PDA

View Full Version : MBB: Duke 74, Georgia State 55 Post-Game Thread



Bob Green
11-09-2012, 09:15 PM
Discuss the game here.

rhynelander
11-09-2012, 09:20 PM
any thoughts on Murphy or lack thereof?

uh_no
11-09-2012, 09:20 PM
per espn recap:

The Panthers never got closer than 12 points in the second half and turned it over 16 times while being denied their first victory over an Atlantic Coast Conference team besides Georgia Tech.

OUCH!

pamtar
11-09-2012, 09:24 PM
A. Where was Alex Murphy?
B. TT is looking good, but if he keeps shooting like that he's not gonna be left open for long.
C. Mason.
4. We don't have a true scorer.
H. Amile and Rasheed looked great. I was especially impressed with their passing in the second half.

Saratoga2
11-09-2012, 09:27 PM
Anyone with insights about Alex not getting into the game?

Too man turnovers, although we were changing lineups a lot and that has to cause confusion. Really Mason didn't have that many TO's considering he played 38 minutes. Also Rasheed, Ryan and Amile didn't have many.

I was surprised that we had so many threes against a team where we had a height and experience advantage inside.

wallyman
11-09-2012, 09:31 PM
Boy, are we entitled and cranky.

Sure it was just Georgia State, but really nice games by Mason and Tyler and good to see Seth out there looking good. And Sheed and Amile had terrific debuts. Default position on Tyler has been that if he's starting it's because Quinn isn't doing well enough, but Tyler played perhaps his best game tonight. Pass, shot and defended like a guy who deserved to start. We'll know more after Kentucky, but not a bad opener. Only worry is Murphy not getting in. We'll have to see what that was about. Go Duke.

CDu
11-09-2012, 09:31 PM
Discuss the game here.

Sloppy play. My thoughts:

- Mason was big and athletic, and that was enough tonight. But he still struggles with his post moves (maybe one post-up bucket tonight), and still struggles from the line. Against lesser bigs though it just won't matter.

- For the preseason talk about Curry not playing PG this year, there he was as our starting PG tonight (Thornton played primarily off-ball until the second half). He played pretty well despite the leg issues. That was nice.

- Cook still has some work to do as a playmaker. He is showing eome defensive chops though which is nice.

- Sulaimon struggled a bit defendively but showed some of that offensive skill.

- Thornton made some horrific passes for turnovers. Thankfully he made up for it from 3pt range.

- Speaking of which, the more things change, the more they stay the same. We fired up 20+ 3s. If we hit at a 40% clip, that is just fine.

- Love that Jefferson kid. So much energy.

- I haven't been impressed with Murphy, but I was surprised that he got no run at all.

- The PG play is going to have to get MUCH better for us to beat good teams.

A win is a win. It was not a thing of beauty (awful offense early, sloppier defense at times in the 2nd), but the talent gap and our great shooting and Mason allowed us to prevail.

Dukehky
11-09-2012, 09:32 PM
Well, it wasn't the prettiest opener ever (better than last years), but we're 1-0.

I absolutely detest the line-up with Curry, Cook, Thornton. It's tiny, weak defensively, and not as offensively potent as some of our other line-ups, I just don't see the plus side to that line-up.

We went away from Mason early in the second half, which led to a lot of turnovers and bad three pointers by bad three point shooters (Josh Hairston, if you read this, you do not have permission from ANYBODY to EEEEVVVVEEEEERRRRRR shoot a 3 point shot). Toward the end of the game, we got open looks that we knocked down because we dumped it in to Mason who made good kick out passes or did the whole drive and dish thing.

Amile is going to get a lot of run on Tuesday, because he's going to have to. If we play that 3 guard line-up, we're gonna get torched. This Kentucky team is better than I thought/hoped that they were going to be. I don't know what's going on with Murphy, but we need him, and if he just doesn't have his ish together yet, then he needs to get it together and get it together quick.

Rasheed I think needs to be a little more aggressive in looking for his points, because nobody else is going to score for him, might as well go ahead and make that paper boo boo.

I don't like Tyler shooting 3's in closer games, there has to be a better shot out there somewhere. But if he continues to go 50% from out there, then I'll have no choice but to shut up.

We're going to have a tough game on Tuesday, we can win it, but it's going to be tough. They are so much more athletic than us that it's not even remotely funny. I don't really see any favorable match-up for us other than Kelly v. Wiltjer. Gotta get Noel in foul trouble because he is a stud on defense (from what I've seen) and could really give Mason fits.

slower
11-09-2012, 09:36 PM
We're going to have a tough game on Tuesday, we can win it, but it's going to be tough. They are so much more athletic than us that it's not even remotely funny. I don't really see any favorable match-up for us other than Kelly v. Wiltjer. Gotta get Noel in foul trouble because he is a stud on defense (from what I've seen) and could really give Mason fits.

If we don't play better than we did tonight, it could be embarrassing.

Dukehky
11-09-2012, 09:37 PM
Boy, are we entitled and cranky.

Sure it was just Georgia State, but really nice games by Mason and Tyler and good to see Seth out there looking good. And Sheed and Amile had terrific debuts. Default position on Tyler has been that if he's starting it's because Quinn isn't doing well enough, but Tyler played perhaps his best game tonight. Pass, shot and defended like a guy who deserved to start. We'll know more after Kentucky, but not a bad opener. Only worry is Murphy not getting in. We'll have to see what that was about. Go Duke.

Yeah, this is a win, but it was not the product that Duke fans are used to and expect out of this level of talent. If you think that that kind of performance is going to get Duke to where you hope them to be at the end of ever year, then you clearly don't watch anybody else play basketball.

I would hardly call Rasheed and Amile's games terrific either. They were effective, and that's it.

Sniping at people for being reasonably critical of this team is a really lame thing to do. If you want to say that everything is gravy and always is, that's fine, but just because you're pleased with everything doesn't mean you should call somebody entitled. We should have beat this team by 40.

roywhite
11-09-2012, 09:47 PM
Official Boxscore (http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_LANG=C&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=205731680)

Mason with 19 points, 14 rebounds, and 4 blocks
Tyler with 13 points including 3-6 from 3 pt, 2 steals, but 4 turnovers

Team was 51.1% FG overall with good ball movement in 2nd half
11-24 from 3-pt
Held Ga. State to 37.3% FG shooting

cbnaylor
11-09-2012, 09:47 PM
I agree with a lot that has been said. It appears that we were all watching the same game. I thought it was funny that Duke was suppose to work their offense from the inside this year....but it looked a lot like the same. Live and die by the 3. It's a good thing that Duke was hitting their 3's because if they weren't, this game would have been a lot like last years home opener. Duke needs to be a lot more aggressive by driving in the lane. Why is it so hard to do that? We really need some slashers. I know a lot of people think that Cook is the answer to creating plays in the lane...but we need our SF and SG to do the same. Duke did a little bit better of doing this in the 2nd half but teams will know not to bite. Every time that Duke drove in the lane, they never finished. They always kicked it out. As for the Defense, I was please for the most part. A lot better than last year. The on ball defense was great but Duke got a little slack on cutting off the baseline. I know that it's only the first game and there will be room for improvement. I'm looking forward to this season. Go Duke.

Ultrarunner
11-09-2012, 09:52 PM
Yeah, this is a win, but it was not the product that Duke fans are used to and expect out of this level of talent. If you think that that kind of performance is going to get Duke to where you hope them to be at the end of ever year, then you clearly don't watch anybody else play basketball.

I would hardly call Rasheed and Amile's games terrific either. They were effective, and that's it.

Sniping at people for being reasonably critical of this team is a really lame thing to do. If you want to say that everything is gravy and always is, that's fine, but just because you're pleased with everything doesn't mean you should call somebody entitled. We should have beat this team by 40.

Could you, as a favor to me, define "reasonably critical?"

I have to admit I only caught the final few minutes of the game but what little I saw of Rasheed and Amile looked pretty darn good for freshmen. The stat sheet seems to bear that out. Perhaps if you stopped looking at the team as a product and looked at them as young men, it might alter the perception that they were merely "effective."

I think that this kind of performance at the end of the year would be most disappointing. Fortunately, we have the entire season to improve and I expect we will.

Billy Dat
11-09-2012, 09:53 PM
I have the game taped and only saw some pieces so far, but I don't like the sound of this tweet from Watzone:

"Coach K said Alex not playing was a coaches decision. It is part of the growing process at Duke. He'll be back. "

roywhite
11-09-2012, 09:56 PM
I have the game taped and only saw some pieces so far, but I don't like the sound of this tweet from Watzone:

"Coach K said Alex not playing was a coaches decision. It is part of the growing process at Duke. He'll be back. "

Thanks for the info.

Tough love, and Coach K understands and teaches both of those words. Hope Alex learns and grows.

MCFinARL
11-09-2012, 10:06 PM
Thanks for the info.

Tough love, and Coach K understands and teaches both of those words. Hope Alex learns and grows.

Me too. Tough love is one of those tricky strategies--it works great for some players and destroys the confidence of others.

Newton_14
11-09-2012, 10:10 PM
Anyone with insights about Alex not getting into the game?

Too man turnovers, although we were changing lineups a lot and that has to cause confusion. Really Mason didn't have that many TO's considering he played 38 minutes. Also Rasheed, Ryan and Amile didn't have many.


I was surprised that we had so many threes against a team where we had a height and experience advantage inside.

Georgia St played zone almost the entire night. That is why we took so many three's. They collapsed on our bigs in the paint all night long, but Mason still got his 19.

Really hope Alex Murphy had a stomach bug or something. For him to not play a single minute, there has to be sickness or something.

I will post my analysis on the game tomorrow. Too tired tonight. :)

mapei
11-09-2012, 10:21 PM
Get used to shooting a lot of 3s. It's what we do, what K's offense is built for. I don't think we will ever be 'inside-out' on a majority of plays despite what some have predicted. Austin could slash, but he was also kind of an exception in the context of most recent seasons, and he also was a one-man show during the stretch run last year.

OldSchool
11-09-2012, 10:32 PM
Georgia State was over-matched, so it's hard to tell a lot from this game.

We didn't get enough out of the flow of our offense for large stretches of the game. We made up for that to a limited extent through scrappy play. Sometimes playing against a zone defense can take the air out of our attack. I was wondering during the first half whether the coaching staff had elected to roll out only a limited offensive scheme so as not to give Kentucky anything meaningful to look at on tape.

Defensively, I think we have more upside than last year.

Dukehky
11-09-2012, 10:34 PM
Some good news. Kentucky is susceptible on the offensive glass. Alex Len has gotten a lot better and is looking like a first team all acc guy, but Mason is a better rebounder IMO, hopefully he'll be able to seal Noel and frustrate him.

Go Terps?

loran16
11-09-2012, 10:37 PM
Okay just a question for the coaching staff: How is the QC-TT-Sulaimon 1-2-3 ever beneficial? Seriously? Because even if you think TT is a good defensive option, you're now putting Sulaimon against a 3. And the on offense, oh boy: You either have TT on SHOOTING GUARD....which well, even Georgia State wasn't guarding him, and better teams are unlikely to either.

I mean listen, if TT were to suddenly be a good shooter, or a good outside shooter, that'd be one thing. But well, he managed 35% last year...despite nearly always being open from 3. Oh and Quinn at SG isn't great either, and is a waste of a resource.

I don't know how this team should manage its guards - honestly, I think TT should be the 4th option who comes in to spell other guys only - but this arrangement makes no sense.

SCMatt33
11-09-2012, 10:38 PM
I didn't really see that much that surprised me in this game, good or bad. I think this was a good game to play first, because this team isn't bad (164 preseason by KenPom) and they threw every defense we could ever plan to see this year in the first ten minutes. They had man, multiple zones, press. I can't imagine that Ga State implements all of those very regularly, but with them being banned from the CAA tournament (the CAA is just mad that they're leaving) and not much chance of an at-large, it's not surprising to see them throw the kitchen sink at this game. From the looks of their schedule, they don't even play another major conference team this year.

Because of the defensive looks, I'm not surprised or even concerned about the early turnovers. Some of them really need to be cleaned up against Kentucky, specifically the unforced ones. UK will be all over those and one of the key's to beating a young team is playing a clean game. As for this game the offense probably didn't quite click as much as it could have because of those turnovers, but the defense, especially the half court D, looked really good. Efficiency-wise, I calculated this to be a 66 possession game (exactly what KenPom said it would be!). Holding them to .83 points per possession is pretty good. The 3 point rate was really high, over 50% in fact. I won't harp on it though, because that defense was really weird and there isn't any video to prep with yet. Same goes for the rebounding. Duke had a poor game on the offensive glass (only about 20% against a small team with foul trouble), but again, that defense could have thrown it off plus we played with three guards (and Jefferson at the 4) quite a bit.

Also with such a cerebral game, I'm not surprised to see Thornton get more time than Cook, but long term, Cook needs to earn more minutes if Duke wants to increase it's potential. Thornton does a lot of things well, but he's pretty much a known entity at this point. He really gives you the hustle factor and makes a lot of smart plays that still amaze me, but he's not much more than a caretaker running the point, and is still a mediocre threat from 3 (despite going 3-6 today). As far as the three pointers go, I see three tiers this year. Seth has and deserves the freedom to shoot any shot he wants. Contested, off the dribble, off a jab step, he can hit them all. Kelly, Sulaimon, and Cook go in the next group. I never mind seeing them take a three on a possession, but unless there is clock pressure, you want them to be at least in rhythm from a wing pass, but preferably on a pass from inside or with time to set their feet. Tyler is next. He needs to shoot 3's to keep the other team honest, but he's only efficient with them when he has half a second to set his feet. I want him to be better when he shoots in rhythm from a pass, but he just doesn't hit that shot with a high enough percentage to be efficient.

I don't really have much to comment on about Mason, because we've seen him be dominant against teams that are either small, slow or both. You also saw that his best possessions, the ones where he takes a shot moving towards the rim, came after Ga State had to go to its bench for foul reasons. I personally think he should use a green, yellow, and red light system when on the block. He gets the green light on any attempt that is moving towards the rim and comes with two or fewer dribbles, and no more than two steps with his non-pivot foot. It's almost impossible not to drag that foot at all when your under the rim and taking that many steps. He gets a yellow light on that hook shot. He's good at it, but it's not ideal as going parallel to the backboard reduces his chances of getting fouled or getting his own board. He has a red light on anything with 3 or more dribbles inside the paint or moving away from the rim. That's not to say he should never do it, but it should be a rare sight. He took too many fade away shots (even if it was only two or three), which have no chance of being fouled or getting a board. 3-7 from the line isn't good, but I don't expect him to magically be an 80% shooter either. He had a really good game, and really didn't make too many bad decisions, but I won't get excited until he does it against a top level team with a full front court.

There were a couple of things that did get me exited. I absolutely love the energy of Amile Jefferson. Sometimes, that energy can lead to over-aggression, especially for a freshman, but Jefferson didn't have any fouls in 13 minutes. I'd love to see him earn more time as the year goes on. The unfortunate thing is that right now, he really is a tweener. He's not bulky enough to play the 4 against the bigger teams, but the personnel on this team kind of dictates that he plays there at least a good chunk of his minutes.

