the team would have tremendous flexibility in terms of rotations); but I wonder if this could be seen as a negative (or at least used by other schools as negative) to Parker.

What do you think?

I brought it up in some thread (perhaps this one?), but it's an interesting question. Especially now that we also have Jefferson. I don't think Hood (or Jefferson) would affect Parker's decision, as wherever Parker goes he is going to start and play major minutes. But it could affect Hood's situation (if he's "playing" behind Parker, Sulaimon, and Murphy). I doubt Hood would make a decision based on the possibility of Parker coming to Duke, but it could result in an unhappy camper.

So in short, I don't think it would affect Parker's decision at all. I do think it could result in Hood deciding to go elsewhere OR somebody looking to transfer.

Steven43
05-24-2012, 09:16 AM
Just had to laugh at the following opinion from the article: "Various reports through this process have said Hood was a Duke fan growing up but did not get an offer from the Blue Devils out of high school. Weigh that against what Ohio State has to sell, which is coach Thad Matta's NBA-style offense, which gives players the space to show their skills".

Didn't know Coach K and Duke were running the Wishbone Offense over in Durham.;)

My guess, though, is if Duke throws "the full-court press and all the fixin's" at Hood during his visit, Rodney will be a Blue Devil.

It's interesting to see how much confidence the Amile Jefferson signing has given to many DBR posters. We now expect to get players like Hood over schools like Ohio State when just a few weeks ago many would have been wary of our chances. This recruiting game is such a see saw. It would be nice to think that Hood's childhood fondness for Duke would be a significant factor, but I have lost count of how many former recruits expressed similar sentiments and still chose not to come to Durham for college. That being said, I think Rodney Hood and Duke would be a great match.

roywhite
05-24-2012, 09:27 AM
Hood seems to be in the same size range as Alex Murphy and Amile Jefferson.

Similarities or differences in their games?
Competing for the same slice of minutes?

Interesting how the 2011-12 team didn't feature many players in the 6'5" to 6'9" size range and now we may have multiple players with Murphy coming off redshirt, the addition of Jefferson, possible addition of Hood, and offers out to the 2013 high school class.

CDu
05-24-2012, 09:37 AM
Hood seems to be in the same size range as Alex Murphy and Amile Jefferson.

Similarities or differences in their games?
Competing for the same slice of minutes?

Interesting how the 2011-12 team didn't feature many players in the 6'5" to 6'9" size range and now we may have multiple players with Murphy coming off redshirt, the addition of Jefferson, possible addition of Hood, and offers out to the 2013 high school class.

Yeah, it seems pretty clear that Coach K is not going to go into 2013 and beyond with a team loaded with only "big and slow" and "small" guys. He seems to have gotten the memo on interchangeable parts and the value of having tall, versatile wing players.

I very much like the idea of having a bunch of 6'5"-6'8" guys that can rotate around at the 2, 3, and 4 spots somewhat interchangeably. Pair them with a center and a point guard, and you have a very good mix that is versatile enough to not have tons of matchup nightmares to deal with.

jimsumner
05-24-2012, 10:00 AM
The consensus is that Jabari Parker is a bit like the 800-pound gorilla. Sleeps where he wants to.

My understanding is that Hood projects as more of a 3/2 at Duke, while Murphy and Jefferson are more 3/4s. In other words, all three could see the court at the same time. Of course, Duke has Sulaimon and in-coming Matt Jones as 2/3s.

So, there could be a wealth of options or a bench full of unhappy players. Depends on where one sits on the glass half-full/glass half-empty spectrum.

Duke likes Hood very much but they will have to sketch for him plausible sceanarios of how he sees the floor.

I am a bit amused by the idea that Duke fans shouldn't expect Duke to be able to recruit against the likes of Ohio State. Cause, gosh darnit that Krzyzewski guy should know his place and leave the studs to the heavyweights.

That's what happens, I suppose, when you get your first top-25 recruit. The fan base just goes all ga-ga. Silly fans.

gumbomoop
05-24-2012, 10:10 AM
Hood seems to be in the same size range as Alex Murphy and Amile Jefferson.

Similarities or differences in their games?
Competing for the same slice of minutes?

I think, but am not 100% certain:

1. Hood and Parker have better handles, right now, than Murphy and Jefferson.
2. Hood and Parker, despite their length, are wings, not 3/4s; whereas Murphy and Jefferson are, respectively, a 3/4 and a 4-who-by-necessity-probably-plays-some-3-in-2012-'13.
3. Hood, in particular, is a wing/3/2. So Hood might be competing, in 2013-'14, with Andre, Rasheed, Jabari, Alex, and Matt for wing-time. That's a lot of competition [!!], but Rasheed might also play some PG, and Alex might well play some 4. Still, that would be a very, very impressive set of wings.
4. Were Duke to get many of its most coveted recruits in the classes of 2013 and 2014, K would have perhaps 12-13 guys, most of whom would be perfectly capable of starting, several of whom would be likely all-ACC, a couple of whom would be likely all-American, all of whom would be capable of big minutes.
5. Thus, as jimsumner has just posted.....


So, there could be a wealth of options or a bench full of unhappy players.

roywhite
05-24-2012, 10:25 AM
I think, but am not 100% certain:

1. Hood and Parker have better handles, right now, than Murphy and Jefferson.
2. Hood and Parker, despite their length, are wings, not 3/4s; whereas Murphy and Jefferson are, respectively, a 3/4 and a 4-who-by-necessity-probably-plays-some-3-in-2012-'13.
3. Hood, in particular, is a wing/3/2. So Hood might be competing, in 2013-'14, with Andre, Rasheed, Jabari, Alex, and Matt for wing-time. That's a lot of competition [!!], but Rasheed might also play some PG, and Alex might well play some 4. Still, that would be a very, very impressive set of wings.
4. Were Duke to get many of its most coveted recruits in the classes of 2013 and 2014, K would have perhaps 12-13 guys, most of whom would be perfectly capable of starting, several of whom would be likely all-ACC, a couple of whom would be likely all-American, all of whom would be capable of big minutes.
5. Thus, as jimsumner has just posted.....

Thanks for the responses on my question.

After seeing a year where we had troubles against teams that had big guards and talented wing players, I prefer the possible wealth of choices to a dearth of choices.

CDu
05-24-2012, 10:42 AM
So, there could be a wealth of options or a bench full of unhappy players. Depends on where one sits on the glass half-full/glass half-empty spectrum.

This pretty much sums it up. If we get Hood and Parker, we'd have Sulaimon, Jones, Hood, Parker, Murphy, and Jefferson competing for ~120 minutes. And that doesn't consider the possibility that we add another wing to the 2013 class or that Dawkins redshirts this year. If that occurs, I think the answer to your "either/or" scenario will likely be "both."


I am a bit amused by the idea that Duke fans shouldn't expect Duke to be able to recruit against the likes of Ohio State. Cause, gosh darnit that Krzyzewski guy should know his place and leave the studs to the heavyweights.

That's what happens, I suppose, when you get your first top-25 recruit. The fan base just goes all ga-ga. Silly fans.

Totally agree with you on the first paragraph. Coach K has a pretty good history of getting guys he wants. But I'm confused about the second question. Who got their first top-25 recruit? Certainly not Duke. Heck, Jefferson isn't even the first top-25 recruit we've gotten from the 2012 class. Certainly not Ohio State, either, with Oden, Cook, Conley, Koufos, Mullens, Buford, Sullinger, and Thomas in the past 6 years.

jimsumner
05-24-2012, 10:49 AM
This pretty much sums it up. If we get Hood and Parker, we'd have Sulaimon, Jones, Hood, Parker, Murphy, and Jefferson competing for ~120 minutes. And that doesn't consider the possibility that we add another wing to the 2013 class or that Dawkins redshirts this year. If that occurs, I think the answer to your "either/or" scenario will likely be "both."



Totally agree with you on the first paragraph. Coach K has a pretty good history of getting guys he wants. But I'm confused about the second question. Who got their first top-25 recruit? Certainly not Duke. Heck, Jefferson isn't even the first top-25 recruit we've gotten from the 2012 class. Certainly not Ohio State, either, with Oden, Cook, Conley, Koufos, Mullens, Buford, Sullinger, and Thomas in the past 6 years.

I was aiming for gentle sarcasm at the suggestion that Duke fans were over-confident re: Hood as a result of signing Jefferson, as if signing guys like Jefferson was unusual.

CDu
05-24-2012, 10:54 AM
I was aiming for gentle sarcasm at the suggestion that Duke fans were over-confident re: Hood as a result of signing Jefferson, as if signing guys like Jefferson was unusual.

Ah, went right over my head.

luvdahops
05-24-2012, 11:03 AM
This pretty much sums it up. If we get Hood and Parker, we'd have Sulaimon, Jones, Hood, Parker, Murphy, and Jefferson competing for ~120 minutes. And that doesn't consider the possibility that we add another wing to the 2013 class or that Dawkins redshirts this year. If that occurs, I think the answer to your "either/or" scenario will likely be "both."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Rasheed projects as more of a combo guard (2/1) than a wing (2/3), at least longer term. His length and athleticism will enable him to play some 3, especially on this year's team, but I don't think that is the expectation over the course of his career, particularly if our 2013 recruiting goes as well as hoped.

CDu
05-24-2012, 11:28 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Rasheed projects as more of a combo guard (2/1) than a wing (2/3), at least longer term. His length and athleticism will enable him to play some 3, especially on this year's team, but I don't think that is the expectation over the course of his career, particularly if our 2013 recruiting goes as well as hoped.

Yes, he's a 2/1. But we'll have a junior Cook and a senior Thornton at PG already, so I'd expect Sulaimon to get a large chunk of his minutes at the 2. My post was a discussion of the 120 minutes at the 2, 3, and 4 positions. In the scenario I presented, we'd have at least 6 guys competing for minutes at those 3 positions. I wasn't saying that Sulaimon would be competing directly with Murphy/Parker/Jefferson for minutes. I was saying that all of those guys will be indirectly competing for the limited supply of minutes available at those 3 spots on the floor.

If you take away Sulaimon's minutes from the 2 and put them at PG, that takes away from minutes from Thornton and Cook. And in my scenario, I'm assuming 0 minutes for a senior Hairston at PF. And I wasn't considering any minutes for Dawkins, either. It could make for a very talented but very crowded roster. And it would likely result in some folks being unhappy with their playing time.

That being said, if I have to choose between not enough talent and too much talent, I'll take the too much talent.

luvdahops
05-24-2012, 11:35 AM
Yes, he's a 2/1. But we'll have a junior Cook and a senior Thornton at PG already, so I'd expect Sulaimon to get a large chunk of his minutes at the 2. My post was a discussion of the 120 minutes at the 2, 3, and 4 positions. In the scenario I presented, we'd have at least 6 guys competing for minutes at those 3 positions. I wasn't saying that Sulaimon would be competing directly with Murphy/Parker/Jefferson for minutes. I was saying that all of those guys will be indirectly competing for the limited supply of minutes available at those 3 spots on the floor.

If you take away Sulaimon's minutes from the 2 and put them at PG, that takes away from minutes from Thornton and Cook. And in my scenario, I'm assuming 0 minutes for a senior Hairston at PF. And I wasn't considering any minutes for Dawkins, either. It could make for a very talented but very crowded roster. And it would likely result in some folks being unhappy with their playing time.

That being said, if I have to choose between not enough talent and too much talent, I'll take the too much talent.

Agreed. I think we may be splitting hairs a bit (or at least I am), but if we get that recruiting haul for 2013, I would expect Tyler to get squeezed out of the rotation too. Meaning Rasheed would be the backup at PG, in addition to a likely starter at SG.

jimsumner
05-24-2012, 11:39 AM
Sulaimon may be that rare player who can be effective at the 1, 2 and 3, at the collegiate level. Jon Scheyer comes to mind.

Assuming Dawkins doesn't play this season, it will be interesting to see how Duke allocates minutes at the 3. Murphy is the presumptive starter. When he's sitting, does Duke go big and play Jefferson or go small and play Sulaimon?

Likely, we'll see both options used and matchups will be a factor.

But playing Sulaimon at the 3 might be Duke's best option for getting he and Curry on the floor at the same time.

CDu
05-24-2012, 12:24 PM
Agreed. I think we may be splitting hairs a bit (or at least I am), but if we get that recruiting haul for 2013, I would expect Tyler to get squeezed out of the rotation too. Meaning Rasheed would be the backup at PG, in addition to a likely starter at SG.