This wasn't a great offensive team, but the intensity on defense early was great. Duke really needs to do a better job getting back in transition, but that half court defense was a sight to see. The biggest thing is that everyone seems to be buying in, led by the seniors. Thornton was the first one to get on the floor in the game, and that effort spread to everyone else. I remember seeing Mason get caught on a switch with one of their guards a couple of times about 10-12 feet from the rim. One time he stayed with him on the jumper and Thornton drew an over the back call, on another Mason guarded the pass and then still made it across the lane to challenge the layup. He (or the guard behind, can't remember) fouled, but it was a great job protecting the paint.

Even with those good things, I'm saving the thing that excited me the most for last. Duke had 17 assists on 24 field goals, for an assist rate of over 70%. This was one of Duke's biggest problems last year. For a team that only had one guy creating his own shots, they only had an assist rate of 48.4%, good for 294th in the country. The most exiting part is that everyone got involved. All 7 guys who played at least 10 minutes had an assist. If you don't have guys who are going to break down the D man to man, you need to pass. That 70% is a bit inflated because of the high percentage of 3's and the large amount of zone that Ga State played, but it really something to look for throughout the year. Duke has never been that great at it, only breaking the D1 average 1 time, 2006, since KenPom started tracking it in 2003. Even then, Duke only beat the average by .1%. It's also not always a great predictor of great teams because it often comes from a lack of individual play, but without an obvious dominant scorer, it could be an important stat for Duke this year to keep their offense from just disappearing at times like it did last year.

Even with all of that, there it's always good to remember that this is just game one, and we'll have a hungry UK team coming up that is coming off a disappointing effort against Maryland (win or lose, I'm typing this with UK up 2 and 24 seconds left). I'm just exited that it's basketball season again!!! We even get the bonus of still caring about football, too! This is such a great time of year. The holiday's are coming up, Duke sports are in full swing, what more could you want!

ChicagoCrazy84
11-09-2012, 10:44 PM
Georgia St played zone almost the entire night. That is why we took so many three's. They collapsed on our bigs in the paint all night long, but Mason still got his 19.

Really hope Alex Murphy had a stomach bug or something. For him to not play a single minute, there has to be sickness or something.

I will post my analysis on the game tomorrow. Too tired tonight. :)


Part of the learning process for Alex for not getting in? I'm not going to question Coach K, but Ryan Kelly was 0-7 in the exhibition against WSS and had a few turnovers. Granted he's a senior, but he doesn't get the "tough love"? It just seems odd Coach K woud really sit him the whole game against a Georgia State team and not give him a chance to redeem himself. I didn't see the WSS game, but was he that bad in that game? I don't agree with that to sit him the whole game, but hopefully it will light a fire in him.

SCMatt33
11-09-2012, 10:46 PM
Okay just a question for the coaching staff: How is the QC-TT-Sulaimon 1-2-3 ever beneficial? Seriously? Because even if you think TT is a good defensive option, you're now putting Sulaimon against a 3. And the on offense, oh boy: You either have TT on SHOOTING GUARD....which well, even Georgia State wasn't guarding him, and better teams are unlikely to either.

I mean listen, if TT were to suddenly be a good shooter, or a good outside shooter, that'd be one thing. But well, he managed 35% last year...despite nearly always being open from 3. Oh and Quinn at SG isn't great either, and is a waste of a resource.

I don't know how this team should manage its guards - honestly, I think TT should be the 4th option who comes in to spell other guys only - but this arrangement makes no sense.

I think it's really beneficial against smaller teams. Right now, we need Mason and Ryan to play a lot of minutes, and any chance we have to give them a break against a small team is good in my book. I also think that TT and Quinn can be good weapons from three, as long as they pick their spots. TT makes so many smart plays that no one else on this team will ever make. He's also pretty good at hitting those threes when he has that half second to set his feet. He just needs to hold up when he gets those passes from the wing. He's not a shooter who can turn 90 degrees and shoot in rhythm. Cook can hit those, but he needs to lay off those threes off the dribble. I would, however, hope to see that lineup limited against a top team like UK if possible though. That kind of lineup is one of the reasons that everyone other than Mason struggled on the boards. If they struggled like that against Ga State, imagine what top teams will do. Overall, I like experimenting with everything possible early in the year.

uh_no
11-09-2012, 11:03 PM
If we don't play better than we did tonight, it could be embarrassing.

UK didn't look much better, almost choking one away to maryland....typical out of control calipari team tbh, without anybody of consequence returning, their inexperience will reign as it always has previously with cal teams.

jv001
11-09-2012, 11:11 PM
Georgia St played zone almost the entire night. That is why we took so many three's. They collapsed on our bigs in the paint all night long, but Mason still got his 19.

Really hope Alex Murphy had a stomach bug or something. For him to not play a single minute, there has to be sickness or something.

I will post my analysis on the game tomorrow. Too tired tonight. :)

This pretty much sums up why it didn't look like we were going inside out tonight. ZONE and at times we made some passes to Mason in bad places. I thought we did try to get the ball to Mason and he responded with some excellent passes out of the double team. We drove the ball better than anytime last year, because we passed out of double teams. Rasheed, Curry and Cook looked good in that phase of the game. But what impressed me most was our defense. We switched better and moved our feet better. The only negative was Alex not playing at all. Coaching decision or not, some kids respond well and some don't(Gbinijie). I hope Alex responds with the right attitude. GoDuke!

Olympic Fan
11-09-2012, 11:15 PM
I have to respond to one aspect of the commnts here -- someone suggested that Sulaimon struggled on defense ... that's 180 degrees off my perception.

It's true that Seth started the game at point guard, but that was only at the offensive end. Rasheed was matched against GS's point, Devonta White -- he stayed on him almost all the way until he picked up his third foul early in the second half, when he switched to No. 22 (the coach's son) who had just gotten hot.

Folks, Rasheed did a terrific defensive job -- he was the only defender we had that could keep White out of the lane. When he switched to Hunter, he cooled him off. That two guys averaged 55 points a game between them in GS's two exhibiotion games -- they got 33 tonight on 10 of 24 shooting. Rasheed had a lot to do with that.

Overall, I was not happy to see the return to the three-guard offense. But it was the best matchup against a team that plays two point guards (White and Hunter) and four ballhandlers. And, yes, we took a lot of 3s, but I think that was largely because they packed in their zone and refused to extend it. In the first half, we attempted just seven 3s and kept trying to force everything inside. In the second, we finally took the 3s that were there and pulled away.

I will say this -- despite the packed in zone and all the 3s we ended up taking, Mason finished with the most field goal attempts on the team. Isn't that what we want?

Defensively, we broke down a field times. Rasheed was the only one could could keep them out of the lane. Their dribblers broke us down often and Mason had to kep coming out to challenge. He did a good job of that, but on several occasions, his absence left us without a second rebounder and they ended up with 10 offensive boards -- they outrebounded us over 33-31. Still, they shot just 37.3 percent and had 16 turnovers against just four assists.

The most disappointing thing for me was that two two guys I thought would make Duke a totally different team this year had little or no impact. Murphy didn't play and that meant a return to the 3-guard offense. Cook didn't start and really wasn't much of a force when he did play.

The veterans played well -- even Kelly, who didn't shoot much, but was the team's key ballhandler against the trap and did have four assists. So did Rasheed, who played well and defended well and hit 2 of 3 3's over the zone. He did struggle to drive and score.

Like I said, I'd feel a lot better about things if Cook and Murphy had made more of a contribution, but it was encouraging to see Seth play well -- much, MUCH better than he looked in the last exibition. And Mason played like we hoped he would 19 points, 14 rebounds, four blocks (twice blocking 3-point attempts), two assists and a steal. Plus just three fouls in 35 minutes.

Duke has got to get better. But not a bad opening night.

moonpie23
11-09-2012, 11:26 PM
it looked like the typical "this season is going to be a disaster cause we didn't shoot 80%, get ALL the rebounds, hold the other team scoreless and turn them over 42 times" kind of opener....

-bdbd
11-09-2012, 11:40 PM
Part of the learning process for Alex for not getting in? I'm not going to question Coach K, but Ryan Kelly was 0-7 in the exhibition against WSS and had a few turnovers. Granted he's a senior, but he doesn't get the "tough love"? It just seems odd Coach K woud really sit him the whole game against a Georgia State team and not give him a chance to redeem himself. I didn't see the WSS game, but was he that bad in that game? I don't agree with that to sit him the whole game, but hopefully it will light a fire in him.


Coach K doesn't determine playing time just by reading box scores from the previous game. At Duke you earn playing time by playing defense, practicing hard and smart, communicating and with effort. Much of that we simply can't see. K is the master when it comes to motivating and the whole psychology behind what makes a team successful. I have no doubt whatsoever that K has a whole well-thought strategy going on with not playing Alex, and I suspect you'll see the results in the coming games - in terms of effort, smarts, communication, etc. Obviously K believes Alex can deal with this and be motivated by it. Trust that Coach REALLY knows what he's doing in this area -- many have long believed that "psychology" is really K's strongest area/strength as a coach.

JNort
11-10-2012, 12:43 AM
Part of the learning process for Alex for not getting in? I'm not going to question Coach K, but Ryan Kelly was 0-7 in the exhibition against WSS and had a few turnovers. Granted he's a senior, but he doesn't get the "tough love"? It just seems odd Coach K woud really sit him the whole game against a Georgia State team and not give him a chance to redeem himself. I didn't see the WSS game, but was he that bad in that game? I don't agree with that to sit him the whole game, but hopefully it will light a fire in him.

Well nobody said it had anything to do with his play. He could have mouthed off to coach in a practice, skipped a class, been late to practice multiple times, broke a minor team rule, wasn't playing within the offense in practice, etc... Seems to me that K is just letting him know that he is the one on charge on this team.

greybeard
11-10-2012, 12:49 AM
It seemed to me that Mason was less than 100 percent, that his left was bothering him. He seemed slow (for him) around the basket, on offense, defense, the boards, and down the court. He seemed to drag his left leg while running, and seemed reluctant to put pressure on the left leg around the basket and lifting toward the rim. He just didn't seem to be jumping as high and with the same explosiveness. After watching the first half (I didn't see the second half), my guess was a tender ankle, the type athletes play through with more stringent tapping. On the otherhand, he played 38 minutes and was on the court until about a minute and a half was left in the game.

Cameron
11-10-2012, 01:14 AM
I got a good laugh tonight when I saw our lineup take the floor. None of us here were close. Almost everyone had Quinn pegged as our next classic point guard. He didn't start. Murphy played zero minutes. Rasheed was going to be our sixth man. He started as part of a three-guard lineup. And to top it off, Seth, who almost everyone here agreed proved last year that he is not a starting point guard, started at point guard. My oh my.

As for the game, it was great to see the triples drop tonight. We went 11 for 24 from three, which should help to calm the chants that we are doomed from long range. A one-game sample is nothing to worry over, and I think the 1-of-17 performance against Winston-Salem State was finally put to rest as an anomaly. I don't think we're a great outside shooting team -- Tyler Thornton made three 3s tonight, but might not make another one for three weeks -- but we have enough capable shooters to be able to make shots from out there on any given night. While it can happen, it's fairly unusual when everyone is off during the same game.

I agree with what Fran said during the telecast tonight in that we could very possibly see Rasheed at the point before the end of the season, especially since it would appear that, although very early, the staff isn't sold on Quinn at point. He's just not the guy yet, no matter how much anyone here wants that to be the case.

Reilly
11-10-2012, 07:28 AM
it looked like the typical "this season is going to be a disaster cause we didn't shoot 80%, get ALL the rebounds, hold the other team scoreless and turn them over 42 times" kind of opener....

Somebody should tell this guy: "Our defense was good. Overall I was pleased." - Coach K

Matches
11-10-2012, 07:40 AM
Well nobody said it had anything to do with his play. He could have mouthed off to coach in a practice, skipped a class, been late to practice multiple times, broke a minor team rule, wasn't playing within the offense in practice, etc... Seems to me that K is just letting him know that he is the one on charge on this team.

K's quote after the game was that we "didn't get to where Alex would play" - which doesn't sound like it was a disciplinary thing.

I know we all trust K, he's won 4 titles, we've won 0, all of that - I get it and I buy into it - but can we agree that this is kind of weird? Kid was going to start last year supposedly and ended up redshirting (though no one connected with the team would say that was the plan until midseason). He comes back this year, starts both exhibitions, and then.. doesn't play at all? I could see him dropping behind Rasheed and/or Amile based on performance in the exhibitions, but he's behind Hairston too? Can't get in the game against Georgia St.?

I'm not saying K's wrong - usually he's not - but isn't it weird?

oldnavy
11-10-2012, 07:54 AM
K's quote after the game was that we "didn't get to where Alex would play" - which doesn't sound like it was a disciplinary thing.

I know we all trust K, he's won 4 titles, we've won 0, all of that - I get it and I buy into it - but can we agree that this is kind of weird? Kid was going to start last year supposedly and ended up redshirting (though no one connected with the team would say that was the plan until midseason). He comes back this year, starts both exhibitions, and then.. doesn't play at all? I could see him dropping behind Rasheed and/or Amile based on performance in the exhibitions, but he's behind Hairston too? Can't get in the game against Georgia St.?

I'm not saying K's wrong - usually he's not - but isn't it weird?

Something is up, either a mild injury, sickness or he just had a bad week of practice... I wouldn't worry too much about this YET.

For those who think we should have gone inside out more, did you notice the zones that GS through at us all night. It was clear to me that they were focusing on Mason, yet he still was able to get 19 points and a bucket of refills. I don't think our offensive scheme has changed, but you have to take what the other team gives you. Plus, it seemed to me that every 3 point shot was WIDE open... I didn't see a forced one that I could can think off at the moment. A few of the 3's came from kick outs by Mason when he got doubled or even tripled teamed. That is the definition of working inside/out.

I wasn't overwhemled with last nights game, but playing a scrapping hard fighting team that uses multiple zone looks will tend to make the game look a bit sloppy. Our guys made mistakes, but overall I thought the defense was very good, the offense was fair.

Kentucky will be a great measuring stick for this team. They will play a style that should open things up more and then we can see what Mason and others can do in a more "traditional" style of game.

Matches
11-10-2012, 08:11 AM
For those who think we should have gone inside out more, did you notice the zones that GS through at us all night. It was clear to me that they were focusing on Mason, yet he still was able to get 19 points and a bucket of refills. I don't think our offensive scheme has changed, but you have to take what the other team gives you. Plus, it seemed to me that every 3 point shot was WIDE open... I didn't see a forced one that I could can think off at the moment. A few of the 3's came from kick outs by Mason when he got doubled or even tripled teamed. That is the definition of working inside/out.


Yea the zone definitely opened things up from 3, as zones are want to do. If our primary gameplan this year is to punch the ball inside, though, it'd be nice to be able to do that anyway. Hate to think we could be taken out of our gameplan by any team that wants to play zone. I had no quarrel with any of the shots that were taken other than Hairston's 3 (because come on).

Mason was a beast and looks much improved. His game looked really dynamic - clearly the best player on the court last night.

roywhite
11-10-2012, 08:26 AM
K's quote after the game was that we "didn't get to where Alex would play" - which doesn't sound like it was a disciplinary thing.

I know we all trust K, he's won 4 titles, we've won 0, all of that - I get it and I buy into it - but can we agree that this is kind of weird? Kid was going to start last year supposedly and ended up redshirting (though no one connected with the team would say that was the plan until midseason). He comes back this year, starts both exhibitions, and then.. doesn't play at all? I could see him dropping behind Rasheed and/or Amile based on performance in the exhibitions, but he's behind Hairston too? Can't get in the game against Georgia St.?

I'm not saying K's wrong - usually he's not - but isn't it weird?

Not to belabor this point, but, no, it doesn't seem weird.

It seems like a disciplinary situation or K sending a message about young Mr. Murphy's approach. Does this sort of tough approach always work? No, but it often works, and Coach K certainly knows what he is doing.

We'll see how things go. My guess is that it works well; that Alex plays hard and grows as a player and person.

Starter
11-10-2012, 09:15 AM
I got a good laugh tonight when I saw our lineup take the floor. None of us here were close. Almost everyone had Quinn pegged as our next classic point guard. He didn't start. Murphy played zero minutes. Rasheed was going to be our sixth man. He started as part of a three-guard lineup. And to top it off, Seth, who almost everyone here agreed proved last year that he is not a starting point guard, started at point guard. My oh my.

Krzyzewski unequivocally named Cook the starter, what, a week ago? So it's understandable to be a little surprised when he doesn't actually start the first game of the season. And given that small forward was a major weakness last season, Duke didn't play anyone resembling one last night and Murphy has a pedigree and the supposed advantage of an entire season to learn Duke's system, that's a surprise too.

I ain't mad at Thornton playing a decent amount and jacking up some threes in a game against this level of opposition. But I do believe starting him last year dramatically lowered the team's ceiling. I can only hope this was "sending a message" of some sort to Cook, and not a tacit endorsement of Duke's reliance on Thornton, though I fear it was the latter. Cook seems better in every aspect, including defense, and with experience looks like he could be special. Obviously love Thornton's effort and I would imagine he put up a lot of jump shots this summer, but if they deign Cook not to be ready to start at PG, I see no reason to expect much better results in this year's postseason from last.

With Murphy -- and I hate to bring this up -- there's at least the possibility that he's simply not as good as advance billing. I didn't see him play in high school, but a friend in New England went to see him and came away markedly unimpressed. Plus, I mean, his brother isn't exactly a transcendent player. (I realize they're not the same guy, just saying.) Because honestly, I'm having trouble figuring out why he's not playing. The explanation that it was never the right time in the game is weird. He's got the size and appears to have the skill, and the staff spent a lot of time comparing him to Kyle Singler. I'm not giving up on him, but it looks very shaky if he was a mystery DNP in the first game against non-elite competition.

Don't get me wrong, Duke has a lot of things going for it. Curry was a positive; having had chronic shin soreness, it doesn't really hurt while you're running on it, though I'd imagine he doesn't feel great this morning. The more he plays, the better -- mine would ache after 10 minutes of inactivity. The freshmen look like players, and it'll be a lot of fun watching Mason. But long term, I can't imagine this team making it much farther than last year's did, if at all, with still no small forward and legitimate starting point guard, if that's really what transpires.

PSurprise
11-10-2012, 09:34 AM
To echo one of SCMatt33's points, one of the nicest things to see last night was the passing, especially the extra pass, that was pretty much non-existent last year. There were a number of open looks, and although this team probably isn't the best shooting team in Duke's history, with open looks, I think this team can/will do very well. It was also nice to see some penetration from the guards, albeit against an inferior team. It's good to see some verticality (going to the rim) in the offense instead of just passing it around the perimeter. I hope that this team can learn to gel together this year. They should have some strong senior leadership and some very good (although probably not *great*, at least not yet) players around them.

Saratoga2
11-10-2012, 09:44 AM
Some good news. Kentucky is susceptible on the offensive glass. Alex Len has gotten a lot better and is looking like a first team all acc guy, but Mason is a better rebounder IMO, hopefully he'll be able to seal Noel and frustrate him.

Go Terps?

Len looked like an all ACC center against Kentucky, both on offense and defense. Maryland hustled and got to balls where Kentucky played soft, despite their size. Kentucky does play excellent man defense though so we won't get a lot of easy 3's and they have a lot of size, so we will have problems inside. Our approach to beat them has to include an attempt to out hustle them and get second chance points. Players like Tyler, Amile, Rasheed and Mason will need to be aggressive. Maybe Alex can come back and add another solid aggressive player. Hope he comes away from the DNP with a will to prove he belongs.

devildeac
11-10-2012, 10:54 AM
Interesting quote to pass along from K from this morning's article in the Raleigh N&O:

"Mason can pass. Guys have to move once they hit him. It's not up to him to create the passing lane to the shooter. It is the shooter's responsibility to create the passing lane."

trailblaze
11-10-2012, 11:18 AM
At some point you have to live or die with the players you have. I don't like seeing three guys playing point when clearly 2 of those guys are not the long term answer(TT and SC). Give Cook the ball for the whole game and let him play until he needs to ask out. Teach/criticize/praise and repeat for 10-15 games. The mental game K seems to play with these guys does not seem prudent(your starting, your sitting,we believe, we don't). Pick a point guard and play him.

superdave
11-10-2012, 11:45 AM
Last night was my first time seeing this Duke team. I came away impressed with the defense, particularly the intensity our perimeter defenders brought. I thought Quinn did a nice job of making it a point to harass the ball handler every chance he got. He got one 5-second call and was pushing for some others. Tyler, Rasheed and Seth all brought a lot of defensive energy as well. That's going to be a significant improvement over last season if it becomes consistent.

I was disappointed not to see Alex. I hope he's working hard in practice and keeping his off-court stuff in check. Hopefully this is a blip for him.

Mason played 35 minutes and Ryan played 33. I'm not sure how that's sustainable vs. teams with good bigs. We're going to have trouble issues if so.

Finally, we got out-rebounded by Georgia State. Ryan Kelly's 3 boards will not get the job done. He must make defensive rebounding a priority.

mgm1222
11-10-2012, 11:53 AM
I doubt we will sniff a national championship or final four with a three guard lineup dependent on shooting threes and with TT getting 30 mpg this year. It seems strange when coach said his starting point guard is Quin Cook then QC starts three exhibitions (including blue/white), outplays TT by far in all three and then comes off the bench and plays less minutes in first real game. Also seems strange that coach K said there were times last year when he wanted to end the redshirt of Alex Murphy becasue the team needed him, AM starts all three exhibitions, is the best defensive and transition player on team in those exhibitions and then doesn't play at all in first real game. It's mostly frustrating because I think we have top 3-5 talent in a nationally down year this year if we go with the most talented rotation. My opinion is that the most talented rotation would include Quin Cook, Rasheed Sulaimon, Alex Murphy or Amile Jefferson, Ryan Kelly, and Mason Plumlee with first options off bench of Seth Curry and Alex Murphy or Amile Jefferson. I think Marshall may fit as eighth man but can't say with confidence because I haven't seen enough of him. I think TT and Josh Hairston should get spot minutes for things like fouls, energy/spark off bench, send an occassional message to main guys who aren't focussed or playing hard enough. They shouldn't get over about 5 minutes per game. That is based solely on talent and athleticism not on hussle. A good coach can get guys to hussle, focus, and learn the system but it is hard to make TT and JH any more talented or athletic. TT gets a lot of praise for playing hard and that's fine but Lehigh had 5 guys playing very hard to beat us last year. It would be nice to have five guys playing hard for us with more talent, athleticism, and size to tip the scales in our favor. Otherwise it's a crap shoot. TT gets a lot of praise for makeing smart plays and that's fine but it seems he gets a pass for the not so smart things he does like 3 assists to 4 turnovers. That's not good for your starting point guard or whatever he was supposed to be playing last night. Offense is stagnant when he runs it and oftern looks like five guys playing keep away from five other guys because of our lack of playmakers on the floor. Offense is much more efficient and a lot quicker with QC. He makes some mistakes but he is only a sophomore and he need playing time to get better. He is clearly the more talented player. Alex Murphy is clearly more talented that Josh Hairston. Does AM need to improve? Yes, but it is hard to improve from the bench. You can't get it all in practice. One other thing, AM should not be compared to Kyle Singler. They look a little bit alike and are about the same size but that's where the similarties end. It's common for white players to be compared to other white players and black players to black players but Alex Murphy is much more like Dante Jones, or Antonio Lang or even a less talented and less athletic Grant Hill. He is a slasher. He plays explosively in transition. He is the best defensive player we have right now and one of the best we've had in several years. Don't expect him to score a ton of points, or hit a lot of threes if he ever plays. If this is what you're expecting you will be dissapointed. He will however make our team a lof better. Watch him closely on defense because this is where he is a nightmare for opposing teams. I just hope coach K hasn't started another personal war like he did with a talented player named Mike Gbinjie last year that resulted in transfer to what will be a conference rival. PLAY THE MORE TALENTED PLAYERS AND WE COULD HAVE A GREAT YEAR. Don't and it will be a long one with a quick end.

Troublemaker
11-10-2012, 11:54 AM
That was a very interesting season opener containing a couple of surprises. According to Coach K in the postgame presser, right now 4 players are going to start: Mason, Kelly, Curry, and Sulaimon. And the 5th starter will be between Thornton, Cook, and Jefferson, depending on matchups. Murphy didn't play.

First of all, it'll be interesting to compare where the rotation is in 10 games with where it is today. Things are probably fluid beyond the 3 seniors. The return of Marshall and where he fits in will add another interesting element. (Just because Marshall was top-6 pre-injury doesn't mean he will be able to regain that status after his lost time/conditioning, which is a shame).

Sulaimon already being so prominent in the rotation is great news and surprising to me. He's very talented and if he's enough beyond typical freshman struggles that he can be counted on as a starter, then Duke's ceiling get higher. His length and athleticism are perfect for this team and I'd much rather have him out there for 25-30 min/gm than 10-15 min/gm.

Murphy not playing at all is the big surprise. We need a SF role player who can defend and rebound from that position, but if that guy primarily turns out to be Amile instead of Alex, does it really matter? Let's see how things shake out against Kentucky. If matchups are dictating playing time, then Amile & Alex should combine for 30+ minutes in that game.

Thornton's going to get big minutes this season even if doesn't always start. Coach K said he played great, Mason (the captain) said he played great. If you're not seeing it, maybe you have to change, not the coach and team.

JNort
11-10-2012, 11:57 AM
K's quote after the game was that we "didn't get to where Alex would play" - which doesn't sound like it was a disciplinary thing.
He comes back this year, starts both exhibitions, and then.. doesn't play at all? I could see him dropping behind Rasheed and/or Amile based on performance in the exhibitions, but he's behind Hairston too?

Well based on the exhibitions only I would start Alex over Amile. I think most wouldsay start Amile but ALex played the better defense, ran better, rebounded well, and showed a little more hustle. I think that is what we need more from the SF position RIGHT NOW.

JNort
11-10-2012, 11:58 AM
I doubt we will sniff a national championship or final four with a three guard lineup dependent on shooting threes and with TT getting 30 mpg this year. It seems strange when coach said his starting point guard is Quin Cook then QC starts three exhibitions (including blue/white), outplays TT by far in all three and then comes off the bench and plays less minutes in first real game. Also seems strange that coach K said there were times last year when he wanted to end the redshirt of Alex Murphy becasue the team needed him, AM starts all three exhibitions, is the best defensive and transition player on team in those exhibitions and then doesn't play at all in first real game. It's mostly frustrating because I think we have top 3-5 talent in a nationally down year this year if we go with the most talented rotation. My opinion is that the most talented rotation would include Quin Cook, Rasheed Sulaimon, Alex Murphy or Amile Jefferson, Ryan Kelly, and Mason Plumlee with first options off bench of Seth Curry and Alex Murphy or Amile Jefferson. I think Marshall may fit as eighth man but can't say with confidence because I haven't seen enough of him. I think TT and Josh Hairston should get spot minutes for things like fouls, energy/spark off bench, send an occassional message to main guys who aren't focussed or playing hard enough. They shouldn't get over about 5 minutes per game. That is based solely on talent and athleticism not on hussle. A good coach can get guys to hussle, focus, and learn the system but it is hard to make TT and JH any more talented or athletic. TT gets a lot of praise for playing hard and that's fine but Lehigh had 5 guys playing very hard to beat us last year. It would be nice to have five guys playing hard for us with more talent, athleticism, and size to tip the scales in our favor. Otherwise it's a crap shoot. TT gets a lot of praise for makeing smart plays and that's fine but it seems he gets a pass for the not so smart things he does like 3 assists to 4 turnovers. That's not good for your starting point guard or whatever he was supposed to be playing last night. Offense is stagnant when he runs it and oftern looks like five guys playing keep away from five other guys because of our lack of playmakers on the floor. Offense is much more efficient and a lot quicker with QC. He makes some mistakes but he is only a sophomore and he need playing time to get better. He is clearly the more talented player. Alex Murphy is clearly more talented that Josh Hairston. Does AM need to improve? Yes, but it is hard to improve from the bench. You can't get it all in practice. One other thing, AM should not be compared to Kyle Singler. They look a little bit alike and are about the same size but that's where the similarties end. It's common for white players to be compared to other white players and black players to black players but Alex Murphy is much more like Dante Jones, or Antonio Lang or even a less talented and less athletic Grant Hill. He is a slasher. He plays explosively in transition. He is the best defensive player we have right now and one of the best we've had in several years. Don't expect him to score a ton of points, or hit a lot of threes if he ever plays. If this is what you're expecting you will be dissapointed. He will however make our team a lof better. Watch him closely on defense because this is where he is a nightmare for opposing teams. I just hope coach K hasn't started another personal war like he did with a talented player named Mike Gbinjie last year that resulted in transfer to what will be a conference rival. PLAY THE MORE TALENTED PLAYERS AND WE COULD HAVE A GREAT YEAR. Don't and it will be a long one with a quick end.

While he looked like the better pg he deff turned the ball over waaaayyy to much

mgm1222
11-10-2012, 01:01 PM
I agree with you JNort that Quinn turned it over too much in the exhibitions but like I said he's a sophomore point gaurd. He needs playing time and confidence from the coaching staff to get better. Remember that in the blue/white game QC's team in the first game (group I would probably start although could make case for Seth Curry and Amile Jefferson) dominated. He and Ryan Kelly changed teams and then won the second game. He went against TT in both games. Anyway, I think we agree he is the more talented point gaurd. My argument is just that he needs playing time and he needs the coaches to have confidence in him. I played many sports in high school and college football and can say nothing bothers a player more or hurts a player's confidence more that sitting behind a player you know you are better than. I remember a lot of people saying the same thing about Bobby Hurley turning it over way too much in his freshman year but I don't remember any less talented players playing over him. Bobby Hurley got better and we won champoinship with him in his next two years. It insn't a question of whether or not QC is a great player right now. The issue is that he is more talented and therefore allows a higher potential ceiling for our team.

magjayran
11-10-2012, 01:52 PM
Well based on the exhibitions only I would start Alex over Amile. I think most wouldsay start Amile but ALex played the better defense, ran better, rebounded well, and showed a little more hustle. I think that is what we need more from the SF position RIGHT NOW.

You are definitely entitled to your opinion and I don't want to sound like I'm criticizing Alex's hustle. But uh.....he wasn't hustling more than Amile. Anyway, I'd love to see both of them earn minutes and play well.

OldSchool
11-10-2012, 02:13 PM
I can only hope this was "sending a message" of some sort to Cook, and not a tacit endorsement of Duke's reliance on Thornton, though I fear it was the latter. Cook seems better in every aspect, including defense, and with experience looks like he could be special. Obviously love Thornton's effort and I would imagine he put up a lot of jump shots this summer, but if they deign Cook not to be ready to start at PG, I see no reason to expect much better results in this year's postseason from last.