Sure, so that leaves at least 5 guys competing for ~100-105 minutes at the 2-4 spots, assuming no minutes for seniors Thornton and Hairston (at PF, at least), assuming Dawkins doesn't redshirt, and assuming we don't get Julius Randle (who would take a lot of the PF minutes).

luvdahops
05-24-2012, 01:17 PM
Sure, so that leaves at least 5 guys competing for ~100-105 minutes at the 2-4 spots, assuming no minutes for seniors Thornton and Hairston (at PF, at least), assuming Dawkins doesn't redshirt, and assuming we don't get Julius Randle (who would take a lot of the PF minutes).

Haven't seen him play but Randle sounds much more like a 5 in our system. Though he is described as having face-up skills and the ability to take defenders off the bounce, Julius is also comfortable in the low post. He is also 6'9" 245 and apparently still growing and filling out. So maybe a cross Brand and Boozer.

CDu
05-24-2012, 02:10 PM
Haven't seen him play but Randle sounds much more like a 5 in our system. Though he is described as having face-up skills and the ability to take defenders off the bounce, Julius is also comfortable in the low post. He is also 6'9" 245 and apparently still growing and filling out. So maybe a cross Brand and Boozer.

So in that scenario Marshall and Hairston become the ones squeezed out of playing time. Basically, if we get Hood, Parker, and Randle (which would be unquestionably a good thing for the on-court product in 2013-2014, and obviously is not a given), then there will be at least 2 guys (possibly 3 or 4) who were either McDonald's All-Americans or top-30 recruits (or both) that are going to be pretty unhappy with their playing time. There are only 200 minutes to go around, so if we have 11 heavily-recruited players on the roster, a few guys are going to be the odd men out.

Again, in the short term, that's a great problem to have, as it means we have 10-11 highly-recruited, very talented players on the roster. So that team would be really really good. But the transfer risk is something that we'll probably have to deal with if that's the case. As well as the potential for negative recruiting ("Don't go to Duke, they'll just recruit over you and you'll be a backup").

Steven43
05-24-2012, 02:15 PM
Agreed. I think we may be splitting hairs a bit (or at least I am), but if we get that recruiting haul for 2013, I would expect Tyler to get squeezed out of the rotation too. Meaning Rasheed would be the backup at PG, in addition to a likely starter at SG.

I don't think Tyler was recruited as anything other than a backup at point. Maybe even a backup to the backup. Most programs that compete at the top level--with the notable exception of Kentucky and possibly a few others--need capable, dedicated guys like Tyler who practice as hard as they play and are ready to step in and do well without whining and complaining about a lack of playing time. Only schools like Kentucky--which gets three or four top 25 ranked players every year--can regularly compete for Final Fours without having Tyler Thorntons on their team. Ideally, as far as I'm concerned as a Duke fan, Tyler (and Josh) would get very little playing time. That would mean that Duke is really REALLY good.

CDu
05-24-2012, 02:23 PM
I don't think Tyler was recruited as anything other than a backup at point. Maybe even a backup to the backup. Most programs that compete at the top level--with the notable exception of Kentucky and possibly a few others--need capable, dedicated guys like Tyler who practice as hard as they play and are ready to step in and do well without whining and complaining about a lack of playing time. Only schools like Kentucky--which gets three or four top 25 ranked players every year--can regularly compete for Final Fours without having Tyler Thorntons on their team. Ideally, as far as I'm concerned as a Duke fan, Tyler (and Josh) would get very little playing time. That would mean that Duke is really REALLY good.

Lumping Hairston and Thornton together is a bit misleading. Remember that Hairston was a top-30 recruit. He just seems like less of a prospect because he's not had a big role so far in his career. I very much doubt he was recruited by Duke with the idea of him being a 4-year backup. With Thornton, I think that's a more realistic scenario. He's an unselfish team guy, and fit in nicely behind Irving and Cook at the PG spot.

luvdahops
05-24-2012, 02:25 PM
So in that scenario Marshall and Hairston become the ones squeezed out of playing time. Basically, if we get Hood, Parker, and Randle (which would be unquestionably a good thing for the on-court product in 2013-2014, and obviously is not a given), then there will be at least 2 guys (possibly 3 or 4) who were either McDonald's All-Americans or top-30 recruits (or both) that are going to be pretty unhappy with their playing time. There are only 200 minutes to go around, so if we have 11 heavily-recruited players on the roster, a few guys are going to be the odd men out.

Again, in the short term, that's a great problem to have, as it means we have 10-11 highly-recruited, very talented players on the roster. So that team would be really really good. But the transfer risk is something that we'll probably have to deal with if that's the case. As well as the potential for negative recruiting ("Don't go to Duke, they'll just recruit over you and you'll be a backup").

A few guys will definitely be odd men out. I could foresee a starting lineup of Cook (Jr), Sulaimon (So), Alex (So), Parker (Fr) and Randle (Fr), with Hood (Jr), Amile (So), Marshall (So) and Jones (Fr) all seeing regular minutes (the latter two squeezed a bit in tight games). So that leaves Josh and Tyler as the odd men out, which seems reasonable from a talent standpoint. Keep in mind also that Parker and Randle are both likely one and dones, and all but two of the 9-man rotation above would be underclassmen.

CDu
05-24-2012, 02:58 PM
A few guys will definitely be odd men out. I could foresee a starting lineup of Cook (Jr), Sulaimon (So), Alex (So), Parker (Fr) and Randle (Fr), with Hood (Jr), Amile (So), Marshall (So) and Jones (Fr) all seeing regular minutes (the latter two squeezed a bit in tight games). So that leaves Josh and Tyler as the odd men out, which seems reasonable from a talent standpoint. Keep in mind also that Parker and Randle are both likely one and dones, and all but two of the 9-man rotation above would be underclassmen.

1. That's assuming that Dawkins doesn't redshirt.
2. That also assumes that Marshall (a third-year sophomore former McDonald's All-American) and Jefferson (a sophomore and former McDonald's All-American) would be happy with about 15 mpg (I'm assuming Randle and Parker would each get 25 mpg)
3a. Hood (a top-20 recruit and fourth year junior) would be okay with about 20 mpg backing up Sulaimon and Murphy, and Jones (a top-30 recruit) would be okay with 5-10 mpg.
3b. Hood and Jones would each be okay with 10-15 mpg.

So in that scenario, at least 1 top-30 recruit gets no playing time (two if Dawkins redshirts) and 3 others are probably going to be disappointed with their minutes.

luvdahops
05-24-2012, 04:02 PM
1. That's assuming that Dawkins doesn't redshirt.
2. That also assumes that Marshall (a third-year sophomore former McDonald's All-American) and Jefferson (a sophomore and former McDonald's All-American) would be happy with about 15 mpg (I'm assuming Randle and Parker would each get 25 mpg)
3a. Hood (a top-20 recruit and fourth year junior) would be okay with about 20 mpg backing up Sulaimon and Murphy, and Jones (a top-30 recruit) would be okay with 5-10 mpg.
3b. Hood and Jones would each be okay with 10-15 mpg.

So in that scenario, at least 1 top-30 recruit gets no playing time (two if Dawkins redshirts) and 3 others are probably going to be disappointed with their minutes.

Totally spaced on Andre, which would further scramble the mix for sure. At 15mpg, Marshall would be playing 2-3x as much as he likely will this year and be in line to start as a junior and senior. For a borderline McD (many analysts had him ranked outside the Top 25) at a top flight program, that is a totally reasonable progression. Amile is a little more complicated, as I think he should get 15mpg and maybe more this year, and would therefore be going sideways if not taking a step back in the above scenario. He would still be in line to start at the 4 as a junior and senior though.

At the end of the day, while any of these scenarios may have some plausibility, they all seem to suggest that Hood winding up at Duke might be a longshot, especially if Andre does redshirt.

Channing
05-24-2012, 04:12 PM
Lumping Hairston and Thornton together is a bit misleading. Remember that Hairston was a top-30 recruit. He just seems like less of a prospect because he's not had a big role so far in his career. I very much doubt he was recruited by Duke with the idea of him being a 4-year backup. With Thornton, I think that's a more realistic scenario. He's an unselfish team guy, and fit in nicely behind Irving and Cook at the PG spot.

Wow, I went back and checked RSCI, and there is Hairston at #32, right between Dion Waiters and Terrence Ross. Nothing I would like more than to see Josh come into his own this year as a highly touted prospect.

Steven43
05-24-2012, 04:30 PM
Wow, I went back and checked RSCI, and there is Hairston at #32, right between Dion Waiters and Terrence Ross. Nothing I would like more than to see Josh come into his own this year as a highly touted prospect.

I suspect the reason you wrote 'Wow' is because Josh does not seem to have nearly the athletic ability and/or skill set that you would expect a player of that high ranking to have. He looks to be more on the level athletically of Tyler Thornton (ranked outside the top 100) or maybe Jamal Boykin (ranked barely in the top 100). After seeing him play in person many times over the last two seasons I am more surprised than ever that he achieved a 30-ish ranking. I just don't see how Josh can be expected to take much of a step forward as a player during the next two years when he has yet to display any standout skills nor anything more than an average level of athleticism. A Casey Sanders-type college career perhaps?

luvdahops
05-24-2012, 05:08 PM
I suspect the reason you wrote 'Wow' is because Josh does not seem to have nearly the athletic ability and/or skill set that you would expect a player of that high ranking to have. He looks to be more on the level athletically of Tyler Thornton (ranked outside the top 100) or maybe Jamal Boykin (ranked barely in the top 100). After seeing him play in person many times over the last two seasons I am more surprised than ever that he achieved a 30-ish ranking. I just don't see how Josh can be expected to take much of a step forward as a player during the next two years when he has yet to display any standout skills nor anything more than an average level of athleticism. A Casey Sanders-type college career perhaps?

I agree that Josh would appear to be similar to Tyler in terms of raw talent and potential. It is also my view, as someone who has followed college hoops recruiting pretty closely for over 20 years, that the level of precision in rankings seems to fall off fairly dramatically after the Top 10-15 in any given class, around which there is generally pretty good consensus. To put it differently, there is usually a much starker, more discernable difference between a "Top 10" and a "Top 30-40" recruit than there is between that "Top 30-40" guy and a "Top 100" guy. In addition, the range of impact among guys rated in the say the 30-50 range is usually quite a bit wider than among the Top 15 or so, and not necessarily any tighter than the range of impact among those rated 51-100.

ChillinDuke
05-24-2012, 06:00 PM
I have not forgotten about Josh. I think he has a real opportunity this year.

With the board chirping about the possible addition of Hood (next year), Murphy being able to eat a few minutes at the 4, Ryan Kelly figuring out his strengths, the signing of Amile Jefferson, and the improved versatility of next year's team, I think Josh has been swept under the carpet to some extent. On the topic of versatility, I think Josh can add something to this team that no one else can: a mid-range player.

It's something of a lost art. Especially in college. You pretty much have your big men playing at or near the basket, and your smaller guys either driving to the rim or jacking threes. I truly think Josh has the ability to play the foul-line extended region as a screen-and-roller, pop out shooter, and even drive to the hoop when the situation dictates. You can tell he has a keen desire out there, and a motor that never seems to stop. I think he has a real opportunity to add something valuable to this team next year and not just be a mop-up guy.

Then again, the list of guys on previous Duke teams with a similar opportunity that didn't pan out isn't short, I reckon. But I, for one, still have a buy-and-hold strategy on Hairston.