I agree that Quinn seems better in every aspect, but I think the problem the coaches are having is his decision-making.

At one point the camera caught Nate and Seth on the bench pointing out to Quinn that he should have hit Seth with a pass instead of forcing a lob to Mason over two defenders. Seth was not just open, he was wide wide open at his favorite shooting spot on the wing at the 3 point line.

Maybe Quinn said he didn't see him, but we know Quinn has good court vision - he couldn't have not seen Seth; he just decided to make the less optimal play.

Because of his abilities Quinn gives us the best chance of being a special team, but we are all hostage to Quinn's brain.

tele
11-10-2012, 02:16 PM
I agree with you JNort that Quinn turned it over too much in the exhibitions but like I said he's a sophomore point gaurd. He needs playing time and confidence from the coaching staff to get better. Remember that in the blue/white game QC's team in the first game (group I would probably start although could make case for Seth Curry and Amile Jefferson) dominated. He and Ryan Kelly changed teams and then won the second game. He went against TT in both games. Anyway, I think we agree he is the more talented point gaurd. My argument is just that he needs playing time and he needs the coaches to have confidence in him. I played many sports in high school and college football and can say nothing bothers a player more or hurts a player's confidence more that sitting behind a player you know you are better than. I remember a lot of people saying the same thing about Bobby Hurley turning it over way too much in his freshman year but I don't remember any less talented players playing over him. Bobby Hurley got better and we won champoinship with him in his next two years. It insn't a question of whether or not QC is a great player right now. The issue is that he is more talented and therefore allows a higher potential ceiling for our team.

It is interesting you allow that Cook needs to play more to get better, but you don't allow this for other players like Tyler. I think Cook has improved some, he did get a 5 second call on the opposing point guard, which I think is the first time he ever did this in a game. But beyond that 5 seconds of good defense, he still loses his man at times and gets caught out of position at other times. Tyler is a better defender which is a talent too.

I think Coach K is protecting Cook and trying to keep him from losing his confidence by having him come off the bench. The Coaches for the teams Duke will be playing in the next 4 or 5 games are all very capable of deconstructing a young player like Cook's game. Going 3 guard with Curry and Tyler keeps the focus from being just on Cook running the point and makes it harder to scout and attack Dukes point guard play. This is to Cook's benefit, it won't help his development if Duke loses a few games and Cook is exposed as a inexperienced point guard will it? If he keeps improving and learns the position more Cook's day will come too. I think the surprise is how well Rasheed has played so far. I didn't expect him to play so much so soon in the season, but that may be in part because of the concern about the talent level and health of the other guards.
I still think Murph will play a lot for this team, with a two guard lineup. And it was Coach K who compared him to Singler, I think that is ok and normal for a coach to do, just as it is to bench a guy for whatever reason. Murphy will be back and he may even get compared to some other former Duke players, who knows.

CrazyNotCrazie
11-10-2012, 02:43 PM
I am completely baffled about Murphy not playing at all. From what I have heard, the entire team is usually made available to the press after games. Didn't at least one reporter think to go over to Alex and ask why he didn't play? I'm sure Coach K gave him some canned answer, but it was still worth asking, or else asking one of the other guys. I understand Coach K's desire to keep team issues internal, but I find his quote on the topic a bit smug. I know, I know, 4 championships, Olympic medals, blah, blah, blah, but by not addressing the question more directly, he is making it a bigger issue than it likely is.

tele
11-10-2012, 03:13 PM
Krzyzewski unequivocally named Cook the starter, what, a week ago? So it's understandable to be a little surprised when he doesn't actually start the first game of the season. And given that small forward was a major weakness last season, Duke didn't play anyone resembling one last night and Murphy has a pedigree and the supposed advantage of an entire season to learn Duke's system, that's a surprise too.

I ain't mad at Thornton playing a decent amount and jacking up some threes in a game against this level of opposition. But I do believe starting him last year dramatically lowered the team's ceiling. I can only hope this was "sending a message" of some sort to Cook, and not a tacit endorsement of Duke's reliance on Thornton, though I fear it was the latter. Cook seems better in every aspect, including defense, and with experience looks like he could be special. Obviously love Thornton's effort and I would imagine he put up a lot of jump shots this summer, but if they deign Cook not to be ready to start at PG, I see no reason to expect much better results in this year's postseason from last.

With Murphy -- and I hate to bring this up -- there's at least the possibility that he's simply not as good as advance billing. I didn't see him play in high school, but a friend in New England went to see him and came away markedly unimpressed. Plus, I mean, his brother isn't exactly a transcendent player. (I realize they're not the same guy, just saying.) Because honestly, I'm having trouble figuring out why he's not playing. The explanation that it was never the right time in the game is weird. He's got the size and appears to have the skill, and the staff spent a lot of time comparing him to Kyle Singler. I'm not giving up on him, but it looks very shaky if he was a mystery DNP in the first game against non-elite competition.

Don't get me wrong, Duke has a lot of things going for it. Curry was a positive; having had chronic shin soreness, it doesn't really hurt while you're running on it, though I'd imagine he doesn't feel great this morning. The more he plays, the better -- mine would ache after 10 minutes of inactivity. The freshmen look like players, and it'll be a lot of fun watching Mason. But long term, I can't imagine this team making it much farther than last year's did, if at all, with still no small forward and legitimate starting point guard, if that's really what transpires.

Cook may have a higher ceiling, but that doesn't mean he is playing a high level yet. He doesn't look like he's played point guard much to me. Maybe in open court up and down AAU type games he's had the ball in his hands, but that is different than playing point guard in a half court possession by possession game, like the style of game played in the NCAA tourney. Tyler is more reliable at this point and while he may not do anything spectacular you know what you will get from him. When Cook has the ball stripped from behind or hits the rim with an alley oop pass it just makes you wonder if he lacks court awareness or is nervous or just hasn't played the position much if at all. People often point to how great Kyrie was playing the point guard positon too, but he really hadn't played point until he got to Duke, and said he was still trying to learn the position just before he got injured. Now the cavaliers are thinking of moving him to scoring guard. Being a talented, by somewhat undersized scoring guard, doesn't make you a great point guard. Cook may be a more natural scoring guard who is still learning to play the point. Nolan Smith had to struggle with this too. I hope Cook continues to improve, but his talent and high ceiling may be as a small scoring guard rather than as a point guard, Murphy getting benched does help the team in one way, it keeps all the Cook fans from complaining about Cook losing his starting spot so much, or maybe just a little bit, which is good.

mr. synellinden
11-10-2012, 03:42 PM
I am completely baffled about Murphy not playing at all. From what I have heard, the entire team is usually made available to the press after games. Didn't at least one reporter think to go over to Alex and ask why he didn't play? I'm sure Coach K gave him some canned answer, but it was still worth asking, or else asking one of the other guys. I understand Coach K's desire to keep team issues internal, but I find his quote on the topic a bit smug. I know, I know, 4 championships, Olympic medals, blah, blah, blah, but by not addressing the question more directly, he is making it a bigger issue than it likely is.

Is it possible Murphy broke a team rule, or missed a class or got caught doing something he shouldn't have? Is it possible he hasn't been working as hard as he needs to in practice and Coach K decided he needed to send a strong message to make sure bad habits don't become the norm? Is it possible that he is one of the five best players on the team and will end up starting every game for the rest of the season, but the benching last night was necessary in the coaches' minds? Maybe Coach K appeared smug but didn't want to say why Murphy didn't play because that would be more harmful to him, his reputation and the team.

Look, it's okay to speculate why but there obviously was a reason Murphy got benched. He and the coaches and maybe the other players know it. We may find out tomorrow or on Tuesday, but I think we have to at least trust Coach K in one area above all others - and that is player psychology and team chemistry. Last year's team appeared to be lacking something in that area and maybe this was done to make sure it didn't happen again.

Along the same lines, Coach K also should be trusted to know who the best five players are. We see only a bit of the iceberg in terms of players' talents, emotions, etc. The coaches see them every day through hours of practices and interactions. I think they know best how to set the lineup. Cook may have a better "ceiling" than Tyler, but maybe Tyler is just playing better than him right now. Can you imagine this conversation?

TT: Coach, why are you starting Quinn over me? I mean, I've been working as hard as I can, and everyone can see that I'm playing better than him right now. Our team is better right now with me on the floor. You always say that playing time is promised to nobody - it has to be earned, and I've earned the starting spot.

Coach K: Well Tyler, you're right about all those things. You have been playing better and harder than Quinn in practices. And from what I've seen, our team is playing better right now when you're on the floor. But I think Quinn has a higher ceiling than you, and if I don't start him, he may never reach it. And if he doesn't I don't think we can win the national championship. So I'm going to play him ahead of you with the hopes that he'll reach his ceiling.

TT: What about my ceiling? Don't I deserve a chance to get better through more playing time? Maybe if I get a lot more playing time, I'll continue to get better and I can lead us to a national championship.

Coach K: Tyler, I think you're a very good player but I don't think we can win a national championship with you as our point guard no matter how much better you get.

Starter
11-10-2012, 05:31 PM
Cook may have a higher ceiling, but that doesn't mean he is playing a high level yet. He doesn't look like he's played point guard much to me. Maybe in open court up and down AAU type games he's had the ball in his hands, but that is different than playing point guard in a half court possession by possession game, like the style of game played in the NCAA tourney. Tyler is more reliable at this point and while he may not do anything spectacular you know what you will get from him. When Cook has the ball stripped from behind or hits the rim with an alley oop pass it just makes you wonder if he lacks court awareness or is nervous or just hasn't played the position much if at all. People often point to how great Kyrie was playing the point guard positon too, but he really hadn't played point until he got to Duke, and said he was still trying to learn the position just before he got injured. Now the cavaliers are thinking of moving him to scoring guard. Being a talented, by somewhat undersized scoring guard, doesn't make you a great point guard. Cook may be a more natural scoring guard who is still learning to play the point. Nolan Smith had to struggle with this too. I hope Cook continues to improve, but his talent and high ceiling may be as a small scoring guard rather than as a point guard, Murphy getting benched does help the team in one way, it keeps all the Cook fans from complaining about Cook losing his starting spot so much, or maybe just a little bit, which is good.

I'm not sure about a few of these assertions. Cook was regarded as a pure point guard coming out of high school. He averaged like 11 assists his senior year at Oak Hill and over seven assists for Team USA. Conversely, Smith was a shooting guard for Oak Hill, which made sense since he shared a backcourt with Ty Lawson.

I also went to a lot of St. Pat's games when Kyrie was there. Coach Boyle's kid started at point guard, but that was a nominal title at best, he mostly played off the ball. Kyrie brought the ball up the court the majority of the time. If Boyle did, it was to give Kyrie a break in that regard before handing it to Kyrie when he got past halfcourt. By the way, if the Cavs are thinking of moving Kyrie off the ball, I missed that. He's one of the best point guards in the NBA and Dion Waiters is doing just fine at shooting guard.

A couple people on this thread didn't seem crazy about this notion, but I really do feel like Cook needs some time to sink or swim, get used to game action with his teammates. I want him to own the role, to grow into it and carve out his identity as the present and near-future of the position. In terms of equal opportunity, Thornton has received more than enough playing time to make him a viable player in Duke's system; he doubled Cook's minutes last year. (Cook still outscored him and basically matched him in assists.) Obviously, Krzyzewski and the coaching staff know far better than I do exactly what they have in either player. Just making some observations based on the talents and pedigrees I've observed in each player.

Starter
11-10-2012, 05:44 PM
Along the same lines, Coach K also should be trusted to know who the best five players are. We see only a bit of the iceberg in terms of players' talents, emotions, etc. The coaches see them every day through hours of practices and interactions. I think they know best how to set the lineup. Cook may have a better "ceiling" than Tyler, but maybe Tyler is just playing better than him right now. Can you imagine this conversation?

TT: Coach, why are you starting Quinn over me? I mean, I've been working as hard as I can, and everyone can see that I'm playing better than him right now. Our team is better right now with me on the floor. You always say that playing time is promised to nobody - it has to be earned, and I've earned the starting spot.

Coach K: Well Tyler, you're right about all those things. You have been playing better and harder than Quinn in practices. And from what I've seen, our team is playing better right now when you're on the floor. But I think Quinn has a higher ceiling than you, and if I don't start him, he may never reach it. And if he doesn't I don't think we can win the national championship. So I'm going to play him ahead of you with the hopes that he'll reach his ceiling.

TT: What about my ceiling? Don't I deserve a chance to get better through more playing time? Maybe if I get a lot more playing time, I'll continue to get better and I can lead us to a national championship.

Coach K: Tyler, I think you're a very good player but I don't think we can win a national championship with you as our point guard no matter how much better you get.

I do like Thornton for his guts and hustle, but I think I'd actually like him a whole lot more if he initiated this conversation, just for the sheer chutzpah it would require. Mock Krzyzewski's arguments here are pretty sound, though. And besides, I'm not sure we would be able to trust Thornton not to have a level of bias while assessing the situation.

If this board ever branches full-fledged into fan fiction, by the way, sign me up. I feel like the real Chris Burgess story has yet to be told!

Listen to Quants
11-10-2012, 06:27 PM
.... (snip)

Along the same lines, Coach K also should be trusted to know who the best five players are. We see only a bit of the iceberg in terms of players' talents, emotions, etc. The coaches see them every day through hours of practices and interactions. I think they know best how to set the lineup. Cook may have a better "ceiling" than Tyler, but maybe Tyler is just playing better than him right now. Can you imagine this conversation?

TT: Coach, why are you starting Quinn over me? I mean, I've been working as hard as I can, and everyone can see that I'm playing better than him right now. Our team is better right now with me on the floor. You always say that playing time is promised to nobody - it has to be earned, and I've earned the starting spot.

Coach K: Well Tyler, you're right about all those things. You have been playing better and harder than Quinn in practices. And from what I've seen, our team is playing better right now when you're on the floor. But I think Quinn has a higher ceiling than you, and if I don't start him, he may never reach it. And if he doesn't I don't think we can win the national championship. So I'm going to play him ahead of you with the hopes that he'll reach his ceiling.

TT: What about my ceiling? Don't I deserve a chance to get better through more playing time? Maybe if I get a lot more playing time, I'll continue to get better and I can lead us to a national championship.

Coach K: Tyler, I think you're a very good player but I don't think we can win a national championship with you as our point guard no matter how much better you get.

Fine way to make a number of good points. One I like is, "how do we *know* what TT ceiling is, anyway?" Folks who know a lot more BBall than I, including SCMatt33 and loren33, say TT is not a good 3 point shooter. He wasn't last year, as evidenced by the 35% on usually very open 3s. BUT why can't he have shot 500+ or 1000+ 3s a week over the last 7 months? If he has done that for the first time this 'summer', it might have major effects on his accuracy. Do we know he isn't more accurate than last year? (Not rhetorical ?s, I am actually asking)

Troublemaker
11-10-2012, 08:00 PM
One thing about the Cook vs Thornton debate is that it might eventually morph into a 3-way of Sulaimon vs Cook vs Thornton.

From the postgame presser, it sounds like (1) Curry and Sulaimon are ahead of the other two in the rotation (at least for now) and that (2) Amile and Murphy will get more minutes at the 3 against bigger teams (although I assume, for now, that we're going to see at least 10-15 min of the 3-guard lineup in most games)

If those two things are true, then in big lineups, both Cook and Thornton are on the bench, right? Wouldn't that be something? So many words wasted on that debate and both end up being (key) backups.

Bay Area Duke Fan
11-10-2012, 08:06 PM
I agree with you JNort that Quinn turned it over too much in the exhibitions but like I said he's a sophomore point gaurd. He needs playing time and confidence from the coaching staff to get better. Remember that in the blue/white game QC's team in the first game (group I would probably start although could make case for Seth Curry and Amile Jefferson) dominated. He and Ryan Kelly changed teams and then won the second game. He went against TT in both games. Anyway, I think we agree he is the more talented point gaurd. My argument is just that he needs playing time and he needs the coaches to have confidence in him. I played many sports in high school and college football and can say nothing bothers a player more or hurts a player's confidence more that sitting behind a player you know you are better than. I remember a lot of people saying the same thing about Bobby Hurley turning it over way too much in his freshman year but I don't remember any less talented players playing over him. Bobby Hurley got better and we won champoinship with him in his next two years. It insn't a question of whether or not QC is a great player right now. The issue is that he is more talented and therefore allows a higher potential ceiling for our team.

Comparing Quinn Cook to Bobby Hurley is almost like comparing Dan Quayle to Jack Kennedy.

Kedsy
11-10-2012, 08:37 PM
A couple people on this thread didn't seem crazy about this notion, but I really do feel like Cook needs some time to sink or swim, get used to game action with his teammates. I want him to own the role, to grow into it and carve out his identity as the present and near-future of the position. In terms of equal opportunity, Thornton has received more than enough playing time to make him a viable player in Duke's system; he doubled Cook's minutes last year. (Cook still outscored him and basically matched him in assists.) Obviously, Krzyzewski and the coaching staff know far better than I do exactly what they have in either player. Just making some observations based on the talents and pedigrees I've observed in each player.

I wasn't crazy about this notion last season, but this season I agree with it. Tyler has many skills, but the offense almost always appears stagnant when he's running it. Quinn appears to be a better point guard option. I'd give Quinn the reins and only take them back if he proves inadequate.


With Murphy -- and I hate to bring this up -- there's at least the possibility that he's simply not as good as advance billing. I didn't see him play in high school, but a friend in New England went to see him and came away markedly unimpressed. Plus, I mean, his brother isn't exactly a transcendent player. (I realize they're not the same guy, just saying.) Because honestly, I'm having trouble figuring out why he's not playing. The explanation that it was never the right time in the game is weird. He's got the size and appears to have the skill, and the staff spent a lot of time comparing him to Kyle Singler. I'm not giving up on him, but it looks very shaky if he was a mystery DNP in the first game against non-elite competition.

I would be shocked to learn Alex's DNP was anything but a "lesson," be it disciplinary or a calling out for lack of hustle in practice or something similar. In such a case, the level of the competition would be irrelevant. Hopefully he'll play against Kentucky.

Newton_14
11-10-2012, 08:39 PM
First, Kudos to Native and the undergrads, as the student section was packed with real students last night. Much better than the last exhibition game. Kudos to the grad students as well. Section with the band was packed full, and the other end was 90% full. Good showing and great energy. Andre sat right behind the bench again, and Lefty Driesell was a honorary guest and sat in the first row of court-side seats right in front of the band. I actually got to speak to him at Will Call when he was checking on his tickets. He was very cordial.

Concerning the game, I will preface this with the disclosure that I was hoping for Quinn to be our starting PG this year, with Alex at the 3, and that we would only see the 3 guard look as a change of pace and to close out games where we were milking a lead. That said, here are the cold hard facts as of right now. The best 3 Duke basketball players on the floor last night were Mason Plumlee, Seth Curry, and Tyler Thornton. The 4 TO's aside, Tyler had one of the better games of his career. The guy is a great defender in Duke's scheme, and it's not just help defense either. Seth is quite frankly the best guard on this team and the one guard who can score in bunches. Neither of Tyler and Seth are going to be "spot minute" players, nor should they. I want Quinn to play better and take the reins at the point, but he is not there yet and it is plain as day. There is a long season ahead however, for Quinn to work and get better. No Duke rotation has ever been set after the first game. The first thing that Quinn needs to change is his attitude. Pouting on the bench is not going to help anything and he did plenty of that last night. On the play late in the game where Thornton threw the lob to Mason for the dunk, every kid including Murphy, rose up off the bench in elation, except Quinn. He did clap feebly after a delay. He has to get his head right and keep working. Plenty of time left to do that.

I don't know what Murphy did but the same goes for him. The team needs him on the floor playing well.

As for the team, I have the same thoughts defensively as last game. This team is much better on defense than last year. Great ball pressure, great pressure on the wings, and lots of disruption. The bigs are doing a good job challenging and blocking shots as well. Rasheed has helped that cause as he is a good defender who is sound, and seems to have picked up the Duke defensive scheme quickly. Tyler, Quinn, and Seth are all defending better than last season, as is Josh. Amile is showing great promise on defense as well. Regarding Josh, when he took the 3 last night, there was no wailing or gnashing of teeth by the coaching staff that I could see, and the shot was close to going in. Seemed like they were fine with him taking that shot, and he played on the wing offensively during that entire stretch as he was on the floor with Amile and Mason.

Offensively, Georgia St mixed 2 to 3 different zones throughout the night, making it difficult, but overall I liked what I saw. As someone else mentioned, this team passes the ball much better than last years team. It is really refreshing to not see guards dribbling for 25 seconds around the perimeter and begging for screens. Nice to not see all those high ball screens either. Lots of ball movement, and guys making the extra pass. Both Rasheed and Amile are showing themselves as good passers with high basketball IQ.

They got very sloppy at points, especially the last 6 minutes or so, and are definitely a work in progress on the offensive side of the ball. Passing into the post needs a lot of improvement as well. Another reason Quinn needs to get on track.

I will be disappointed if our main rotation ends up being 3 guards for the bulk of games, even with Rasheed being an upgrade on defense at the 3 over last year. If Murphy gets it together then he will help force K's hand. If not, then it will likely be the norm. Amile will get minutes there, but he is no threat at all to make perimeter shots, and will likely invert with Kelly on offense.

Lastly, one thing this team really needs is for Ryan Kelly to step up and be the 3rd scorer behind Mason and Seth. Ryan needs to get much more aggressive hunting his shot than he is at the moment. He can be much more than just a spot up shooter. Same thing on the boards as well. He needs to aggressively pound the boards with Mason.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-10-2012, 09:55 PM
There's an old expression in football that goes a little like this: "When you have 2 quarterbacks to play, you really have none."

Taking it to the court, let's look at some recent history:

2009/2010- Jon Scheyer, not a natural point, is the starting PG for the entire year in 2010, building upon his experience during the last 1/3 of the 2009 season as PG, and leads the Devils to the NC.

2011- Kyrie is the unquestioned starting PG with Nolan as SG in preseason. Duke looks like the best team in the country until Kyrie is injured after 8 games. Nolan takes over at the point and begins to find his groove, winning the ACC tournament in dominate fashion. Then, Kyrie comes back for the NCAA's, and Nolan and Kyrie have no chemistry together on-court. Spacing is off, passing isn't crisp and Duke nose-dives out of the tournament in the round of 16.

2011- UNC struggles thru the first 1/2 of the season, starting LDII but, knowing that KM was actually the better PG, the minutes are split between the 2. LDII is finally replaced by KM in January and UNC gets better and better, winning the regular season and making it to the Elite 8.

2012- Duke starts off with Curry at the point, then moves to Cook briefly, then TT, then... well we all know how last year finished. While the defense improved by the end of the year, Duke's offense continued to devolve w/o an on-the-court leader.

Translating it to now, I'm afraid that could be our problem this year if the coaching staff doesn't decide definitively on a starting PG before conference play begins. I look at the time between now and January as "Pre-season" - the period of adjustment while the team learns how to play with each other, builds chemistry, and builds confidence thru experience.

Let Quinn start and play the majority of the minutes if YOU(meaning coaches) believe he has the higher ceiling. If he makes mistakes now, so what? If Duke loses a few more games than normal in Nov/Dec, so be it. Hopefully Quinn will learn from them and he'll get better as the season progresses.

However, if YOU really believe TT it the better option, then stick with him the whole season. The one thing that can't happen is a constant tinkering and adjusting with the PG position throughout the year, instilling little confidence in either Cook or TT. Further, TT and Cook are 2 diametrically different players in regards to how they run an offense - Quinn being more of a "drive and dish" player while TT being more "side-to-side" with his passing(hence why the offense appears to stall while he's the PG). As a result, the surrounding players must play differently depending on who is running the point (i.e. Mason becoming more of a passer when TT is playing VS. becoming more of a finisher when Cook is in the game).

Answering the question of "Tyler vs. Quinn" may be difficult, but it MUST be answered clearly or this season will look much more like 2012 and much less like 2010.

CDu
11-10-2012, 10:18 PM
Let Quinn start and play the majority of the minutes if YOU(meaning coaches) believe he has the higher ceiling. If he makes mistakes now, so what? If Duke loses a few more games than normal in Nov/Dec, so be it. Hopefully Quinn will learn from them and he'll get better as the season progresses.

However, if YOU really believe TT it the better option, then stick with him the whole season. The one thing that can't happen is a constant tinkering and adjusting with the PG position throughout the year, instilling little confidence in either Cook or TT. Further, TT and Cook are 2 diametrically different players in regards to how they run an offense - Quinn being more of a "drive and dish" player while TT being more "side-to-side" with his passing(hence why the offense appears to stall while he's the PG). As a result, the surrounding players must play differently depending on who is running the point (i.e. Mason becoming more of a passer when TT is playing VS. becoming more of a finisher when Cook is in the game).

Answering the question of "Tyler vs. Quinn" may be difficult, but it MUST be answered clearly or this season will look much more like 2012 and much less like 2010.

The Cook vs Thornton at PG discussion is, in my opinion, misplaced. Thornton was not our PG for most of the game last night. Curry started the game at PG. Cook came in and played PG for much of the middle of the game. Thornton didn't take a turn at PG until late in the game.

Thornton has shown, repeatedly, that he's pretty vanilla as a PG. He can't create offense, struggles to beat his man off the dribble, and he isn't a good passer. His best play has actually been off the ball, where he can occasionally hit open 3s when others draw attention away from him. He came in as an unheralded PG recruit, but he's done little in his 2+ years to suggest that he's actually a division 1 caliber PG. When he's hitting 3s, he has value on the wing. When he's not, you're basically trading offense for defense.

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why some people propose the argument Thornton's ceiling could be similar to Cook's. Thornton was an unheralded, underathletic recruit (outside the top-100). In two healthy years, he's done little to distinguish himself as anything more than a pesky but foul prone defender with good off-ball skills and an occasionally capable shooter when wide open. Cook, on the other hand, was a McDonald's All-American. He is a year younger, and spent last year recovering from injury. Cook is certainly quicker and more skilled with the ball. Now, he may never reach his ceiling, but folks who question why Thornton's ceiling isn't as high are simply wishing on a star. Thornton just doesn't have the athleticism or playmaking skill to compete with what Cook could become. That doesn't mean Cook will get there, of course. And right now, it's clear that Cook has a long way to go to get to his ceiling.

But really, the question right now is whether Thornton's defense and Curry's play at PG is better than Cook at PG and Curry/Sulaimon as the wings. Of course, that's assuming that the debate is between Cook and Thornton. Maybe Sulaimon and Jefferson (or Murphy) play so well that they force BOTH Cook and Thornton to the bench.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-10-2012, 10:51 PM
The Cook vs Thornton at PG discussion is, in my opinion, misplaced. Thornton was not our PG for most of the game last night. Curry started the game at PG. Cook came in and played PG for much of the middle of the game. Thornton didn't take a turn at PG until late in the game.

Thornton has shown, repeatedly, that he's pretty vanilla as a PG. He can't create offense, struggles to beat his man off the dribble, and he isn't a good passer. His best play has actually been off the ball, where he can occasionally hit open 3s when others draw attention away from him. He came in as an unheralded PG recruit, but he's done little in his 2+ years to suggest that he's actually a division 1 caliber PG. When he's hitting 3s, he has value on the wing. When he's not, you're basically trading offense for defense.

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why some people propose the argument Thornton's ceiling could be similar to Cook's. Thornton was an unheralded, underathletic recruit (outside the top-100). In two healthy years, he's done little to distinguish himself as anything more than a pesky but foul prone defender with good off-ball skills and an occasionally capable shooter when wide open. Cook, on the other hand, was a McDonald's All-American. He is a year younger, and spent last year recovering from injury. Cook is certainly quicker and more skilled with the ball. Now, he may never reach his ceiling, but folks who question why Thornton's ceiling isn't as high are simply wishing on a star. Thornton just doesn't have the athleticism or playmaking skill to compete with what Cook could become. That doesn't mean Cook will get there, of course. And right now, it's clear that Cook has a long way to go to get to his ceiling.

But really, the question right now is whether Thornton's defense and Curry's play at PG is better than Cook at PG and Curry/Sulaimon as the wings. Of course, that's assuming that the debate is between Cook and Thornton. Maybe Sulaimon and Jefferson (or Murphy) play so well that they force BOTH Cook and Thornton to the bench.


Agreed. In my eyes, it's clear that Cook is the better option than both Thornton and Curry at the point. But evidently to the Staff, it isn't so clear. So my thought is even if the answer is a difficult one, it must be answered. To me, go with Cook and suffer now, but know that by mid-January we'll be a better team for it. If you stay with TT/Curry, you may avoid a couple of losses but your ceiling as a team will be much lower as a result.

I feel perhaps K and Co. think they can have it both ways - massage Quinn into the lineup slowly and reduce TT/Curry's role as needed and presto! by mid-season everything's rosy, but I'm skeptical. I agree, too, that Sulaimon and Mr. Jefferson's play is dictating that they be given significant roles at this point, perhaps at TT/Curry's expense. So maybe he's trying to juggle the healthy, competitive ego's of 2 upperclassmen, too - who knows?

Duke has the pieces, IMO, for a final-4 run, but it's up to the coaches to put it all together.

CDu
11-10-2012, 11:02 PM
Agreed. In my eyes, it's clear that Cook is the better option than both Thornton and Curry at the point. But evidently to the Staff, it isn't so clear. So my thought is even if the answer is a difficult one, it must be answered. To me, go with Cook and suffer now, but know that by mid-January we'll be a better team for it. If you stay with TT/Curry, you may avoid a couple of losses but your ceiling as a team will be much lower as a result.

I feel perhaps K and Co. think they can have it both ways - massage Quinn into the lineup slowly and reduce TT/Curry's role as needed and presto! by mid-season everything's rosy, but I'm skeptical. I agree, too, that Sulaimon and Mr. Jefferson's play is dictating that they be given significant roles at this point, perhaps at TT/Curry's expense. So maybe he's trying to juggle the healthy, competitive ego's of 2 upperclassmen, too - who knows?

Duke has the pieces, IMO, for a final-4 run, but it's up to the coaches to put it all together.

Just to be clear, I don't think that Cook is a better option than Curry at PG right now. I think he has the potential to be much better than Curry at PG, but he's not there yet. And I wouldn't say that we know that we'll be better in January by suffering through Cook's growing pains now. Further, that's never been the way Coach K does things. He wants to win every game.

I do agree that our ceiling is lower with Curry at PG (Thornton simply isn't in the discussion at PG). But it isn't as simple saying "we'll take our lumps now but we'll definitely be better in January."