- Chillin

ricks68
05-24-2012, 10:20 PM
I really think that Josh may become our Nate Dog when it counts. He sometimes scores real sneaky-like when we need it, and seems to be developing a way of accumulating points without being noticed that much. It also seems to me that he has been becoming very reliable. The glue guy.

ricks

dchen09
05-25-2012, 12:07 PM
So on the flip side of Hood's decision is what OSU will have in 2014.
They'll have the following (just a quick search of scout/espn database):
PG) Craft (So), Scott (Fr)
SG) Smith (So), Della Valle ('12)
SF) Thompson (Fr), Ross (Fr)
PF) Thomas (So)*, Williams (Fr), Loving ('13)
C) McDonald (Fr)

Compared to Duke (assuming Dawkins redshirt):
PG) Cook (Fr), Thornton (So)
SG) Sulaimon ('12), Jones ('13)
SF) Murphy ('12), Dawkins (Jr*)
PF) Hairston (So), Jefferson ('12)
C) Plumlee ('12)

It looks like OSU might be even more stacked in the wings than Duke. Lenzelle Smith already plays a high number of minutes on the wing while Sam Thompson does not play an insignificant number of minutes (10 mpg). Smith is slightly small so I'm not sure how much competition he will be for Hood. Thompson on the other hand is long and 6'6. Ross himself has a pretty high upside so its not inconceivable that he might blow up at the wing later. He also is the same size as Hood. If you factor in the 4, Amir Williams (a 6'9 skinny 4* recruit) played spot minutes but he got more as the season progressed. I don't really consider Deshaun Thomas to be a factor since he will likely jump to the NBA next year.

Duke on the other hand will have Sulaimon, Murphy, Jefferson, and Dawkins (if he stays) as the main guys on the wings. Murphy might have a similar skill set though its hard to compare since I haven't really seen either of their games enough. Sulaimon is 3-4in shorter than Hood so I'm not sure its much of a direct competition. Jefferson doesn't have the ballhandling right now to really play the 3 on offense. He also isn't super quick such that he wouldn't be particularly defending other wings. I don't really think Jones will be a be factor his freshmen year because he is fairly 1 dimensional right now as a shooter. If he adds athleticism, defense, and ballhandling, maybe that will change but it's moot point right now.

In the end, I think it really depends on who's system is a better fit for Hood. For us (or rather Coach K), its a question of would we rather have 1 year of Hood (he is projected to go high in the draft in 2014), or 1 year of Parker. I'm not sure anyone else we're recruiting (maybe Young) is really capable of stepping in and competing with a Junior Hood and Junior Murphy.

luvdahops
05-25-2012, 12:30 PM
So on the flip side of Hood's decision is what OSU will have in 2014.
They'll have the following (just a quick search of scout/espn database):
PG) Craft (So), Scott (Fr)
SG) Smith (So), Della Valle ('12)
SF) Thompson (Fr), Ross (Fr)
PF) Thomas (So)*, Williams (Fr), Loving ('13)
C) McDonald (Fr)

Compared to Duke (assuming Dawkins redshirt):
PG) Cook (Fr), Thornton (So)
SG) Sulaimon ('12), Jones ('13)
SF) Murphy ('12), Dawkins (Jr*)
PF) Hairston (So), Jefferson ('12)
C) Plumlee ('12)

It looks like OSU might be even more stacked in the wings than Duke. Lenzelle Smith already plays a high number of minutes on the wing while Sam Thompson does not play an insignificant number of minutes (10 mpg). Smith is slightly small so I'm not sure how much competition he will be for Hood. Thompson on the other hand is long and 6'6. Ross himself has a pretty high upside so its not inconceivable that he might blow up at the wing later. He also is the same size as Hood. If you factor in the 4, Amir Williams (a 6'9 skinny 4* recruit) played spot minutes but he got more as the season progressed. I don't really consider Deshaun Thomas to be a factor since he will likely jump to the NBA next year.

Duke on the other hand will have Sulaimon, Murphy, Jefferson, and Dawkins (if he stays) as the main guys on the wings. Murphy might have a similar skill set though its hard to compare since I haven't really seen either of their games enough. Sulaimon is 3-4in shorter than Hood so I'm not sure its much of a direct competition. Jefferson doesn't have the ballhandling right now to really play the 3 on offense. He also isn't super quick such that he wouldn't be particularly defending other wings. I don't really think Jones will be a be factor his freshmen year because he is fairly 1 dimensional right now as a shooter. If he adds athleticism, defense, and ballhandling, maybe that will change but it's moot point right now.

In the end, I think it really depends on who's system is a better fit for Hood. For us (or rather Coach K), its a question of would we rather have 1 year of Hood (he is projected to go high in the draft in 2014), or 1 year of Parker. I'm not sure anyone else we're recruiting (maybe Young) is really capable of stepping in and competing with a Junior Hood and Junior Murphy.

Amir Williams is a center not a 4. He and rising senior Evan Ravenel are expected to take over in the post for Sullinger this year. McDonald is more of a project. None among Della Valle, Ross or Loving were particularly highly rated recruits (much lower rated than Jefferson, Jones and Murphy), so there would seem to be a much clearer path for Hood to start at OSU (alongside Smith and Thompson, with Craft at PG and Williams at C) or at least play significant minutes, assuming Thomas leaves early.

Kedsy
05-25-2012, 12:33 PM
In the end, I think it really depends on who's system is a better fit for Hood. For us (or rather Coach K), its a question of would we rather have 1 year of Hood (he is projected to go high in the draft in 2014), or 1 year of Parker.

Here's the disconnect for me. If Hood is good enough to be a high draft pick after one more year of college, then why are we talking about competition for minutes? Anybody who's that good is going to start and play big minutes, and it's the other guys who have to scramble for playing time. Having said that, if Hood is really good enough to be a high draft pick after one more year of college, why would he transfer now and have to wait an extra year before jumping to the League? Something is not adding up here.

dchen09
05-25-2012, 01:02 PM
Amir Williams is a center not a 4. He and rising senior Evan Ravenel are expected to take over in the post for Sullinger this year. McDonald is more of a project. None among Della Valle, Ross or Loving were particularly highly rated recruits (much lower rated than Jefferson, Jones and Murphy), so there would seem to be a much clearer path for Hood to start at OSU (alongside Smith and Thompson, with Craft at PG and Williams at C) or at least play significant minutes, assuming Thomas leaves early.

I agree that Della Valle and Loving aren't really competition for Hood. However, Ross was ranked 44th RSCI while Hood was ranked 27th RSCI in the same recruiting class. In comparison, Murphy is ranked 49th in the same recruiting class while Jefferson is a year younger and Jones another year younger. Hood and Ross seem to have similar skillsets and similar body types so there maybe alot of overlap there. Murphy on the other hand seems to be slightly smaller and more of a 3/4. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

luvdahops
05-25-2012, 01:42 PM
I agree that Della Valle and Loving aren't really competition for Hood. However, Ross was ranked 44th RSCI while Hood was ranked 27th RSCI in the same recruiting class. In comparison, Murphy is ranked 49th in the same recruiting class while Jefferson is a year younger and Jones another year younger. Hood and Ross seem to have similar skillsets and similar body types so there maybe alot of overlap there. Murphy on the other hand seems to be slightly smaller and more of a 3/4. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

I think Alex is roughly the same size as Ross (6-8 and 220-225), but a little bulkier than Hood, who was listed by MSU at 6-8 204, and as a guard to boot. And I believe Alex was considered a Top 15 recruit for the Class of 2012 before enrolling early at Duke. He would also have a year as a starter at the 3 under his belt. I say all of this not ever having seen Hood play, but descriptions of his game make it sound like he could legitimately play the 2, 3 or 4. Murphy and Hood both sound more like 3/4s, Amile is a 4/3, Jones perhaps a 2/3 (similar to Smith). Point being that at the 2-4 spots, Duke will have soph Sulaimon (Top 15), frosh Jones (Top 20), soph Murphy (Top 15 in proper class) and soph Amile (Top 20) for sure, and possibly Jabari Parker as well (#1 in 2013). OSU will have senior Smith, junior Thompson, junior Hood (Top 50), soph Della Valle (Top 100) and frosh Loving (Top 50), and perhaps Paker as well. I still see a pretty clear difference in terms of competition/opportunity.

ACCBBallFan
05-25-2012, 10:41 PM
Sulaimon may be that rare player who can be effective at the 1, 2 and 3, at the collegiate level. Jon Scheyer comes to mind.

Assuming Dawkins doesn't play this season, it will be interesting to see how Duke allocates minutes at the 3. Murphy is the presumptive starter. When he's sitting, does Duke go big and play Jefferson or go small and play Sulaimon?

Likely, we'll see both options used and matchups will be a factor.

But playing Sulaimon at the 3 might be Duke's best option for getting he and Curry on the floor at the same time.

Another way would be to play Curry at PG and Sulaimon at SG if Jefferson is a good enough SF backup than the differences between Seth at PG vs. Quinn for Offense or vs. Tyler for Defense.

If neither Quinn nor Tyler become a complete player, perhaps Rasheed Sulaimon gives Duke that blend in one player rather than maximizing one at the expense of the other. Due to extra experience Seth would be the nominal PG like Scheyer was and Sheed would be the SG, but he guards the opposing PG while Seth guards the opposing SG

As you say it may depend on match ups and whether the opposing SF necessitates the bigger Amile Jefferson of the quicker Rasheed Sulaimon.

On your backup SF question, if it is just a case of who defends the opposing SF when Murphy is not in the game, that might play to Tyler's strengths one of which is strength than to a less muscular Sulaimon (perhaps more important than the height difference since a tall SF can shoot over either of them at will anyway). Duke is not going to get much offense out of Tyler anyway and he again will get 20 MPG. May be better to have him spell Murphy some of those minutes and play more offensively gifted guys at PG and SG, like Sulaimon, Curry, and Cook.

The latter scenario is assuming Amile is like Henson was a freshman SF body with an PF game in HS that does not translate well that first year to PF due to being so frail nor SF due to skill. Ryan had this problem at PF too, but also had more competition for PT his first year than Amile will have.

I do agree with your premise though that Sheed may be that rare guy who can be effective at all 3 positions.

Sixthman
05-26-2012, 08:48 AM
Another way would be to play Curry at PG and Sulaimon at SG if Jefferson is a good enough SF backup than the differences between Seth at PG vs. Quinn for Offense or vs. Tyler for Defense.

If neither Quinn nor Tyler become a complete player, perhaps Rasheed Sulaimon gives Duke that blend in one player rather than maximizing one at the expense of the other. Due to extra experience Seth would be the nominal PG like Scheyer was and Sheed would be the SG, but he guards the opposing PG while Seth guards the opposing SG

As you say it may depend on match ups and whether the opposing SF necessitates the bigger Amile Jefferson of the quicker Rasheed Sulaimon.

On your backup SF question, if it is just a case of who defends the opposing SF when Murphy is not in the game, that might play to Tyler's strengths one of which is strength than to a less muscular Sulaimon (perhaps more important than the height difference since a tall SF can shoot over either of them at will anyway). Duke is not going to get much offense out of Tyler anyway and he again will get 20 MPG. May be better to have him spell Murphy some of those minutes and play more offensively gifted guys at PG and SG, like Sulaimon, Curry, and Cook.

The latter scenario is assuming Amile is like Henson was a freshman SF body with an PF game in HS that does not translate well that first year to PF due to being so frail nor SF due to skill. Ryan had this problem at PF too, but also had more competition for PT his first year than Amile will have.

I do agree with your premise though that Sheed may be that rare guy who can be effective at all 3 positions.

The most interesting question going into the year is how time will be allocated at the point and whether it will be because someone stepped up his game or whether it will be a shared responsbility because no one has a complete game. With Mason back, I don't think there is any doubt that the top priority for next year will be getting the ball to him in positions where he can score. I think Sulaimon is going to be more effective as a defender and passer at the 2 than anyone else we can play there (he is taller, longer and has better lateral quickness), and I will be surprised if he does not start before the season is over. Cook and Thorton played a combined 33 minutes a game this year, mostly at the point. It seems reaonsable to expect those numbers to go up, not down. That doesn't leave any room for Curry or Sulaimon at the point. I'm in the camp that loves Cook's potential at the point. I would love to see him improve his health and mental toughness over the summer. Still, Thorton, in addition to being our best perimiter defender, is our tough guy. No one else on the team comes off as not taking the other teams BS the way Tyler does. That is an important role, and I expect to see him on the court. So, everyone being healthy, I would expect Cook and Thorton at the 1, Curry and Sulaimon at the 2, Murphy, Sulaimon, and maybe a little Josh the 3, Ryan, Jefferson, Murphy, and Josh at the 4, Mason at Center with some combination of Ryan, Josh, Marshall and maybe even Jefferson spelling him. We could also play some three guard sets. Seth Curry played thirty minutes a game as a junior. I find it pretty hard to believe that Austin Rivers leaves and then Curry plays significantly fewer minutes as a senior. And, of course, all of this assumes Andre does not play this year, and for that matter assumes we have no significant injuries.