As to your last sentence, I disagree. It's up to the players to put it together. The coaches have never wavered in their approach. They are going to put the players who give us the best chance to win each game out on the floor. It is, and always has been, up to the players to prove to the coaches that they deserve to be out there.

I want very much for Cook (or Sulaimon) to earn the starting PG spot and to see rotation at the guard spot with Cook, Curry, and Sulaimon. And I also want Jefferson and Murphy to prove that they can hold down the SF spot. But I don't have any problem with the coaching staff's approach that you have to EARN your role in practice, and that nothing is given based on potential.

Kedsy
11-10-2012, 11:21 PM
There's an old expression in football that goes a little like this: "When you have 2 quarterbacks to play, you really have none."

Taking it to the court, let's look at some recent history:

2009/2010- Jon Scheyer, not a natural point, is the starting PG for the entire year in 2010, building upon his experience during the last 1/3 of the 2009 season as PG, and leads the Devils to the NC.

2011- Kyrie is the unquestioned starting PG with Nolan as SG in preseason. Duke looks like the best team in the country until Kyrie is injured after 8 games. Nolan takes over at the point and begins to find his groove, winning the ACC tournament in dominate fashion. Then, Kyrie comes back for the NCAA's, and Nolan and Kyrie have no chemistry together on-court. Spacing is off, passing isn't crisp and Duke nose-dives out of the tournament in the round of 16.

2011- UNC struggles thru the first 1/2 of the season, starting LDII but, knowing that KM was actually the better PG, the minutes are split between the 2. LDII is finally replaced by KM in January and UNC gets better and better, winning the regular season and making it to the Elite 8.

2012- Duke starts off with Curry at the point, then moves to Cook briefly, then TT, then... well we all know how last year finished. While the defense improved by the end of the year, Duke's offense continued to devolve w/o an on-the-court leader.

Translating it to now, I'm afraid that could be our problem this year if the coaching staff doesn't decide definitively on a starting PG before conference play begins. I look at the time between now and January as "Pre-season" - the period of adjustment while the team learns how to play with each other, builds chemistry, and builds confidence thru experience.

I don't buy this argument. In 2001, we had two point guards and did OK. We even changed our starting PG on March 4. In 2007, we had the same starting PG for all but one game after the end of November and lost in the NCAA first round.

You seem to be basing your theory on four data points, and I would argue at least two of your data points don't even really support your position. In 2012, by the time we started losing, Tyler was firmly entrenched as PG -- the post-season losses were primarily due to less-than-stellar defense and the absence of Ryan Kelly. 2011 UNC started winning not because the PG controversy was settled, but because Kendall Marshall was much better than Larry Drew.

I guess I agree that there's a benefit to having one guy be the floor general and everyone knowing who he is, and we ultimately could be in trouble if we don't have good point guard play generally. But I'll be very surprised if the simple lack of a definitive choice at PG is our "problem" this season.

Newton_14
11-10-2012, 11:21 PM
Agreed. In my eyes, it's clear that Cook is the better option than both Thornton and Curry at the point. But evidently to the Staff, it isn't so clear. So my thought is even if the answer is a difficult one, it must be answered. To me, go with Cook and suffer now, but know that by mid-January we'll be a better team for it. If you stay with TT/Curry, you may avoid a couple of losses but your ceiling as a team will be much lower as a result.

I feel perhaps K and Co. think they can have it both ways - massage Quinn into the lineup slowly and reduce TT/Curry's role as needed and presto! by mid-season everything's rosy, but I'm skeptical. I agree, too, that Sulaimon and Mr. Jefferson's play is dictating that they be given significant roles at this point, perhaps at TT/Curry's expense. So maybe he's trying to juggle the healthy, competitive ego's of 2 upperclassmen, too - who knows?

Duke has the pieces, IMO, for a final-4 run, but it's up to the coaches to put it all together.

Are you basing your thoughts I bold-ed on how the kids are playing now, or potential? I agree if Cook develops, he has a higher ceiling in terms of facilitating/running the offense, and also agree with your original post on how the two kids (Cook/Thornton) are so different that the team has to adjust based on who is in. As of right now though, I feel Thornton is playing basketball on the whole, at a higher level than Cook.

I don't agree that Curry's role will be reduced, no matter what happens with Quinn or Tyler. As long as Curry is able to play at a high level managing the pain from his injury, he is going to play a lot minutes, and will contend with Mason for leading scorer on the team. If the injury goes south and limits Seth, all bets are off, but the injury will be the only thing that keeps him from playing a lot and from having a big impact

I am interested to see if, during the December games in the lighter part of the schedule, K tinkers with trying Rasheed at the point. Would be a good sized team with Rasheed-PG, Seth-SG, Amile/Murph-SF, Ryan-PF, Mason-C.

I also want to see Marshall healthy to see who K uses to backup Mason. Right now, K is using Ryan as the backup 5 mostly, with Mason playing 35ish mpg. If Marshall can handle the job, K can dial back Mason's minutes to 30-32 per if he wants. Though it may be, that K is fine with Mason logging heavy minutes. It will be a big benefit if Marshall can be the guy, as it allows K to have a true center on the court at all times.

Troublemaker
11-10-2012, 11:23 PM
GaState - Plus/Minus Box:


+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Opponent | Player | Min:Sec | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| GaSt | Seth Curry | 30:33 | 68 | 32 | 36 | -17 | 53 |
| GaSt | Ryan Kelly | 33:15 | 63 | 43 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| GaSt | Mason Plumlee | 34:42 | 67 | 47 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| GaSt | Tyler Thornton | 29:13 | 53 | 36 | 17 | 2 | 15 |
| GaSt | Rasheed Sulaimon | 29:41 | 53 | 39 | 14 | 5 | 9 |
| GaSt | Quinn Cook | 21:35 | 33 | 34 | -1 | 20 | -21 |
| GaSt | Josh Hairston | 08:13 | 10 | 15 | -5 | 24 | -29 |
| GaSt | Amile Jefferson | 12:48 | 23 | 29 | -6 | 25 | -31 |
+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

Someone, please spot-check if you have time. I will try to do these as often as possible, but I suspect it'll come out to something like half the games I'll be able to do. If someone wants to share plus/minus duties, I'd be grateful and welcome the partnership.

Newton_14
11-10-2012, 11:28 PM
GaState - Plus/Minus Box:


+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Opponent | Player | Min:Sec | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| GaSt | Seth Curry | 30:33 | 68 | 32 | 36 | -17 | 53 |
| GaSt | Ryan Kelly | 33:15 | 63 | 43 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| GaSt | Mason Plumlee | 34:42 | 67 | 47 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| GaSt | Tyler Thornton | 29:13 | 53 | 36 | 17 | 2 | 15 |
| GaSt | Rasheed Sulaimon | 29:41 | 53 | 39 | 14 | 5 | 9 |
| GaSt | Quinn Cook | 21:35 | 33 | 34 | -1 | 20 | -21 |
| GaSt | Josh Hairston | 08:13 | 10 | 15 | -5 | 24 | -29 |
| GaSt | Amile Jefferson | 12:48 | 23 | 29 | -6 | 25 | -31 |
+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+

Someone, please spot-check if you have time. I will try to do these as often as possible, but I suspect it'll come out to something like half the games I'll be able to do. If someone wants to share plus/minus duties, I'd be grateful and welcome the partnership.

Hey thanks for doing this Trouble! PFRDuke may be willing to share as he has helped with these in the past. I enjoy seeing the data so hopefully +/- by committee can be a workable solution.

moonpie23
11-11-2012, 12:02 AM
I know, 4 championships, Olympic medals, blah, blah, blah,

wow....i've never seen anyone reduce "4 championships and Olympic medals" to "blah blah blah" before....that was quite entertaining...

what do you have for wooden and rupp?

greybeard
11-11-2012, 12:04 AM
There is only one tough ballplayer on this team, just as there was only one last year. That guy is Thorton. Thorton was on the court because GS's best player was the coach's son, all 6'4" of him. How much did he hurt Duke. By the way, this talk about point guard is a tad overdone. Who exactly is this point guard supposed to get the ball to and when? In the first half, Duke was tentative and unsure against Ga St.'s defense. That is not some etherial "point guard," but the team. Half the time Kelly seemed as if he crossed the floor only to ask one of his teammates to dance.

Thorton had the ball and nobody showed up to catch it, there was nowhere to go with it. That's what I saw in the first half. If Duke does not have a guy on the court who can handle people, be there to get long rebounds or have the guy on the other team who got it wish half the time that he hadn't, you'd see much more agression than you will this season. I cannot calculate what that means to Duke to have that kind of player on the court, but one has to assume that K does. Who's he playing?

Thorton is tough, cool headed, and a leader. He was voted the MVP of the DC area's vaunted Catholic League his senior year, even though Cook's superior Dematha team smoked Gonzaga in the League Finals and Cook put on an incredible shooting display (DeMatha was by far the more powerful team). So, it seems that whereever these two guys go the people who count gravitate towards Thorton as the guy who you want on the court. On the otherhand, I bet if you asked Ga St's leading scorer whom he would have seen in front of him most of the time it would have been anybody but Thorton.

As I said earlier, Mason seemed sluggish, Kelly unsure of what he wanted to do, Curry played a much smaller role than he would have had he not been hurt. Duke was going to have a fair amount of disconnect on offense. Thorton earned his keep on defense, loose balls, long and some not so long rebounds, and presents a dense body that nobody on the other side wants to encounter when the ball is up for grabs. Thorton gets a foul, the guy he fouls remembers it in his sleep later that night. Playing against a guy like that is a nightmare.

JNort
11-11-2012, 12:21 AM
Are you basing your thoughts I bold-ed on how the kids are playing now, or potential? I agree if Cook develops, he has a higher ceiling in terms of facilitating/running the offense, and also agree with your original post on how the two kids (Cook/Thornton) are so different that the team has to adjust based on who is in. As of right now though, I feel Thornton is playing basketball on the whole, at a higher level than Cook.

I just don't see how you can come to those conclusions. With Cook on the floor we run faster, get the ball inside better, are better on the fast break and not to mention Cook showed last game to be the better on ball defender. Thornton has tenacity and heart but that seems to be about it last night, unless his 3 keeps falling like that...

Kfanarmy
11-11-2012, 12:58 AM
Comparing Quinn Cook to Bobby Hurley is almost like comparing Dan Quayle to Jack Kennedy. How so?

Dukeface88
11-11-2012, 01:09 AM
Amille: Seemed effective in his minutes. Didn't really notice him much, but that's not a bad thing for a freshman.
Josh: Not his best game. Probably should not be attempting long range shots.
Mason: Led us in points, boards, FGs, FGAs and blocks. Anyone who had doubts about Mason being a focal point this season should be able to put them to rest.
Quinn: Seems to have improved on defense, but looks really rusty on offense. Might have been thrown off by the number of defensive looks.
Rasheed: Very impressive debut, IMO. Couple of buckets, a few boards, some assists (led the team), only one TO, good D. Just what we need from him this season.
Ryan: Did okay, but I'm expecting better than okay from him. His passing was as effective as always, but we need him to contribute more than 2-6 shooting and three boards.
Seth: Pretty nice shooting night, but I expect better than a 1-3 A:TO from a senior guard.
TT: He may not be able to make his own shot, but just hitting open shots reliably will really help the team. Personally, I think one of the keys to 2010 was Lance developing a reliable jumper; it meant that even if he wasn't much of an offensive threat, he couldn't just be left open. I think the same can be true of Tyler. Unusually sloppy ballhandling though - he didn't have a single game with 4 TOs last year.
Team D: Perimeter D actually looked decent until we got bored towards the end.

Re the point guard situation: Honestly, Quinn is going to need to make better decisions on offense before he can take the starting job. I think his defense last night was good enough that he wasn't a liability, but his floor generalship didn't look as good as it did last year. I'm hoping he just wasn't up to speed on all the zones Ga. State was throwing at us.

Troublemaker
11-11-2012, 01:36 AM
How so?

Cook and Hurley are not on the same planet talent-wise. Hurley was one of the quickest point guards in NCAA history and had amazing pass skills, leadership, and vision. He was drafted in the top 10 of the NBA draft and he famously led a bunch of college all-stars to a victory over the Dream Team because the pros could not guard him. It's a shame that his career was ended by vehicular accident; he was going to be a good player, perhaps an All-Star.

That's no knock on Quinn. Bobby was just one of the best PGs to ever play in college and owns the all-time record for assists.

Troublemaker
11-11-2012, 01:39 AM
Hey thanks for doing this Trouble! PFRDuke may be willing to share as he has helped with these in the past. I enjoy seeing the data so hopefully +/- by committee can be a workable solution.

Sweet. Thanks, Newton. Hopefully PFR can do it (I know he's very busy) and we can start the P/M by committee. Taking more volunteers as well...

Troublemaker
11-11-2012, 01:43 AM
GaState - Plus/Minus Box:


+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Opponent | Player | Min:Sec | Duke | Opp | +/- | Off | Net |
+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+
| GaSt | Seth Curry | 30:33 | 68 | 32 | 36 | -17 | 53 |
| GaSt | Ryan Kelly | 33:15 | 63 | 43 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| GaSt | Mason Plumlee | 34:42 | 67 | 47 | 20 | -1 | 21 |
| GaSt | Tyler Thornton | 29:13 | 53 | 36 | 17 | 2 | 15 |
| GaSt | Rasheed Sulaimon | 29:41 | 53 | 39 | 14 | 5 | 9 |
| GaSt | Quinn Cook | 21:35 | 33 | 34 | -1 | 20 | -21 |
| GaSt | Josh Hairston | 08:13 | 10 | 15 | -5 | 24 | -29 |
| GaSt | Amile Jefferson | 12:48 | 23 | 29 | -6 | 25 | -31 |
+----------+------------------+---------+------+------+------+------+------+


So, it looks like, at least for the first game, Coach K played the exact proper lineup. Seth, Ryan, Mason, Tyler, and Rasheed received the most minutes and were all +14 or more in plus/minus. Tyler was +17 while Quinn was -1 despite playing 21 minutes. If Quinn wants to win the starting job, he needs to take his 20-25 minutes a game and be a true point guard that makes players around him better and win the plus/minus battle for Duke. Do that often enough, and he'll become a strater.

tommy
11-11-2012, 02:05 AM
At some point you have to live or die with the players you have. I don't like seeing three guys playing point when clearly 2 of those guys are not the long term answer(TT and SC). Give Cook the ball for the whole game and let him play until he needs to ask out. Teach/criticize/praise and repeat for 10-15 games. The mental game K seems to play with these guys does not seem prudent(your starting, your sitting,we believe, we don't). Pick a point guard and play him.

I might have phrased it differently, but I completely agree with your point. We tried Curry at the point last year, hoping to pair him with Rivers, and the staff abandoned the project when it was obviously not a fit. Thornton, as many others have observed, simply does not have the skills or athleticism to be effective at the offensive end. While if Cook really doesn't work out, it might be worth trying Rasheed at the point, that's down the road, and a point that I hope we never reach. Right now, Cook has got to be the guy. He's the guy who can bring this team to a different level, as he can feed the post properly, drive, dish, shoot, and run the break. But he's not perfect. He's a sophomore in college, with basically a third of one college season under his belt. He can't be judged on one game like last night's. You're right, he should be given a whole mess of games to get comfortable as the starting point guard, make some mistakes, learn from them, and improve. If that doesn't happen, well, then this isn't going to be a special year in all likelihood, because the other options (with the possible exception of Rasheed) are simply too limited, and so would be the team.

Des Esseintes
11-11-2012, 02:45 AM
I might have phrased it differently, but I completely agree with your point. We tried Curry at the point last year, hoping to pair him with Rivers, and the staff abandoned the project when it was obviously not a fit. Thornton, as many others have observed, simply does not have the skills or athleticism to be effective at the offensive end. While if Cook really doesn't work out, it might be worth trying Rasheed at the point, that's down the road, and a point that I hope we never reach. Right now, Cook has got to be the guy. He's the guy who can bring this team to a different level, as he can feed the post properly, drive, dish, shoot, and run the break. But he's not perfect. He's a sophomore in college, with basically a third of one college season under his belt. He can't be judged on one game like last night's. You're right, he should be given a whole mess of games to get comfortable as the starting point guard, make some mistakes, learn from them, and improve. If that doesn't happen, well, then this isn't going to be a special year in all likelihood, because the other options (with the possible exception of Rasheed) are simply too limited, and so would be the team.

It's not clear to me why people are seeing this debate in such Manichean terms. Quinn is not riding the pine. He played 21 minutes against Georgia State. Starting, not-starting--the dude is getting plenty of burn. The board used to have fights over Marty and E. Williams. While I disagreed with those who said a guy couldn't develop without the trial by fire of live-game experience, I at least understood where people were coming from. Marty and Williams barely saw the court for stretches.

But this? It's been one game, and the complaint seems to be that Quinn Cook cannot be a good point guard for Duke if he only plays 21 minutes. He must play, what's enough here, 27, 29 minutes to become a good point guard for Duke? He must be told in no uncertain terms--I assume there is some anointing with oils involved, a sacrifice at the rim of a volcano perhaps, virgins--he will be THAT-WHICH-STARTS? Someone help me out. Do folks really believe that is how players improve?

We can play Curry at the point and Quinn at the point and Sulaimon at the point. These are not mutually exclusive options, since no one will play 40 minutes, certainly not against sub-elite competition. By the end of the season, someone will probably have taken the reins. Or they won't. At which time, by all means: panic.

trailblaze
11-11-2012, 03:52 AM
It's not clear to me why people are seeing this debate in such Manichean terms. Quinn is not riding the pine. He played 21 minutes against Georgia State. Starting, not-starting--the dude is getting plenty of burn. The board used to have fights over Marty and E. Williams. While I disagreed with those who said a guy couldn't develop without the trial by fire of live-game experience, I at least understood where people were coming from. Marty and Williams barely saw the court for stretches.

But this? It's been one game, and the complaint seems to be that Quinn Cook cannot be a good point guard for Duke if he only plays 21 minutes. He must play, what's enough here, 27, 29 minutes to become a good point guard for Duke? He must be told in no uncertain terms--I assume there is some anointing with oils involved, a sacrifice at the rim of a volcano perhaps, virgins--he will be THAT-WHICH-STARTS? Someone help me out. Do folks really believe that is how players improve?

We can play Curry at the point and Quinn at the point and Sulaimon at the point. These are not mutually exclusive options, since no one will play 40 minutes, certainly not against sub-elite competition. By the end of the season, someone will probably have taken the reins. Or they won't. At which time, by all means: panic.

21 minutes is not "plenty of burn" for a guy who is trying to establish himself as the floor general of a top 10 team. At some point I want to feel that K and the staff have confidence in him to run the ship. That means you take the bad with the good. Some players like a Bobby Hurley were probably mentally stronger and able to take a seat on the bench after a bad series and come back from it stronger/more determined, however Quinn is not one of them. Bobby Hurley also never had to worry about anyone taking his spot if he went 1-8 or made a couple bad turnovers. Quinn has the look of someone headed to the bench following a bad series because thats often where he ends up. Thats not the guy you want bringing the ball up the floor on the last possession for a trip to the final four or better yet a national title. Confidence has to be earned. Flip flopping guys every few minutes is not the answer in my opinion.

Matches
11-11-2012, 07:46 AM
I also want to see Marshall healthy to see who K uses to backup Mason. Right now, K is using Ryan as the backup 5 mostly, with Mason playing 35ish mpg. If Marshall can handle the job, K can dial back Mason's minutes to 30-32 per if he wants. Though it may be, that K is fine with Mason logging heavy minutes. It will be a big benefit if Marshall can be the guy, as it allows K to have a true center on the court at all times.

I thought we struggled defensively when Mason was not on the floor Friday night. Ryan is overmatched defensively at the 5 IMO. There is a definitely a niche there to be filled by Marshall if he can provide 8-10 MPG of quality backup for his brother.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-11-2012, 08:27 AM
I don't buy this argument. In 2001, we had two point guards and did OK. We even changed our starting PG on March 4. In 2007, we had the same starting PG for all but one game after the end of November and lost in the NCAA first round.

In 2012, by the time we started losing, Tyler was firmly entrenched as PG -- the post-season losses were primarily due to less-than-stellar defense and the absence of Ryan Kelly. 2011 UNC started winning not because the PG controversy was settled, but because Kendall Marshall was much better than Larry Drew.

In 2001, our lineup included Shane Battier, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy along with our 2 pgs, Chris Duhon and Jason Williams. You would have to agree this is an exceptional case due to the overabundance of talent we had(I mean, if JWill stayed healthy-this starting lineup would win 10 NBA games RIGHT NOW). Also, JWill and Duhon played somewhat similar as far as "drive and dish"(admittedly, with Jason shooting much more) so that the players around them knew where they needed to be and what roles were expected of them at all times.


Just to be clear, I don't think that Cook is a better option than Curry at PG right now. I think he has the potential to be much better than Curry at PG, but he's not there yet. And I wouldn't say that we know that we'll be better in January by suffering through Cook's growing pains now.

As to your last sentence, I disagree. It's up to the players to put it together. The coaches have never wavered in their approach. They are going to put the players who give us the best chance to win each game out on the floor. It is, and always has been, up to the players to prove to the coaches that they deserve to be out there.


I actually do think Cook is the better option at PG than Curry right now, as I would prefer to have Curry focus on finding his shot than setting up the offense. Let me clarify how I feel as far as "Coaches vs. Players" putting it together. It takes both to make it work. A coach can't be a micro-manager like John Cheney or Bob Knight in today's game, but the coach also can't just "roll the balls out" like Rick Barnes or Scott Drew and expect to be successful when it counts.


Are you basing your thoughts I bold-ed on how the kids are playing now, or potential? I agree if Cook develops, he has a higher ceiling in terms of facilitating/running the offense, and also agree with your original post on how the two kids (Cook/Thornton) are so different that the team has to adjust based on who is in. As of right now though, I feel Thornton is playing basketball on the whole, at a higher level than Cook.

I don't agree that Curry's role will be reduced, no matter what happens with Quinn or Tyler. As long as Curry is able to play at a high level managing the pain from his injury, he is going to play a lot minutes, and will contend with Mason for leading scorer on the team. If the injury goes south and limits Seth, all bets are off, but the injury will be the only thing that keeps him from playing a lot and from having a big impact


Yes, my original point was/is that Cook looks "off" right now, but stick with him, provide him confidence and I believe he'll improve steadily and we'll be a better team for it come the end of the year. I feel we've seen enough of TT and Curry to prove that they are not long-term fits at PG. Curry's role being reduced should only happen at the pg spot, IMO. However, if Rasheed's play dictates that he see more time, then so be it.

superdave
11-11-2012, 08:34 AM
Comparing Quinn Cook to Bobby Hurley is almost like comparing Dan Quayle to Jack Kennedy.

I'll take Quinn and Bobby over Kennedy and Quayle 8 days a week.

I agree with the assessment that Quinn's ceiling is a lot higher than Tyler's. It's true. That's why Nolan supplanted Greg Paulus at point a few years back.

I thought Quinn played pretty well yesterday. At some point he's got to be given the keys and learn through playing time. I actually see him becoming an emotional leader as this season moves along. We're going to love this kid this year.

I think Tyler's best use would be to be a stopper if an opponent gets hot or to bring instant energy. I do not trust him with the keys to our offense. He's a great energy guy, an incredible help side defender (much better than on the ball, actually) and he's got all our schemes and plays down. But he's not going to beat teams playing 30 minutes a night. There's diminishing returns at some point.

Super "I hope this argument becomes moot shortly" Dave

roywhite
11-11-2012, 08:50 AM
I agree with the assessment that Quinn's ceiling is a lot higher than Tyler's. It's true. That's why Nolan supplanted Greg Paulus at point a few years back.

I thought Quinn played pretty well yesterday. At some point he's got to be given the keys and learn through playing time. I actually see him becoming an emotional leader as this season moves along. We're going to love this kid this year.

I think Tyler's best use would be to be a stopper if an opponent gets hot or to bring instant energy. I do not trust him with the keys to our offense. He's a great energy guy, an incredible help side defender (much better than on the ball, actually) and he's got all our schemes and plays down. But he's not going to beat teams playing 30 minutes a night. There's diminishing returns at some point.

Super "I hope this argument becomes moot shortly" Dave

Competition and performance should sort this out. Tyler is more of a known quantity, though I'm encouraged to see him play well, and perhaps he has continued to improve.

Quinn at his best should be able to make the offense go. If he is not able to reach that level, the team's trajectory becomes lower.

bedeviled
11-11-2012, 09:09 AM
...i've never seen anyone reduce "4 championships and Olympic medals" to "blah blah blah" before...

On the contrary, I (humorously) admit we do this daily. By necessity, water cooler and forum talk waters complex scenarios (world economy, Duke basketball) down to simplistic and often meaningless terms.

An example topic could be, um, 'who should be playing point guard.' It is probably too simplistic to say, "A is better than B" or "C's ceiling is limitless." There is soooo much detail behind all those championships! As fans, we reduce most of athletics down to (seemingly innate) physical attributes like athleticism and skill which are certainly of primary importance when Duke plays GSU or when a team has a Kyrie / Anthony Davis. However, these judgments discount things like mentality and tactical execution which are the foundations of winning team sports (2010 anyone?). Moreover, these are the things that can best be improved. Sure, we all implore our team to rebound, hit our threes, make stops, but, if one ignores the tactics underlying those aspects, it's like saying an athelete should just run faster or hit better.

MAIN POINT: I wonder if anyone has deduced or heard our specific offensive tactics this year as these principles may help answer the point guard question. I don't imagine we're playing our recent spread offense (in which the first couple options involved the 5 out of scoring position). I suspect we'll return to K's 3-out, 2-in motion offense. This would, partly, explain the 3-guard line-up. It could also diminish the importance of Cook's speed. It could make Tyler's lack of offensive creativity less of a factor. And, if our offensive set is balanced/symmetric around the perimeter or does not rely on drive & dish/kick, we wouldn't expect Cook's assist numbers to be as high as we're used to.

I think one could posit that Quinn has the best natural abilities (speed, vision). From a mental standpoint, I suspect Tyler is still appreciated for his leadership for a team on which no one has had to step up previously (Last year, the players deferred to Rivers, but !!Chris Collins!! actually had to expand his own in-game leadership to help complement K). Regarding "floor general" tactics standpoint, I think Seth is able to utilize changes in both game pace and direction better than Tyler or Quinn (and is more experienced with Duke's schemes). But, I'd like to know how they fit in with our specific offensive sets this year before making a decision on who is the best point guard for THIS TEAM (afterall, sometimes I'd rather have a Jon Scheyer than a John Wall).

HOWEVER, I'm hoping that Ryan (who we have discussed only minimally...probably because he tends to drift out of the screen/play) will be the ascension that takes us up a level and renders the guard issue moot. In my dream, we would run a 3-out, 2-in high-low offense (I doubt K would jump to a triangle offense though it would be interesting) utilizing Ryan's passing & shooting range and Mason's athleticism underneath. I would love to see Ryan really step up his mental game and be utilized at the elbow, mixing up the pick-and-roll with a pick-and-pop (with Mason flashing from the weak to the strong block). Ryan has shown the ability to pass and set pace like a Nowitzki-lite, but he has not shown the leadership nor the mental consistency to run the show (often being too lazy in protecting the ball at the elbow).

So, to get back on topic: my play-of-the-game vs GSU occurred as GSU was holding the ball for the last shot before half. There was no motion, no threat. But, Ryan declared a defensive stand, raising his arms for defensive posture and urged Amile (I think) who responded similarly. Simple; mental and physical execution. Loved it!

ncexnyc
11-11-2012, 09:17 AM
Why is it that people talk about players having to EARN their playing time, but when Tyler gets the nod people react as if he hasn't earned the right to start?

Why are people on this board so quick to see something in our other guards, but completely ignore what Tyler does for this team in the here and now?

bob blue devil
11-11-2012, 09:37 AM
i'm enjoying everyone's perspective on the 'who should start at pg?' debate.

perhaps the staff actually knows what it's is doing and the most clear way for the team to reach its potential is for TT to start b/c he's earned it through determination, effort and performance, and for QC to ultimately wrest the starting role from TT through the matching/surpassing of TT's determination, effort and performance, rather than being 'handed the keys'. the merit system might be about more than fairness - it might be about motivation.

NSDukeFan
11-11-2012, 10:05 AM
Hey thanks for doing this Trouble! PFRDuke may be willing to share as he has helped with these in the past. I enjoy seeing the data so hopefully +/- by committee can be a workable solution.

It sounds to me like the board needs to decide on this right away. We won't reach our full potential unless we decide immediately (2nd game full-time at the latest) who will be the best distributor of this information in the long run and give them the keys and let them make their mistakes, just like Hurley did.
Pfrduke may be an outstanding poster, but there was 1 unhappy poster, to 11 happy posters last year when he was in charge, though he did win the Maui plus-minus championship last year, the board's only championship.
Sagegrouse is very dependable, makes excellent charts, shows great leadership, and is very strong when facing adversity. The coaching staff seems to think he does a good job when he is out there and could possibly get better as well, though some posters feel because he has been in the system a year longer that he can't improve. I disagree. He was doing the most plus minus at the end of last year as he was doing it the best at the time.
Troublemaker has the most long-term potential but may not be as solid as sagegrouse or Pfrduke right now. Should we just get Troublemaker to do it with the thought that he might have the most long-term potential at plus minus? Or should we get Pfrduke and sagegrouse to do some now as well since they may give the board the best chances to have good discussions right now.
Maybe we could let them all do plus minus part of the time and let them all bring their individual strengths. The season is still young and the board might look differently at the end of the year. Or we could let the guy with the 4 championships, most wins ever, blah blah blah, decide.
Also, if a poster is temporarily banned for 1 day, even if he is a very good new poster, but he ends up being a better poster and person in the long run, I think that's ok.

sagegrouse
11-11-2012, 10:11 AM
I wasn't crazy about this notion last season, but this season I agree with it. Tyler has many skills, but the offense almost always appears stagnant when he's running it. Quinn appears to be a better point guard option. I'd give Quinn the reins and only take them back if he proves inadequate.

I would be shocked to learn Alex's DNP was anything but a "lesson," be it disciplinary or a calling out for lack of hustle in practice or something similar. In such a case, the level of the competition would be irrelevant. Hopefully he'll play against Kentucky.