Saratoga2
05-26-2012, 09:33 AM
The most interesting question going into the year is how time will be allocated at the point and whether it will be because someone stepped up his game or whether it will be a shared responsbility because no one has a complete game. With Mason back, I don't think there is any doubt that the top priority for next year will be getting the ball to him in positions where he can score. I think Sulaimon is going to be more effective as a defender and passer at the 2 than anyone else we can play there (he is taller, longer and has better lateral quickness), and I will be surprised if he does not start before the season is over. Cook and Thorton played a combined 33 minutes a game this year, mostly at the point. It seems reaonsable to expect those numbers to go up, not down. That doesn't leave any room for Curry or Sulaimon at the point. I'm in the camp that loves Cook's potential at the point. I would love to see him improve his health and mental toughness over the summer. Still, Thorton, in addition to being our best perimiter defender, is our tough guy. No one else on the team comes off as not taking the other teams BS the way Tyler does. That is an important role, and I expect to see him on the court. So, everyone being healthy, I would expect Cook and Thorton at the 1, Curry and Sulaimon at the 2, Murphy, Sulaimon, and maybe a little Josh the 3, Ryan, Jefferson, Murphy, and Josh at the 4, Mason at Center with some combination of Ryan, Josh, Marshall and maybe even Jefferson spelling him. We could also play some three guard sets. Seth Curry played thirty minutes a game as a junior. I find it pretty hard to believe that Austin Rivers leaves and then Curry plays significantly fewer minutes as a senior. And, of course, all of this assumes Andre does not play this year, and for that matter assumes we have no significant injuries.

My view is similar, as tyler and Quinn should handle the point, with another possible shot for Seth at that spot. Seth and Rasheed will likely share time at the 2. That leaves us with 2 smallish players on the floor for significant minutes every game, and it will remain that way until the following season when our recruits will continue to include larger guards.

At the 5 we can play either Mason or Marshall, with Josh available for fill in time. Ryan will doubtless start at the 4 and Josh could also fill in there at times. The most intriguing question will be how we use Alex and Amile. I haven't seen either play to date so it is still a bit of a mystery but from what the board is saying Amile is more suited to playing the 4. His size is a bit sketchy at this point. I would guess he is 6'8" in stocking feet and 225 pounds and may still be growing. Alex is about the same height and maybe in the same weight category but sounds like he is a better fit at the three.

Then there is Andre who would get PT at the 3 on this team. His decision is still not probably coming until late June, so we can wait for that.

In general, it is unlikely that freshmen players will have much polish at the beginning of the season and will have to fit into their roles as they gain experience. I would think that also applies to Marshall and Alex, although they have a big head start. Because of this, I would expect the season opening will include either Tyler or Quinn at point, Seth at shooting guard, Andre (Alex) at small forward, Ryan at power forward and Mason at center.

ACCBBallFan
05-29-2012, 01:26 AM
My view is similar, as tyler and Quinn should handle the point, with another possible shot for Seth at that spot. Seth and Rasheed will likely share time at the 2. That leaves us with 2 smallish players on the floor for significant minutes every game, and it will remain that way until the following season when our recruits will continue to include larger guards.

At the 5 we can play either Mason or Marshall, with Josh available for fill in time. Ryan will doubtless start at the 4 and Josh could also fill in there at times. The most intriguing question will be how we use Alex and Amile. I haven't seen either play to date so it is still a bit of a mystery but from what the board is saying Amile is more suited to playing the 4. His size is a bit sketchy at this point. I would guess he is 6'8" in stocking feet and 225 pounds and may still be growing. Alex is about the same height and maybe in the same weight category but sounds like he is a better fit at the three.

Then there is Andre who would get PT at the 3 on this team. His decision is still not probably coming until late June, so we can wait for that.

In general, it is unlikely that freshmen players will have much polish at the beginning of the season and will have to fit into their roles as they gain experience. I would think that also applies to Marshall and Alex, although they have a big head start. Because of this, I would expect the season opening will include either Tyler or Quinn at point, Seth at shooting guard, Andre (Alex) at small forward, Ryan at power forward and Mason at center.You are probably being about 20 to 30 pounds too generous on Amile's weight. The first digit may currently be a "1" but at least the second digit is a "9".

I would be surprised if Jefferson exceeds 210 by end of year, but not at all surprised that over his 4 years Amile turns into a very good stretch 4.

CDu
05-29-2012, 08:45 AM
You are probably being about 20 to 30 pounds too generous on Amile's weight. The first digit may currently be a "1" but at least the second digit is a "9".

I would be surprised if Jefferson exceeds 210 by end of year, but not at all surprised that over his 4 years Amile turns into a very good stretch 4.

Yeah, there's no way Jefferson is anywhere close to 225lb right now. I think 195 might even be generous. The kid can play, but he's really skinny.

tommy
05-29-2012, 10:45 AM
Yeah, there's no way Jefferson is anywhere close to 225lb right now. I think 195 might even be generous. The kid can play, but he's really skinny.

Which is why the whole notion of Jefferson being a power forward has always been a disconnect for me. A 190-195 pound power forward? In the ACC? Not sure why some folks have tried to force that peg into that hole when his body (and perhaps his game - have to wait and see) seem to be that of a prototypical SF.

jimsumner
05-29-2012, 10:54 AM
Which is why the whole notion of Jefferson being a power forward has always been a disconnect for me. A 190-195 pound power forward? In the ACC? Not sure why some folks have tried to force that peg into that hole when his body (and perhaps his game - have to wait and see) seem to be that of a prototypical SF.

Jefferson is listed as anywhere from 6-7, 190 to 6-9, 205.

Lance Thomas came to Duke at about 215, Tony Lang a little less than that.

So, Jefferson does have some work to do. But it's not like it's an unimaginable finish line.

roywhite
05-29-2012, 10:56 AM
Which is why the whole notion of Jefferson being a power forward has always been a disconnect for me. A 190-195 pound power forward? In the ACC? Not sure why some folks have tried to force that peg into that hole when his body (and perhaps his game - have to wait and see) seem to be that of a prototypical SF.

Seems likely that Jefferson will be undersized for ACC inside play as a freshman, and the expectation is that he can gain some bulk and gain strength.

Nevertheless, lean and long can work at Duke's PF position.
Tony Lang and Luol Deng are two examples.

Class of '94
05-29-2012, 11:03 AM
Seems likely that Jefferson will be undersized for ACC inside play as a freshman, and the expectation is that he can gain some bulk and gain strength.

Nevertheless, lean and long can work at Duke's PF position.
Tony Lang and Luol Deng are two examples.

Didn't Luol play predominately at the 3 and Shav at the 4; and Luol would move over to the 4 when Shav was out or in foul trouble?

If Loul played at the 4, I can't remember who played at the 3.

CDu
05-29-2012, 11:10 AM
Didn't Luol play predominately at the 3 and Shav at the 4; and Luol would move over to the 4 when Shav was out or in foul trouble?

If Loul played at the 4, I can't remember who played at the 3.

After the pre-conference season, Deng played PF almost exclusively. Randolph backed up both Deng and Williams. Horvath filled in the rest of the backup minutes. We probably spent less than 2-3 mpg (if even that much) with Deng, Williams, and Randolph on the floor together.

The SF rotation that year was Redick/Ewing/Melchionni. We played a 3-guard lineup almost exclusively, with Duhon, Ewing, Redick, and Dockery logging 112 mpg and Melchionni, Borman, and Davidson getting another 5-6 mpg.

As for Jefferson, the guy is currently an undersized (weight-wise) PF. My guess is that they hope he can fill in at SF this year (if Dawkins redshirts), but the question will be whether he has the quickness to handle the SF spot at the college level.

UrinalCake
05-29-2012, 12:49 PM
Jefferson is listed as anywhere from 6-7, 190 to 6-9, 205.

Just for comparison, Mike Chappell was listed at 6'8, 190. When he played I was legitimately worried that he would get broken in half. I also wondered if he would have to wear a belt to prevent his shorts from falling down.

I've only caught glimpses of Jefferson at the McD game but he looked like he has a similar build.

jimsumner
05-29-2012, 12:54 PM
FWIW, Duke recruited Jefferson with the expectation that he would be part of the big-man rotation.

From day one.

Mike Chappell didn't like to work inside and wasn't very good at it.

Amile Jefferson does like to work inside and is very good at it.

I'll let others ruminate on the cause-and-effect relationship.

luvdahops
05-29-2012, 01:16 PM
After the pre-conference season, Deng played PF almost exclusively. Randolph backed up both Deng and Williams. Horvath filled in the rest of the backup minutes. We probably spent less than 2-3 mpg (if even that much) with Deng, Williams, and Randolph on the floor together.

The SF rotation that year was Redick/Ewing/Melchionni. We played a 3-guard lineup almost exclusively, with Duhon, Ewing, Redick, and Dockery logging 112 mpg and Melchionni, Borman, and Davidson getting another 5-6 mpg.

As for Jefferson, the guy is currently an undersized (weight-wise) PF. My guess is that they hope he can fill in at SF this year (if Dawkins redshirts), but the question will be whether he has the quickness to handle the SF spot at the college level.

A sampling of returning or likely PF starters around the ACC next year includes

CJ Leslie 6-8 209
Okaro White 6-8 204
James Padgett 6-8 215
Desmond Hubert 6-10 205 or Brice Johnson 6-9 210
Milton Jennings 6-8 225
Kammeon Holsey 6-8 225

Also, Dorrian Finney-Smith (6-8 192) also played pretty capably as a freshman PF for Virginia Tech before deciding to transfer. I'm not counting Henson, who was a bit of physical freak. But I would also mention Antawn Jamison, to whom Amile has been compared, who was around 6-8 200 when he came to Carolina.

The above list makes it pretty clear that you don't need to be a bulky brute to play PF in the ACC. Amile will undoubtedly be at a strength disadvantage versus, say, Kenny Kadji (6-11 251), but so will many other players. And Kadji is the exception, not the rule. If Amile can get to 210 or so by the start of the season (I think most recent measurements for him were 6-8 197), he'll be reasonably close to - if not inside - what appears to be the normal range of conference PFs.

K has said that he expects Amile to contribute right away. Seems like the betting $$ is that will be primarily as the backup PF (and perhaps primary frontcourt sub), with potentially some time at the 3.

CDu
05-29-2012, 01:40 PM
A sampling of returning or likely PF starters around the ACC next year includes

CJ Leslie 6-8 209
Okaro White 6-8 204
James Padgett 6-8 215
Desmond Hubert 6-10 205 or Brice Johnson 6-9 210
Milton Jennings 6-8 225
Kammeon Holsey 6-8 225

Also, Dorrian Finney-Smith (6-8 192) also played pretty capably as a freshman PF for Virginia Tech before deciding to transfer. I'm not counting Henson, who was a bit of physical freak. But I would also mention Antawn Jamison, to whom Amile has been compared, who was around 6-8 200 when he came to Carolina.

The above list makes it pretty clear that you don't need to be a bulky brute to play PF in the ACC. Amile will undoubtedly be at a strength disadvantage versus, say, Kenny Kadji (6-11 251), but so will many other players. And Kadji is the exception, not the rule. If Amile can get to 210 or so by the start of the season (I think most recent measurements for him were 6-8 197), he'll be reasonably close to - if not inside - what appears to be the normal range of conference PFs.

K has said that he expects Amile to contribute right away. Seems like the betting $$ is that will be primarily as the backup PF (and perhaps primary frontcourt sub), with potentially some time at the 3.

With the exception of UNC (their starting PF is McAdoo; Hubert and Johnson will compete with James for the C spot alongside McAdoo), I agree. Most PF in the ACC are smaller and quicker rather than big and physical. That said, Jefferson would still definitely be on the small side (10-20 lbs lighter than most of the returning guys, and 40-50 lbs lighter than Kadji).

MCFinARL
05-31-2012, 10:26 PM
Do I remember correctly that Rodney Hood was to visit Duke today? Any sightings?

Bojangles4Eva
05-31-2012, 11:03 PM
As for Jefferson, the guy is currently an undersized (weight-wise) PF. My guess is that they hope he can fill in at SF this year (if Dawkins redshirts), but the question will be whether he has the quickness to handle the SF spot at the college level.

Another question is how will his jump shot develop if he is indeed spending some time at the 3. Granted I have only seen a few highlights, but he seems more like a baseline slasher and/or around the basket type of player than a shooter. Typically our 3's have pretty good shooting ability, even those that play 3/4 (Singler and Deng come to mind).

superdave
06-04-2012, 05:40 PM
And Baylor is also in the mix apparently. (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/jun/04/mississippi-state-basketball-transfer-rodney-hood/) Anyone hear any news out of Hood's visit?

Greg_Newton
06-04-2012, 06:12 PM
He hasn't visited Duke yet. I'm not entirely sure what's publicly linked and what's premium info WRT this situation though, so apologies for the brevity.

dukedoc
06-07-2012, 04:05 PM
Mike DeCourcy predicting Rodney Hood will return after his mandatory year away as one of the best players in the nation... (hopefully in Durham).LINK (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrd571_impact-of-rodney-hood-and-montrezl-harrell_sport)

Rich
06-07-2012, 04:51 PM
Mike DeCourcy predicting Rodney Hood will return after his mandatory year away as one of the best players in the nation... (hopefully in Durham).LINK (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xrd571_impact-of-rodney-hood-and-montrezl-harrell_sport)

I have to say, I had a lot of trouble focusing on DeCourcy when they had the split screen up. Yowza, sports reporters ain't like Everybody Loves Raymond or Oscar Madison anymore, that's for sure.

roywhite
06-09-2012, 01:22 PM
http://bustingbrackets.com/2012/06/08Source: Duke Favorite to Land Rodney Hood (http://bustingbrackets.com/2012/06/08/source-duke-favorite-to-land-rodney-hood/)

Hadn't read much about Hood in the last couple of weeks, but this blogger seems positive about Duke's chances.


A person with direct knowledge of the Rodney Hood transfer situation has told Busting Brackets that Duke has emerged as the frontrunner to land the former Mississippi State forward.

Hood, a versatile 6-foot-8 wing who averaged 10.3 points and started 29 games last season as a freshman with the Bulldogs, will visit Duke either June 14 or 15 and make an official announcement shortly thereafter.

Lord Ash
06-09-2012, 06:28 PM
More and more people seem to be reporting that Hood is leaning towards Duke, including beat reporters in Ohio. Who knows, but fingers crossed!:)

miramar
06-10-2012, 09:34 AM
I have to say, I had a lot of trouble focusing on DeCourcy when they had the split screen up. Yowza, sports reporters ain't like Everybody Loves Raymond or Oscar Madison anymore, that's for sure.

when you concentrate way more on what DeCourcy was saying about Rodney Hood.

In my defense, DeCourcy did say the kid would be great and he would be huge get after a tough spring. Perhaps Amile was the turning point.

-bdbd
06-14-2012, 01:13 PM
With Mr. Hood visiting this week, I'm surprised we haven't seen more discussion of him as a possible KEY addition to the squad, eligible to play in 2013-14. Given his very high HS ranking, and then two years of college level development, this kid could hhave a BIG impact for us a year from now...
And, supposedly, he is leaning towards Duke!! Grew up a Duke fan, etc. Come'on down Sir Rodney! :cool:



http://bustingbrackets.com/201...nd-rodney-hood/


www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/for...omments_page=-1

BD80
06-14-2012, 01:43 PM
With Mr. Hood visiting this week, I'm surprised we haven't seen more discussion of him as a possible KEY addition to the squad, eligible to play in 2013-14. Given his very high HS ranking, and then two years of college level development, this kid could hhave a BIG impact for us a year from now...
And, supposedly, he is leaning towards Duke!! Grew up a Duke fan, etc. Come'on down Sir Rodney! :cool:



http://bustingbrackets.com/201...nd-rodney-hood/


www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/for...omments_page=-1

Didn't he recently visit OSU? I take the lack of buzz from that visit to be positive for us!

mkline09
06-14-2012, 01:46 PM
Didn't he recently visit OSU? I take the lack of buzz from that visit to be positive for us!

The OSU Basketball beat writer for the Columbus Dispatch apparently felt that Duke had the edge, but it always could be an attempt at misdirection and reverse psychology, but I hope he is right.

COYS
06-14-2012, 02:15 PM
With Mr. Hood visiting this week, I'm surprised we haven't seen more discussion of him as a possible KEY addition to the squad, eligible to play in 2013-14. Given his very high HS ranking, and then two years of college level development, this kid could hhave a BIG impact for us a year from now...
And, supposedly, he is leaning towards Duke!! Grew up a Duke fan, etc. Come'on down Sir Rodney! :cool:



http://bustingbrackets.com/201...nd-rodney-hood/


www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/for...omments_page=-1

I think it would be a BIG signing . . . perhaps just as big as signing Parker or Randle from the HS Class of 2013. It will be interesting to see how this effort from the staff to recruit a very large number of versatile wing players ends up working out. Obviously, Parker and Hood have some similarities. We've already got Alex of whom K has spoken very highly. We've also got Amile, who looks to be more of a 4, but may still see some time overlapping with the 3 spot. Then, we've also got a surprisingly large number of offers on the table for other wings in the class of 2013.

Needless to say, Hood coming to Duke would be quite the development.

luvdahops
06-14-2012, 02:49 PM
I think it would be a BIG signing . . . perhaps just as big as signing Parker or Randle from the HS Class of 2013. It will be interesting to see how this effort from the staff to recruit a very large number of versatile wing players ends up working out. Obviously, Parker and Hood have some similarities. We've already got Alex of whom K has spoken very highly. We've also got Amile, who looks to be more of a 4, but may still see some time overlapping with the 3 spot. Then, we've also got a surprisingly large number of offers on the table for other wings in the class of 2013.

Needless to say, Hood coming to Duke would be quite the development.

1 post plus a good PG plus 3 versatile "wings" (or 6-4 to 6-8 guys) has been a pretty good formula for Duke over the years. Also worked well for Kentucky this year

Olympic Fan
06-14-2012, 06:02 PM
More and more people seem to be reporting that Hood is leaning towards Duke, including beat reporters in Ohio. Who knows, but fingers crossed!:)

And everybody and his brother was reporting that Amile Jefferson was going to sign with NC State.

I hope Duke lands Mr. Hood, but I'm not going to build my hopes based on a wave of Internet rumor.

-bdbd
06-15-2012, 04:18 PM
Any Hood sightings in the 'hood?

Very eager to hear any news on this visit and decision...



:confused:

NYC Duke Fan
06-16-2012, 02:18 AM
With Mr. Hood visiting this week, I'm surprised we haven't seen more discussion of him as a possible KEY addition to the squad, eligible to play in 2013-14. Given his very high HS ranking, and then two years of college level development, this kid could hhave a BIG impact for us a year from now...
And, supposedly, he is leaning towards Duke!! Grew up a Duke fan, etc. Come'on down Sir Rodney! :cool:



http://bustingbrackets.com/201...nd-rodney-hood/


www.wralsportsfan.com/duke/for...omments_page=-1

If he grew up a Duke Fan how come he chose Miss.State ?

BlueDevilBrowns
06-16-2012, 07:35 AM
If he grew up a Duke Fan how come he chose Miss.State ?

Because Duke didn't recruit him at the time. However, to your point, "growing up a Duke fan" doesn't automatically mean that Hood will choose Duke now, either.

jimsumner
06-16-2012, 09:43 AM
If he grew up a Duke Fan how come he chose Miss.State ?

Because he overlapped with Michael Gbinije and Alex Murphy. Remember, MG committed to Duke in March of his junior year, thus closing the door on some other small-forward targets.

It's an art, not a science.

dukedrummer
06-16-2012, 02:39 PM
Hood was being escorted around Cameron and campus today with Wojo and Collins. They were showing him around while the Duke Basketball Campers were getting ready for the first day of camp. It was interesting to see him standing beside some of 10 year olds. :)

DukeDrummer

fgb
06-16-2012, 05:14 PM
how many cinder blocks amount to one 10 year old?

devildeac
06-16-2012, 10:21 PM
how many cinder blocks amount to one 10 year old?

I believe if we are dealing with children in this discussion we should be referring to them as kinderblocks;).

(Think German here folks:D .)

oldnavy
06-17-2012, 07:29 AM
cincer blocks are much better utilized to fence in 10 year old rather to measure them by!

Lord Ash
06-17-2012, 09:12 AM
/\
/\
/\

Note; posted on Father's Day ;)



Oh, and I didn't just mean people on the internet; a number of reporters, including an OSU beat guy, seem to think Duke is in excellent shape on this one. Of course, things can always change!

BD80
06-17-2012, 11:11 AM
cinder blocks are much better utilized to fence in 10 year old rather to measure them by!

Better used to chain them to ...

Of course they get older, and now they tell me that's how they'll get me to stay at the crappy old folks' home they'll pick out for me. Sigh, everything has a cycle.

Happy Father's Day y'all. Heading out to school my sons in bocce.

Pghdukie
06-17-2012, 08:51 PM
I believe if we are dealing with children in this discussion we should be referring to them as kinderblocks;).

(Think German here folks:D .)

Maybe Lego Blocks are more apt.

CDu
06-17-2012, 09:32 PM
Maybe Lego Blocks are more apt.

Can you guys lay off the cutesy cinder block jokes? It is pretty obnoxious to those checking in for any real news on Hood's visit.

Speaking of which, the Devil's Den free board, Hood's visit went very well but no commitment. He will decide between Duke and OSU supposedly in the next week or so.

wilko
06-18-2012, 12:22 AM
Can you guys lay off the cutesy cinder block jokes? It is pretty obnoxious to those checking in for any real news on Hood's visit.

Speaking of which, the Devil's Den free board, Hood's visit went very well but no commitment. He will decide between Duke and OSU supposedly in the next week or so.


I agree.
.... buncha "blockheads" around here... :-p

miramar
06-18-2012, 10:10 AM
I hope he's watching the finals. After seeing a 6-8 Dukie who has turned into the Heat's glue guy, Rodney should be saying "I want to be just like him!"

CDu
06-18-2012, 10:21 AM
I hope he's watching the finals. After seeing a 6-8 Dukie who has turned into the Heat's glue guy, Rodney should be saying "I want to be just like him!"

I wouldn't see Hood and Battier as comparable types of players at all. I don't think he's looking to be anyone's glue guy. Not that he's selfish, just that he projects as more of a star type than a glue guy.

miramar
06-18-2012, 10:38 AM
I wouldn't see Hood and Battier as comparable types of players at all. I don't think he's looking to be anyone's glue guy. Not that he's selfish, just that he projects as more of a star type than a glue guy.

Sign him up!

SeattleIrish
06-18-2012, 10:44 AM
I wouldn't see Hood and Battier as comparable types of players at all. I don't think he's looking to be anyone's glue guy. Not that he's selfish, just that he projects as more of a star type than a glue guy.

Collegiate star, perhaps, as was Shane.

I'm lovin' me some Hood, but the guy isn't a Kevin Durant/Labron/Carmello type player, IMO. I would think he'd be doing back flips over the prospect of having Shane's career/paycheck.

s.i.

Mike Corey
06-18-2012, 02:04 PM
Zagsblog cites an anonymous source that says Duke is the leader (http://www.zagsblog.com/2012/06/18/rodney-hood-finished-with-duke-visit/#more-74973).

watzone
06-18-2012, 02:51 PM
During this past weekends NBAPA Top 100 Camp. no less than five national media types asked me what I thought of the Rodney Hood situation and two ran with it in print. All I said was I feel good about the situation and if I had to guess he would end up at Duke. It's not over yet and their was no verbal given but I expect a decisoon will be made no later than early next week and likely sooner. A few things one might notice is he saved Duke for his last visit and he grew up liking the program more than others in his formative years. His family is discussing the matter and had a long haul back to Mississippi, so I dount we'll hear anything today. I do feel good about the Blue Devils chances here.

watzone
06-18-2012, 02:54 PM
Sign him up!

Hood is a tall wing that loves to float outside a lot. IMO. he's more of a true big SG than a SF but he projects to be a bit if a hybrind wing no matter where he goes. It's a good thing Duke plays match ups and not traditional positions. Hood is a tad quiet, so that knocks out any comparisons to Battier. Think of a better Mike Chappell which is more accurate.

BlueDevil16
06-18-2012, 02:57 PM
Once he begins to play is he most likely a one and done?

BD80
06-18-2012, 02:59 PM
Hood is a tall wing that loves to float outside a lot. IMO. he's more of a true big SG than a SF but he projects to be a bit if a hybrind wing no matter where he goes. It's a good thing Duke plays match ups and not traditional positions. Hood is a tad quiet, so that knocks out any comparisons to Battier. Think of a better Mike Chappell which is more accurate.

Mike Chappell with confidence?

watzone
06-18-2012, 03:44 PM
Once he begins to play is he most likely a one and done?

There is a rumor going around that this is the plan but I have not heard it come from anybody reliable. With the Amile Jefferson recruitment, many should have learned that the Internet can put quite a spin on a situation and rumors can grow legs. What happens is so many are concerned with being seen as "getting it right," but the reality is they are swayed by what others are saying. In short, there is not a lot of accuracy out there these days, especially in social media. I am seeing more and more bogus stuff created and ran with than ever before and there is no end in site.

It's way too early to tell if Hood will play one year and be done. He does have to sit out a season, so he will come in mature, but I will not heistate in saying he may need two years. The truth is that it depends on where he goes to school but nobody in his camp has pointed to one year and done in public. So, that is coming second hand sources.

There are too many perceptions out there for my taste and some turn their perceptions into posts, which in turn is simply an opinion. Their words get twisted, tweeted and whatever else and a rumor is born.

And make no mistake in that I am not pretending to know anything on the Hood recruitment just yet, other than the visit went well and he will be deciding soon.

CharlestonDevil
06-18-2012, 04:38 PM
It's way too early to tell if Hood will play one year and be done. He does have to sit out a season, so he will come in mature, but I will not heistate in saying he may need two years. The truth is that it depends on where he goes to school but nobody in his camp has pointed to one year and done in public. So, that is coming second hand sources.

There are too many perceptions out there for my taste and some turn their perceptions into posts, which in turn is simply an opinion. Their words get twisted, tweeted and whatever else and a rumor is born.

I know very little about Hood other than he was fairly highly regarded coming out of HS and at least from his stats, had a productive freshman year in at Miss. St. Based on that I guess there are two questions I have prior to his college decision:

1) Is he actually good enough to be one and done?
2) Is his desire to be one and done?

CDu
06-18-2012, 04:40 PM
I know very little about Hood other than he was fairly highly regarded coming out of HS and at least from his stats, had a productive freshman year in at Miss. St. Based on that I guess there are two questions I have prior to his college decision:

1) Is he actually good enough to be one and done?
2) Is his desire to be one and done?

Well, to be fair, he'd be the equivalent of a junior in college. So "one and done" is not really the right terminology. Will he be good enough to go pro as a redshirt sophomore? Very possibly. He's arguably further along than Henderson was as a freshman, and Henderson went pro early.

fgb
06-18-2012, 04:47 PM
2) Is his desire to be one and done?

if this were his priority, transferring and sitting out for a year would seem to be an odd choice.

COYS
06-18-2012, 04:49 PM
I know very little about Hood other than he was fairly highly regarded coming out of HS and at least from his stats, had a productive freshman year in at Miss. St. Based on that I guess there are two questions I have prior to his college decision:

1) Is he actually good enough to be one and done?
2) Is his desire to be one and done?

I don't think anyone can know the answer to number 2, but as far as number 1 is concerned, he wouldn't be 1 and done if he left college after his redshirt sophomore season. He'd be something like a super-2 and done with 2 years of college game experience and 3 years of college practice. He's already gotten the notice of scouts and he has NBA athleticism. From that perspective, I don't think it's a long shot at all that he would be ready to go after his RS soph season, although we can never know until he suits up and plays.

sagegrouse
06-18-2012, 06:00 PM
I know very little about Hood other than he was fairly highly regarded coming out of HS and at least from his stats, had a productive freshman year in at Miss. St. Based on that I guess there are two questions I have prior to his college decision:

1) Is he actually good enough to be one and done?
2) Is his desire to be one and done?


Well, to be fair, he'd be the equivalent of a junior in college. So "one and done" is not really the right terminology. Will he be good enough to go pro as a redshirt sophomore? Very possibly. He's arguably further along than Henderson was as a freshman, and Henderson went pro early.


if this were his priority, transferring and sitting out for a year would seem to be an odd choice.


I don't think anyone can know the answer to number 2, but as far as number 1 is concerned, he wouldn't be 1 and done if he left college after his redshirt sophomore season. He'd be something like a super-2 and done with 2 years of college game experience and 3 years of college practice. He's already gotten the notice of scouts and he has NBA athleticism. From that perspective, I don't think it's a long shot at all that he would be ready to go after his RS soph season, although we can never know until he suits up and plays.

I don't think we disagree, but isn't the logic here somewhat different? If Rodney Hood or any other college player knew for certain he was a first-round pick, would he stay in college or go to the NBA? Not all go (thank you, Mason) but most do.

Clearly there was no noise about Hood prior to this year's draft. One could reasonably assume that, to be a first-round pick, he would need to improve in strength and skills. So I think the shoe is on the other foot: will he be good enough in two years to be an NBA first-round pick? If so, I expect he's gone. If not, I expect he stays unless there are other factors (academics, social like, family) pushing him to enter the pro ranks without a guaranteed contract.

sagegrouse

Greg_Newton
06-18-2012, 07:06 PM
I think the speculation is mainly due to the fact that he's a 6'7-6'8 true guard with reliable, quick/high-release shot with range. He actually really reminds me of Mike Chappelle from what I've seen, style-wise. Maybe a little Rip Hamilton if you want to be more optimistic. :p

I think his issues will be improving on his strength, handle, assertiveness, and taking it at the rim; he's not a physical slasher yet by any means, and he's neither a bull nor a freak athlete (although he does move like a guard, rather than a forward). To me, his skillset looks a little more geared for a late-1st round pick than lottery; perhaps a Daequan Cook type with a higher ceiling.

I think he'd be about perfect for what Duke needs to complement Murphy on the wing, though: quickness, size, shooting, doesn't dominate/stop the ball, and is a very good passer. Hopefully we get some good news in the next few days.

CharlestonDevil
06-19-2012, 11:20 AM
I really like the comparisons to Mike Chappell. Although their style of play somewhat differs, a rotation of Murphy, Jefferson, possibly Dawkins, and Hood would provide a lot of flexibility at the 3 position and something that we have obviously been lacking.

I have a very good feeling about this upcoming season based solely on the fact that I think we will have better balance that will improve chemistry (read defense). Combined with the fact that much of our current talent is underclassmen it could only take a few pieces to be a legitimate title contender. Throw in Hood, add a Randle or Parker, and with what will by then be an experienced core... you might have something special.

At any rate, I'm always blessed to be a Duke fan. Regardless of where these transfers or freshmen end up it is great to see our program always recruiting and being desired by top level talent. Let's hope Rodney follows his childhood dreams and comes to Duke, sounds like a great fit and great timing both ways.

budwom
06-19-2012, 12:00 PM
I really like the comparisons to Mike Chappell. Although their style of play somewhat differs, a rotation of Murphy, Jefferson, possibly Dawkins, and Hood would provide a lot of flexibility at the 3 position and something that we have obviously been lacking.

I have a very good feeling about this upcoming season based solely on the fact that I think we will have better balance that will improve chemistry (read defense). Combined with the fact that much of our current talent is underclassmen it could only take a few pieces to be a legitimate title contender. Throw in Hood, add a Randle or Parker, and with what will by then be an experienced core... you might have something special.

At any rate, I'm always blessed to be a Duke fan. Regardless of where these transfers or freshmen end up it is great to see our program always recruiting and being desired by top level talent. Let's hope Rodney follows his childhood dreams and comes to Duke, sounds like a great fit and great timing both ways.

I wouldn't go too far with the Chappell comparison (and I know you mention some of that): Hood is a far better player. Chappell was a streaky shooter, weak defender, not a rebounder. Hood has a lot more tools...

Monmouth77
06-19-2012, 03:03 PM
I wouldn't go too far with the Chappell comparison (and I know you mention some of that): Hood is a far better player. Chappell was a streaky shooter, weak defender, not a rebounder. Hood has a lot more tools...

"Chappell with a lot more tools" sounds like Chris Carrawell to me. That would be awesome.

wilko
06-19-2012, 04:36 PM
"Chappell with a lot more tools" sounds like Chris Carrawell to me. That would be awesome.
WOW - I hope your assessment is on track. I do like the thought of C-well pt 2

watzone
06-19-2012, 06:09 PM
I wouldn't go too far with the Chappell comparison (and I know you mention some of that): Hood is a far better player. Chappell was a streaky shooter, weak defender, not a rebounder. Hood has a lot more tools...

Body wise and where they play on the court is very similar or what I meant to convey. I saw Hood play several times on the AAU circuit but not once at Mississippi State. He's a good player but not a savior type by any means. Hood is a bit streaky too, or he was. He would have 20 one game and 4 the next. Hood is better but it is tough to draw an accurate comparison to him. He is more of an outside guy than in and that is accurate.

budwom
06-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Body wise and where they play on the court is very similar or what I meant to convey. I saw Hood play several times on the AAU circuit but not once at Mississippi State. He's a good player but not a savior type by any means. Hood is a bit streaky too, or he was. He would have 20 one game and 4 the next. Hood is better but it is tough to draw an accurate comparison to him. He is more of an outside guy than in and that is accurate.

Sure, I see the similarity body wise, but not game-wise....Chappell couldn't do a whole lot more than shoot, and he was highly erratic at that. Hood is a proven rebounder and better defender. No savior, but a critical part of
our elongation and athleticism push...having Sulaimon, Jefferson and Hood on the floor at the same time would give us a whole lot of length and very good athleticism.

Duvall
06-19-2012, 06:20 PM
Sure, I see the similarity body wise, but not game-wise....Chappell couldn't do a whole lot more than shoot, and he was highly erratic at that. Hood is a proven rebounder and better defender. No savior, but a critical part of
our elongation and athleticism push...having Sulaimon, Jefferson and Hood on the floor at the same time would give us a whole lot of length and very good athleticism.

A Sulaimon/Hood/Murphy/Jefferson/Plumlee lineup with an average height of 6'8"? Could be interesting.

CameronBornAndBred
06-19-2012, 07:05 PM
A Sulaimon/Hood/Murphy/Jefferson/Plumlee lineup with an average height of 6'8"? Could be interesting.
Cook, Thornton and Hairston might agree. Obviously by the time Hood could play at least the other guys would have seen the floor during a game, but as of right now none of them have.

Duvall
06-19-2012, 07:08 PM
Cook, Thornton and Hairston might agree. Obviously by the time Hood could play at least the other guys would have seen the floor during a game, but as of right now none of them have.

Lineup, not starting lineup. It would be one look that Duke could use when appropriate.

CameronBornAndBred
06-19-2012, 07:24 PM
Lineup, not starting lineup. It would be one look that Duke could use when appropriate.
Gotcha...that makes sense. And I agree, it's been a while since we've had that height avg on the floor. (Assuming it's happened, I'm not digging in my memory banks to find out.)

jimsumner
06-19-2012, 08:18 PM
Gotcha...that makes sense. And I agree, it's been a while since we've had that height avg on the floor. (Assuming it's happened, I'm not digging in my memory banks to find out.)

Until Boozer's broken foot late in the 2001 season, Duke started 6-9 Boozer, 6-8 Battier, 6-9 Dunleavy and 6-6 James, along with Jason Williams.

That's about as big a starting lineup as I can come up with.

Greg_Newton
06-19-2012, 09:48 PM
Sure, I see the similarity body wise, but not game-wise....Chappell couldn't do a whole lot more than shoot, and he was highly erratic at that. Hood is a proven rebounder and better defender. No savior, but a critical part of
our elongation and athleticism push...having Sulaimon, Jefferson and Hood on the floor at the same time would give us a whole lot of length and very good athleticism.

First of all, I swear I posted my Chappell comparison without seeing Watzone's earlier! But obviously, no comparison is perfect or meant to imply that the players are exactly the same. IMO, the similarities lie in their frames, styles of play, and how they move (kind of like how we compare Amile to Jamison style-wise, even though he's obviously nowhere near as good). Rodney is almost identical, physically, to Chappell, and as Mark alluded to, sort of "floats" around the court in the same way Mike did. He doesn't seek out contact or explode to the rim like your prototypical 6'8 slasher, but he's smooth and quick enough to have a guard-oriented game. Quite skilled, if lacking a little assertiveness at times.

So, I don't think the comparison is meant to imply that he'll only be as good as Chappell was, more that he'll hopefully come closer to the player we thought Chappell could be, given his promising skill set. Strikes me as a top-flight complementary player who doesn't need high usage or time with the ball to be a major asset.


Until Boozer's broken foot late in the 2001 season, Duke started 6-9 Boozer, 6-8 Battier, 6-9 Dunleavy and 6-6 James, along with Jason Williams.

That's about as big a starting lineup as I can come up with.

2010 has a slight edge by my count, at 6'7.4" to 6'7". But I think Duvall's would take the cake...

roywhite
06-19-2012, 10:22 PM
When Bobby Hurley went down for a few games with a foot injury (what else) during the great 1991-92 season, Grant Hill moved to the point guard slot.

That made the starting lineup
Grant Hill 6'8"
Thomas Hill 6'5"
Brian Davis 6'7"
Tony Lang 6'8"
Christian Laettner 6'11"

Heights are from the goduke.com stats archive, as is this boxscore from the Duke 77 -- LSU 67 (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/games/boxscore.php?gameid=19920208) game.

DukieTiger
06-20-2012, 12:45 AM
First of all, I swear I posted my Chappell comparison without seeing Watzone's earlier! But obviously, no comparison is perfect or meant to imply that the players are exactly the same. IMO, the similarities lie in their frames, styles of play, and how they move (kind of like how we compare Amile to Jamison style-wise, even though he's obviously nowhere near as good). Rodney is almost identical, physically, to Chappell, and as Mark alluded to, sort of "floats" around the court in the same way Mike did. He doesn't seek out contact or explode to the rim like your prototypical 6'8 slasher, but he's smooth and quick enough to have a guard-oriented game. Quite skilled, if lacking a little assertiveness at times.

So, I don't think the comparison is meant to imply that he'll only be as good as Chappell was, more that he'll hopefully come closer to the player we thought Chappell could be, given his promising skill set. Strikes me as a top-flight complementary player who doesn't need high usage or time with the ball to be a major asset.



2010 has a slight edge by my count, at 6'7.4" to 6'7". But I think Duvall's would take the cake...


I know we're speaking of starting lineups here, but that 2010 team was absolutely monstrous.

6'5, 6'3, 6'9, 6'9, 7'1 with 6'4, 6'10, 6'11, 6'11 off the bench. That's an average of over 6'8 for all of the contributors on the team. That has to be one of the highest average heights for a whole team.

However, the 2001 team, the early 90s teams, and the potential lineups that Duke is looking to have in the coming few years all have/had more functional/versatile height (and length!)

That's what excites me about pairing Hood with Sulaimon, Jones, Murphy, Jefferson, Plumlee, and possibly one or more of Ojeley/Wainwright/Hubbs/Randle/Parker/Lee/Nichols. Tons of versatility and length there.

BD80
06-20-2012, 01:31 AM
... That's what excites me about pairing Hood with Sulaimon, Jones, Murphy, Jefferson, Plumlee, and possibly one or more of Ojeley/Wainwright/Hubbs/Randle/Parker/Lee/Nichols. Tons of versatility and length there.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me ...

A tall tale?

Heightened expectations ...

Aiming high ...

Dr. F: "Elevate me!"
Inga: "Here? Now?"

Rats, I think the train of thought went over my head.

Indoor66
06-20-2012, 06:41 AM
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me ...

A tall tale?

Heightened expectations ...

Aiming high ...

Dr. F: "Elevate me!"
Inga: "Here? Now?"

Rats, I think the train of thought went over my head.

Actually, it is blockhead thinking.

budwom
06-20-2012, 08:54 AM
First of all, I swear I posted my Chappell comparison without seeing Watzone's earlier! But obviously, no comparison is perfect or meant to imply that the players are exactly the same. IMO, the similarities lie in their frames, styles of play, and how they move (kind of like how we compare Amile to Jamison style-wise, even though he's obviously nowhere near as good). Rodney is almost identical, physically, to Chappell, and as Mark alluded to, sort of "floats" around the court in the same way Mike did. He doesn't seek out contact or explode to the rim like your prototypical 6'8 slasher, but he's smooth and quick enough to have a guard-oriented game. Quite skilled, if lacking a little assertiveness at times.

So, I don't think the comparison is meant to imply that he'll only be as good as Chappell was, more that he'll hopefully come closer to the player we thought Chappell could be, given his promising skill set. Strikes me as a top-flight complementary player who doesn't need high usage or time with the ball to be a major asset.



2010 has a slight edge by my count, at 6'7.4" to 6'7". But I think Duvall's would take the cake...

I understand your Chappell point. I only sought to differentiate the two because I never liked Chappell's game at all....and I think Hood is a considerably better talent.
If the stats I just checked were accurate, Chappell never averaged more than about 14 minutes/game (at Duke and Mich. State), never averaged more than two rebounds per game,
and was a mediocre free throw shooter. Outside of occasionally hitting some threes, I didn't see anything admirable about his game.

miramar
06-20-2012, 09:51 AM
A Sulaimon/Hood/Murphy/Jefferson/Plumlee lineup with an average height of 6'8"? Could be interesting.

Miami will often use a lineup of James, Haslem, Battier/Miller (all 6-8), Bosh (6-11), and Wade (6-4), so that's rounds up to 6-8.

This kind of lineup requires the team to have a number of versatile players, but it has helped get Miami one win away from a championship.

CDu
06-20-2012, 10:32 AM
Miami will often use a lineup of James, Haslem, Battier/Miller (all 6-8), Bosh (6-11), and Wade (6-4), so that's rounds up to 6-8.

This kind of lineup requires the team to have a number of versatile players, but it has helped get Miami one win away from a championship.

Yeah, it's not so much about height as it is about athleticism and versatility. Marquette has made a living in recent years by playing 4-5 guys who can switch onto anyone and defend effectively. If we have a SG, SF, and PF who can all defend adequately across numerous positions, it's much harder to create mismatches against us. On the other end, it's that much easier to create mismatches on the opponent.

jimsumner
06-20-2012, 11:18 AM
Yeah, it's not so much about height as it is about athleticism and versatility. Marquette has made a living in recent years by playing 4-5 guys who can switch onto anyone and defend effectively. If we have a SG, SF, and PF who can all defend adequately across numerous positions, it's much harder to create mismatches against us. On the other end, it's that much easier to create mismatches on the opponent.

I agree. I'm hoping for that special blend of length, athleticism and versatility that we get with the Grant Hills, Tony Langs, Chris Carrawells and Billy Kings of the world.

Anyone else remember the 1989 Illinois team? Nick Anderson, Kendall Gill, Marcus Liberty, Kenny Battle, Lowell Hamilton. Five guys between 6-4 and 6-8, all could run, jump, handle, defend. This team could fast break, trap and press with the best of them. One of the most entertaining teams ever.

They also made the Final Four, so they were more than just entertaining.

So, that's why guys like Hood are so appealing. Not just height but versatility and mobility.

gumbomoop
06-20-2012, 01:00 PM
This seems obvious - unless I'm wrong: K wants to run much more in next few seasons. Depends a lot on [1] Quinn Cook's health, speed, handle, vision, game; [2] athletic wings who can pressure, get steals, run the court, dunk and spot-up-3-bomb; [3] also wings with handle who can rebound and start the break themselves; [4] bigs who can throw outlet pass.

Please vote for one:

[a] obvious
[b] wrong
[c] wrong again

CDu
06-20-2012, 01:20 PM
This seems obvious - unless I'm wrong: K wants to run much more in next few seasons. Depends a lot on [1] Quinn Cook's health, speed, handle, vision, game; [2] athletic wings who can pressure, get steals, run the court, dunk and spot-up-3-bomb; [3] also wings with handle who can rebound and start the break themselves; [4] bigs who can throw outlet pass.

Please vote for one:

[a] obvious
[b] wrong
[c] wrong again

I am in complete agreement. It does appear that Coach K want's to get more athletic and more versatile so that he can put more pressure on the defense. Perhaps we'll get closer again to the idea that "Duke players don't have positions." If we can get to a point where 3 or even 4 of the 5 guys on the floor can defend multiple positions, we may be able to use that mantra accurately again.

BlueDevilBrowns
06-20-2012, 05:47 PM
This seems obvious - unless I'm wrong: K wants to run much more in next few seasons. Depends a lot on [1] Quinn Cook's health, speed, handle, vision, game; [2] athletic wings who can pressure, get steals, run the court, dunk and spot-up-3-bomb; [3] also wings with handle who can rebound and start the break themselves; [4] bigs who can throw outlet pass.

Please vote for one:

[a] obvious
[b] wrong
[c] wrong again

Great insights and Poll question.

My vote is for [D] agree.

duketaylor
06-21-2012, 08:50 PM
Another board said Hood had an excellent visit and may announce in the next few days. The staff is confident that he will commit. If so, we continue to add athletic players and continue to recruit many athletic players. Fingers crossed.

flyingdutchdevil
06-21-2012, 10:13 PM
Another board said Hood had an excellent visit and may announce in the next few days. The staff is confident that he will commit. If so, we continue to add athletic players and continue to recruit many athletic players. Fingers crossed.

Well, Duke has had some 'decent' success with players listed at 6'8": Hill, Battier, Brand, Deng, Singler. ;)

Hood - you could be next!

Krzyzewskiville
06-24-2012, 08:33 PM
Will choose between Duke or Ohio State this Tuesday! Hope we get him.

BlueDevilBrowns
06-24-2012, 09:23 PM
Will choose between Duke or Ohio State this Tuesday! Hope we get him.

The tweet this evening from Watzone: "Coveted transfer @Rodneyhood4 Rodney Hood will pick between #Duke and Ohio State this Tuesday. Eeeeyeppp!"

He sure seems excited for some reason? Hmmm...

dukedoc
06-24-2012, 11:40 PM
Will choose between Duke or Ohio State this Tuesday! Hope we get him.

This link from Zags suggests a Wed/Thurs decision. Either way, sounds like this week.

LINK (http://www.zagsblog.com/2012/06/24/hood-to-decide-this-week-between-duke-ohio-state/)

mcdukie
06-25-2012, 08:28 AM
Would getting Hood hurt our chances of getting Jabari Parker?

CDu
06-25-2012, 08:56 AM
Would getting Hood hurt our chances of getting Jabari Parker?

They play slightly different positions. But my guess (and this is purely a guess) is it wouldn't affect Parker's decision. He's going to start and play major minutes wherever he goes. I think getting Parker would affect Hood's decision (if Parker were to choose first), but I don't think it will matter the other way around.

That said, we're going to have a LOT of long, athletic wings in 2013, with or without Hood or Parker. But hopefully we get at least one of them.

fgb
06-25-2012, 10:09 AM
hopefully we get both of them!

Monmouth77
06-25-2012, 10:24 AM
I am in complete agreement. It does appear that Coach K want's to get more athletic and more versatile so that he can put more pressure on the defense. Perhaps we'll get closer again to the idea that "Duke players don't have positions." If we can get to a point where 3 or even 4 of the 5 guys on the floor can defend multiple positions, we may be able to use that mantra accurately again.

To this point, I watched the 1992 National Championship game on Saturday night (I have a bootleg DVD) and it all started coming back to me-- how Coach K can use a swiss army pack of 6' 5" - 6' 8" wings when we have one.

In recent years, when I have thought back to historical analogs and great, versatile defensive teams, the template I had in mind was really 1997-2001 when we used ferocious on-the-ball guards (Wojo, Avery, J-Will, Duhon) to take teams out of their offense and force turnovers and score in transition. Guys like Battier, James and Carawell would use their length to deny passing lanes, or take charges, and we had shot-blockers (Brand, Boozer) in the paint.

But watching the '92 team again-- an extraordinary example I realize-- I saw something different and really interesting defensively. The championship game was a little bit odd in the sense that Jalen Rose was the Fab 5's primary ballhandler and he's 6' 8" and Grant Hill (our SF) spent a bunch of time defending him. So it's not at all a typical college matchup. But what stood out to me was how we did NOT overcommit as much on the perimeter and basically dared Michigan to drive on the forest of 6'5-6'8 defenders clogging up the lanes.

This led to a bunch of steals where Lang or T. Hill, or Grant Hill (Davis was hurt and ineffective in that game, but could have been him too, in a diff. game) deflected a pass or picked one off and then either started the break himself or threw an outlet pass to one of the other wings (or Hurley) who was sprinting up the floor. They held the Fab Five (not Butler, mind you) to 51 points!

It reminded me a LOT of what we saw from Kentucky's title team this year-- where, except for Davis and Teague (substitute Hurley and Laettner) you didn't really even focus on the names on the back of the jerseys. All the wings were doing (mostly) the same thing. And there really was no true position 2-4. Or even 1-4 when Grant was running the point and Laettner played the 4 with Parks at center.

Offensively, it ws amazing to me how few threes we even attempted. Hurely shot and made a couple, as did Laettner. But we drove the ball again and again and again, getting layups or easy paint points on interior passing among and between the wings. Sometimes Hurely would dribble the lane for a nice pass off inside, and sometimes he would throw an alley oop, but mostly the wings earned their shots handling the ball themselves.

It would be awesome to see a style like that materialize again with the personnel we are slowly collecting. It may not be this year (it might) but guys like Hood, Jefferson, Sulaimon, Murphy alongside a transcendent talent like Parker if we could land him, would be lots of fun to watch, and a break from the high-risk, high-reward perimeter shooting we've seen characterize the team lately. But defensively is where it should really pay off.

Kedsy
06-25-2012, 01:11 PM
To this point, I watched the 1992 National Championship game on Saturday night (I have a bootleg DVD) and it all started coming back to me-- how Coach K can use a swiss army pack of 6' 5" - 6' 8" wings when we have one.

In recent years, when I have thought back to historical analogs and great, versatile defensive teams, the template I had in mind was really 1997-2001 when we used ferocious on-the-ball guards (Wojo, Avery, J-Will, Duhon) to take teams out of their offense and force turnovers and score in transition. Guys like Battier, James and Carawell would use their length to deny passing lanes, or take charges, and we had shot-blockers (Brand, Boozer) in the paint.

But watching the '92 team again-- an extraordinary example I realize-- I saw something different and really interesting defensively. The championship game was a little bit odd in the sense that Jalen Rose was the Fab 5's primary ballhandler and he's 6' 8" and Grant Hill (our SF) spent a bunch of time defending him. So it's not at all a typical college matchup. But what stood out to me was how we did NOT overcommit as much on the perimeter and basically dared Michigan to drive on the forest of 6'5-6'8 defenders clogging up the lanes.

This led to a bunch of steals where Lang or T. Hill, or Grant Hill (Davis was hurt and ineffective in that game, but could have been him too, in a diff. game) deflected a pass or picked one off and then either started the break himself or threw an outlet pass to one of the other wings (or Hurley) who was sprinting up the floor. They held the Fab Five (not Butler, mind you) to 51 points!

It reminded me a LOT of what we saw from Kentucky's title team this year-- where, except for Davis and Teague (substitute Hurley and Laettner) you didn't really even focus on the names on the back of the jerseys. All the wings were doing (mostly) the same thing. And there really was no true position 2-4. Or even 1-4 when Grant was running the point and Laettner played the 4 with Parks at center.

Offensively, it ws amazing to me how few threes we even attempted. Hurely shot and made a couple, as did Laettner. But we drove the ball again and again and again, getting layups or easy paint points on interior passing among and between the wings. Sometimes Hurely would dribble the lane for a nice pass off inside, and sometimes he would throw an alley oop, but mostly the wings earned their shots handling the ball themselves.

It would be awesome to see a style like that materialize again with the personnel we are slowly collecting. It may not be this year (it might) but guys like Hood, Jefferson, Sulaimon, Murphy alongside a transcendent talent like Parker if we could land him, would be lots of fun to watch, and a break from the high-risk, high-reward perimeter shooting we've seen characterize the team lately. But defensively is where it should really pay off.

I agree with this, for the most part. Except to make it work you sort of need a Hurley/Laettner or Teague/Davis or Avery/Brand combo. This year, perhaps Quinn and Mason might be close (although not really), but we don't necessarily have enough 6'5 to 6'8 wings to constitute a "swiss army pack," especially since Seth and Ryan (neither of whom fit your template) are going to play a lot of minutes. So I'm not sure we'll be able to play the way you're suggesting in 2012-13.

In 2013-14, we should enough wings but I don't see us having that unique talent in the middle, and I personally doubt Quinn will ever be in the same conversation with Bobby Hurley (offensively or defensively), although I suppose he probably could end up comparable to Teague or Avery. Go back and look at the 1996-97 Duke team, which had Jeff Capel, Trajan Langdon, Roshown McLeod, Ricky Price, Chris Carrawell, Mike Chappell, Nate James, and Carmen Wallace -- that's a whole lot of talented and versatile 6'5 to 6'8 wings. But the Wojo/Greg Newton combo at PG/C wasn't special enough to enable that team to do what you're suggesting, and the team almost lost to Murray State in the NCAAT 1st round before getting upset by Providence in the 2nd round.

So, I like that K seems to be recruiting long, versatile wings again, but ultimately you need the complete mix of talent and (as K always does) you have to adjust your style to fit your personnel.

Mike Corey
06-25-2012, 02:42 PM
Per a Columbus Dispatch sportswriter, Hood spent the weekend with his buddy LaQuinton Ross, a current Buckeye.

Here's hoping that only sweet nothings were being whispered, and not plans to join Ohio State.

Hood would thrive in Durham. Glad the insiders are sounding confident.

BD80
06-25-2012, 03:45 PM
Per a Columbus Dispatch sportswriter, Hood spent the weekend with his buddy LaQuinton Ross, a current Buckeye. ...

I hope they weren't in Columbus getting tattoos

Monmouth77
06-25-2012, 03:45 PM
I agree with this, for the most part. Except to make it work you sort of need a Hurley/Laettner or Teague/Davis or Avery/Brand combo. This year, perhaps Quinn and Mason might be close (although not really), but we don't necessarily have enough 6'5 to 6'8 wings to constitute a "swiss army pack," especially since Seth and Ryan (neither of whom fit your template) are going to play a lot of minutes. So I'm not sure we'll be able to play the way you're suggesting in 2012-13.

In 2013-14, we should enough wings but I don't see us having that unique talent in the middle, and I personally doubt Quinn will ever be in the same conversation with Bobby Hurley (offensively or defensively), although I suppose he probably could end up comparable to Teague or Avery. Go back and look at the 1996-97 Duke team, which had Jeff Capel, Trajan Langdon, Roshown McLeod, Ricky Price, Chris Carrawell, Mike Chappell, Nate James, and Carmen Wallace -- that's a whole lot of talented and versatile 6'5 to 6'8 wings. But the Wojo/Greg Newton combo at PG/C wasn't special enough to enable that team to do what you're suggesting, and the team almost lost to Murray State in the NCAAT 1st round before getting upset by Providence in the 2nd round.

So, I like that K seems to be recruiting long, versatile wings again, but ultimately you need the complete mix of talent and (as K always does) you have to adjust your style to fit your personnel.

Yes, I agree that the style of play I am describing/romanticizing does not gurantee success, and that the overall talent 1-5 on UK '12 and Duke '92 tells the tale more than their style.

I also definitely remember '97, which was my sophmore year at Duke. I'd point out that that team did win the ACC regular season ahead of Tim Duncan's Wake team (and the burgeoning Jamison-Carter-Cota powerhouse at UNC). But you are right that, in the end, we had no answer for Austin Croshere and Newton's fade-out really hurt us inside with a freshman Carawell having to play "center" (with McCleod mostly floating around the perimeter).

I guess my overall point (before I got carried away dreaming about the '92 team) is that there are so many ways to use versatile guys like Chris Carrawell and Tony Lang, that just the fact of the recruitment strategy we are hopefully observing is something to celebrate.

The other point is that the more players we have who can create their own shots (on the break/in transition, on drives from the wing, etc) the less we remain dependent on screen action and point-guard dribble penetration. We have been treated to some amazing point guard play in the last decade or so, and Cook's play may or may not ever live up to someone like Avery (let alone, say, Chris Duhon). But if we have other guys creating opportunities all over the court, as opposed to mostly spotting up for three, it's a different ballgame. Then we're back to Packer's favorite stat-- Duke shooting "more free throws than their opponents attempt"!

Mike Corey
06-25-2012, 10:50 PM
I hope they weren't in Columbus getting tattoos

They were in Chicago at the Durant Skills Academy.

pacificrounder
06-26-2012, 04:10 PM
FWIW, Dan Wolken and and Mark Titus (the Club Trillion dude) had a quick back and forth on Twitter. Wolken seems totally confident that Hood is going to Duke, "unless you're delivering a bag of cash."

https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/217699803008733185

Duvall
06-26-2012, 04:25 PM
FWIW, Dan Wolken and and Mark Titus (the Club Trillion dude) had a quick back and forth on Twitter. Wolken seems totally confident that Hood is going to Duke, "unless you're delivering a bag of cash."

https://twitter.com/DanWolken/status/217699803008733185

Except that Wolken doesn't actually know things.

BD80
06-26-2012, 04:26 PM
FWIW, Dan Wolken and and Mark Titus (the Club Trillion dude) had a quick back and forth on Twitter. Wolken seems totally confident that Hood is going to Duke, "unless you're delivering a bag of cash."

And the OSU booster said: "How big a bag?"

pacificrounder
06-26-2012, 04:39 PM
Except that Wolken doesn't actually know things.

Fair enough (and hence the FWIW), but Titus probably has some friends in the OSU circles (despite he recent tiff with Evan "The Villain" Turner) and him taking to Twitter to plead with Hood smacks of desparation.

dukedoc
06-26-2012, 09:35 PM
Watzone with a nice rundown of Duke basketball happenings LINK (http://bluedevilnation.net/2012/06/duke-basketball-notebook-a-busy-month-ahead/), including a reiteration that he feels pretty good about Hood.

Greg_Newton
06-27-2012, 12:09 AM
Not the kind of news we're itching for, but Rodney was officially measured at the KD camp this week. He clocked in at 6'8.5 (in shoes), 204 pounds with a 6'8.5 wingspan (http://www.nikeeyb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Kevin-Durant-2012-College-Roster-Alphabetical.pdf).

Not bad size for a 2/3 guard.

ChicagoCrazy84
06-27-2012, 06:03 PM
Watzone with a nice rundown of Duke basketball happenings LINK (http://bluedevilnation.net/2012/06/duke-basketball-notebook-a-busy-month-ahead/), including a reiteration that he feels pretty good about Hood.


It's 6pm on Wednesday. Do you know where Rodney Hood is going to school?

BlueDevilBrowns
06-27-2012, 07:31 PM
It's 6pm on Wednesday. Do you know where Rodney Hood is going to school?

No, but unless he is attending the University of Phoenix I don't think he is in school at 6pm on Wednesday in late June;).

norduck
06-27-2012, 09:00 PM
No, but unless he is attending the University of Phoenix I don't think he is in school at 6pm on Wednesday in late June;).

summer school at tOSU is a possibility.



http://www.lostlettermen.com/6-27-2012-greg-oden-economics-class-ohio-state/

CameronBornAndBred
06-28-2012, 08:13 AM
summer school at tOSU is a possibility.



http://www.lostlettermen.com/6-27-2012-greg-oden-economics-class-ohio-state/
That's very cool, kudos to him.

mkline09
06-28-2012, 08:20 AM
That's very cool, kudos to him.

And very smart. He knows the writing is on the wall with regards to his basketball career so it is wise for him to get his degree and be ready to take up a career post basketball.

freshmanjs
06-28-2012, 08:34 AM
And very smart. He knows the writing is on the wall with regards to his basketball career so it is wise for him to get his degree and be ready to take up a career post basketball.

He's earned over $20 million in the NBA, so there is really no urgency at all for him to get a degree or a job.

mkline09
06-28-2012, 08:50 AM
He's earned over $20 million in the NBA, so there is really no urgency at all for him to get a degree or a job.

Twenty million is a lot and I don't pretend to know his spending habbits but I still think it is wise to occupy yourself with something productive and a degree can help that. Otherwise idle hands spend boat loads of money fast.

Dr. Rosenrosen
06-28-2012, 08:50 AM
He's earned over $20 million in the NBA, so there is really no urgency at all for him to get a degree or a job.
Not stating anything specific about Oden here, but plenty of guys have torn through a lot more money than that and been left with nothing. A degree should always be urgent if one has the means/access to get one.