I agree that we shouldn't extrapolate from one game where Quinn comes off the bench and a healthy Alex Murphy doesn't play. But suppose, just suppose, this is for real and becomes a regular pattern over the season. Cognitive dissonance anyone? What were we thinking the last six months? This Board and this reader would speed past boiling and begin to melt.

sagegrouse

dukebballcamper90-91
11-11-2012, 10:47 AM
Tyler will play hard 100% of the time he is in. He will not try things he shouldn't. He is conservative, I see him being more the Scheyer type in 2010 as he progresses.

Big Pappa
11-11-2012, 11:09 AM
I want Quinn to play better and take the reins at the point, but he is not there yet and it is plain as day. There is a long season ahead however, for Quinn to work and get better. No Duke rotation has ever been set after the first game. The first thing that Quinn needs to change is his attitude. Pouting on the bench is not going to help anything and he did plenty of that last night. On the play late in the game where Thornton threw the lob to Mason for the dunk, every kid including Murphy, rose up off the bench in elation, except Quinn. He did clap feebly after a delay. He has to get his head right and keep working. Plenty of time left to do that.


First of all, great post as always Newton. I highlighted this portion because I see this sentiment quite a bit on this board and I wanted to make two quick points on Quinn's behalf:

1. Put yourself in his shoes for a second. He was told that he was the unequivocal starter at the PG for Duke, Coach K announced it to the team and media, then he started all of the exhibition games, then he was told the Monday before the first real game that he was no longer starting. That would be incredibly hard on a number of different levels.

2. In his post game presser on GoDuke.com he was asked about how he expects perfection from himself and wears his emotion on his sleeve, and he responded with this quote, "That's one of my biggest problems, just moving on to the next play. I'm very hard on myself and that's one of the things Coach preaches to me: move on to the next play. Being a point guard, sometimes I'll have a turnover and I'll have bad body language and it reflects on the team. So that is one thing that I am still trying to work on. It's taking time, but I feel like I'm getting better at it. I just want to keep a smile on my face."

I don't exactly blame him for being upset with the situation. It is very encouraging to me that he would make that type of statement after the game. It shows great maturity and leadership. I am of the camp that Quinn needs to be given (or re-given) the reigns until he proves that he cannot handle it. TT simply doesn't have close to the same skill-set that Quinn has. Quinn is better in every aspect of the game with the possible exception of decision making. On that note, I don't think his decision making is going to get any better if he is forced to continue dealing with the uncertainty of his position on the team.

Kedsy
11-11-2012, 11:35 AM
In 2001, our lineup included Shane Battier, Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy along with our 2 pgs, Chris Duhon and Jason Williams. You would have to agree this is an exceptional case due to the overabundance of talent we had(I mean, if JWill stayed healthy-this starting lineup would win 10 NBA games RIGHT NOW). Also, JWill and Duhon played somewhat similar as far as "drive and dish"(admittedly, with Jason shooting much more) so that the players around them knew where they needed to be and what roles were expected of them at all times.

Actually, I don't think I would have to agree with that. If your theory about two point guards is correct, that team would have tanked despite the talent. Perhaps the exceptional case was 2011, when we tried to integrate Kyrie in at shooting guard during the NCAA tournament. Perhaps it was 2010, when our PG situation was no more consistent than in 2007. Perhaps the overall evidence doesn't really support your theory.

Also, in 1998, we played two PGs with very different styles (Wojo for 28 mpg and Will Avery for 20), and the team did fine. I don't think having two PGs made us blow an 18 point lead in the Elite Eight against the eventual national champion.


There is only one tough ballplayer on this team, just as there was only one last year. That guy is Thorton.

Well, since there is no ballplayer on this team (or on last year's team) who is actually named "Thorton," I disagree.


Thorton was on the court because GS's best player was the coach's son, all 6'4" of him. How much did he hurt Duke.

I'm not going to re-watch the game just for this, but my recollection is Tyler Thornton wasn't even the primary defender on Hunter. I saw Rasheed guarding Hunter most of the 2nd half, and it seemed to be more of a committee in the first half.


Thorton...

Thorton... ...Thorton... ...Thorton.

...Thorton... ...Thorton...

Sheesh, you've been touting this guy since before he arrived at Duke, and you never get his name right.

MCFinARL
11-11-2012, 12:19 PM
First of all, great post as always Newton. I highlighted this portion because I see this sentiment quite a bit on this board and I wanted to make two quick points on Quinn's behalf:

1. Put yourself in his shoes for a second. He was told that he was the unequivocal starter at the PG for Duke, Coach K announced it to the team and media, then he started all of the exhibition games, then he was told the Monday before the first real game that he was no longer starting. That would be incredibly hard on a number of different levels.

2. In his post game presser on GoDuke.com he was asked about how he expects perfection from himself and wears his emotion on his sleeve, and he responded with this quote, "That's one of my biggest problems, just moving on to the next play. I'm very hard on myself and that's one of the things Coach preaches to me: move on to the next play. Being a point guard, sometimes I'll have a turnover and I'll have bad body language and it reflects on the team. So that is one thing that I am still trying to work on. It's taking time, but I feel like I'm getting better at it. I just want to keep a smile on my face."

I don't exactly blame him for being upset with the situation. It is very encouraging to me that he would make that type of statement after the game. It shows great maturity and leadership. I am of the camp that Quinn needs to be given (or re-given) the reigns until he proves that he cannot handle it. TT simply doesn't have close to the same skill-set that Quinn has. Quinn is better in every aspect of the game with the possible exception of decision making. On that note, I don't think his decision making is going to get any better if he is forced to continue dealing with the uncertainty of his position on the team.

I"m glad you brought up the bolded point. It's true Quinn needs to get better control over his emotions, but it did seem that most of his unhappiness was directed toward himself--there was one sequence when he went to the bench after a bad play and was caught in a camera closeup--it was clear he was disappointed in his own performance and not mad at anyone else. Obviously, he still needs to learn to move on to the next play, but I have a lot more sympathy for a player who is struggling with his own mistakes than I do/would for one with a more general bad attitude issue. And like you I am heartened by the fact that he is openly acknowledging this problem and his efforts to fix it.




I'm not going to re-watch the game just for this, but my recollection is Tyler Thornton wasn't even the primary defender on Hunter. I saw Rasheed guarding Hunter most of the 2nd half, and it seemed to be more of a committee in the first half.



Sheesh, you've been touting this guy since before he arrived at Duke, and you never get his name right.

I'm not going to re-watch the game just for this, either, but in fairness to Greybeard, Coach K did single out Thornton in his post game remarks for the good job he did on Hunter: "Thornton was excellent. I thought he was a bit nervous against the zone and we had a couple early turnovers that hurt us, but he guarded Hunter well." (from GoDuke.com).

Starter
11-11-2012, 01:25 PM
The Cook vs Thornton at PG discussion is, in my opinion, misplaced. Thornton was not our PG for most of the game last night. Curry started the game at PG. Cook came in and played PG for much of the middle of the game. Thornton didn't take a turn at PG until late in the game.

Thornton has shown, repeatedly, that he's pretty vanilla as a PG. He can't create offense, struggles to beat his man off the dribble, and he isn't a good passer. His best play has actually been off the ball, where he can occasionally hit open 3s when others draw attention away from him. He came in as an unheralded PG recruit, but he's done little in his 2+ years to suggest that he's actually a division 1 caliber PG. When he's hitting 3s, he has value on the wing. When he's not, you're basically trading offense for defense.

Frankly, I'm a bit confused as to why some people propose the argument Thornton's ceiling could be similar to Cook's. Thornton was an unheralded, underathletic recruit (outside the top-100). In two healthy years, he's done little to distinguish himself as anything more than a pesky but foul prone defender with good off-ball skills and an occasionally capable shooter when wide open. Cook, on the other hand, was a McDonald's All-American. He is a year younger, and spent last year recovering from injury. Cook is certainly quicker and more skilled with the ball. Now, he may never reach his ceiling, but folks who question why Thornton's ceiling isn't as high are simply wishing on a star. Thornton just doesn't have the athleticism or playmaking skill to compete with what Cook could become. That doesn't mean Cook will get there, of course. And right now, it's clear that Cook has a long way to go to get to his ceiling.

But really, the question right now is whether Thornton's defense and Curry's play at PG is better than Cook at PG and Curry/Sulaimon as the wings. Of course, that's assuming that the debate is between Cook and Thornton. Maybe Sulaimon and Jefferson (or Murphy) play so well that they force BOTH Cook and Thornton to the bench.

Really good post, as usual.

It's a good point that Curry is ostensibly the starting point guard. The problem is, that would make Thornton the starting shooting guard, given that he started and played 30 minutes. Does anyone really view Thornton as a starting-caliber shooting guard for a team that harbors Final Four hopes? That's really why I think a lot of people want Cook to step up and take control of the point guard position; besides his obvious talents, it lets the rest of the team fall into place, allowing Curry and Sulaimon to assume roles that better maximize their talents. If Cook started and played 30 minutes in the first game, and Thornton came off the bench for the 21 minutes that Cook played, I doubt anyone would have had a problem with that. (I still think 21 minutes is a bit much for what he offers, but there's no doubt Thornton has carved out a definitive niche among the staff and his teammates with his effort level and leadership qualities.)

As some have joked on this thread, I realize it's early. But after articles like this (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaab-the-dagger/acc-preview-bounce-back-season-quinn-cook-essential-160749359--ncaab.html), this (http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/blog/eye-on-college-basketball/20644023/dukes-key-is-clear-quinn-cook) and this (http://dimemag.com/2012/11/duke-looks-for-breakout-play-by-seth-curry-and-rasheed-sulaimon-in-2012-13/) -- ok, I wrote that last one -- I think we all had a little bit different expectations for the first game in terms of setting the tone for the season. We're all passionate about this team, and after a first-round loss and the offseason, we want to make sure that the things we viewed as limiting their potential last year have been addressed. The defense looks much better, so that's a good start. As for the other stuff, we'll see how it goes.

Newton_14
11-11-2012, 05:58 PM
First of all, great post as always Newton. I highlighted this portion because I see this sentiment quite a bit on this board and I wanted to make two quick points on Quinn's behalf:

1. Put yourself in his shoes for a second. He was told that he was the unequivocal starter at the PG for Duke, Coach K announced it to the team and media, then he started all of the exhibition games, then he was told the Monday before the first real game that he was no longer starting. That would be incredibly hard on a number of different levels.

2. In his post game presser on GoDuke.com he was asked about how he expects perfection from himself and wears his emotion on his sleeve, and he responded with this quote, "That's one of my biggest problems, just moving on to the next play. I'm very hard on myself and that's one of the things Coach preaches to me: move on to the next play. Being a point guard, sometimes I'll have a turnover and I'll have bad body language and it reflects on the team. So that is one thing that I am still trying to work on. It's taking time, but I feel like I'm getting better at it. I just want to keep a smile on my face."

I don't exactly blame him for being upset with the situation. It is very encouraging to me that he would make that type of statement after the game. It shows great maturity and leadership. I am of the camp that Quinn needs to be given (or re-given) the reigns until he proves that he cannot handle it. TT simply doesn't have close to the same skill-set that Quinn has. Quinn is better in every aspect of the game with the possible exception of decision making. On that note, I don't think his decision making is going to get any better if he is forced to continue dealing with the uncertainty of his position on the team.

Thanks for sharing that info BP. That is very encouraging, and to be clear, I am pulling for the kid as hard as anybody. Sounds like the body language issues I saw during the game were disappointment in himself rather than frustration with the staff. I too, want Quinn to be the starting PG, but as ncexnyc pointed out, I think a lot of people are underselling how well Tyler is playing right now. I can't agree that Quinn is better in every aspect except decision making as of right now. But again, it is way early. Tuesday night might be a total different story. Let's see how Quinn progresses over these first 5 to 8 games against stiff competition. He will get plenty of opportunities to assert himself and lock down a spot in the starting lineup.

Des Esseintes
11-11-2012, 08:26 PM
21 minutes is not "plenty of burn" for a guy who is trying to establish himself as the floor general of a top 10 team. At some point I want to feel that K and the staff have confidence in him to run the ship. That means you take the bad with the good. Some players like a Bobby Hurley were probably mentally stronger and able to take a seat on the bench after a bad series and come back from it stronger/more determined, however Quinn is not one of them. Bobby Hurley also never had to worry about anyone taking his spot if he went 1-8 or made a couple bad turnovers. Quinn has the look of someone headed to the bench following a bad series because thats often where he ends up. Thats not the guy you want bringing the ball up the floor on the last possession for a trip to the final four or better yet a national title. Confidence has to be earned. Flip flopping guys every few minutes is not the answer in my opinion.

2008-9 season. Duke enters the season with Nolan Smith starting at point. He can't do it. Looks bad. Eventually, K takes the keys away, gives them back briefly to Paulus, and then finally to Scheyer. Correct answer. (Duke doesn't finish that season the way it would like--the Villanova loss was sickening--but point guard play was not what doomed us in that game.)

2009-10 season. Smith plays very little point. Scheyer mans the position all year, and things end well.

2010-11 season. Kyrie is Day One starter, but goes down. Nolan, who hasn't played the position significantly in two years, tears it up at NPOY levels.

Would those first two seasons have turned out as well as they did (or better) if K had stuck endlessly with Smith at the point? I see no way you could argue so. Moreover, taking the ball out of Nolan's hands not only allowed him to become a great off-guard attacker, it also didn't get in the way of his becoming a top shelf lead guard his senior season. I don't mean to say that these two situations are identical. (Smith was not a natural point coming out of high school; Quinn emphatically was. It's unclear that there is as viable an option as Scheyer on this year's team to play the 1 if Quinn can't excel there. On the other hand, pretty much nobody on this board knew THAT in November 2008 either.) My point instead is this: Nolan losing the point guard job was 1) the best thing for the team in 2009, 2) the best thing for the team in 2010, 3) the best thing for Nolan as a shooting guard, and 4) the best thing ultimately for Nolan as a point guard.

The future is hard to predict. Maybe Quinn will turn out to be the best option this season. Maybe it will be Rasheed or maybe Seth. (I hear people talk about how Seth was a failed experiment at the point last year, but that's not how I remember it. I remember a large share of our best wins coming with him running the point. Then we visited an Ohio State team that seemingly spent the night ripping lampposts out of the ground and beating us with them, throwing boulders at our heads, pushing over buildings on top of us, etc. After that, Seth as point was scrapped. I've always wondered if that was an overreaction on K's part.) It just feels odd to me for people to insist that the team's fate lives and dies by a sophomore who wasn't a top 20 recruit in his class and that, for the team to be successful and owing to his great importance, said sophomore should be held to lesser standard of performance than his peers. That hasn't been true for Duke in the past, and I doubt it will be true this year either.

CDu
11-11-2012, 09:57 PM
Why is it that people talk about players having to EARN their playing time, but when Tyler gets the nod people react as if he hasn't earned the right to start?

I'm one of the ones who said that Cook needs to earn the starting spot. And I don't think anyone who has brought up "earning" playing time has done so in a negative sense toward Thornton. It's been in reference to Cook as far as I can tell. That said, I don't think Thornton has earned the right to start. More accurately, I think he's done less to this point to warrant being benched than the alternative (Cook).


Why are people on this board so quick to see something in our other guards, but completely ignore what Tyler does for this team in the here and now?

Because what Thornton brings is fairly limited. He doesn't have the athleticism or the skill to be an elite PG. Cook (and perhaps Sulaimon) do. Whether they get there or not remains to be seen. Thornton plays hard. He occasionally does some really nice things defensively. He occasionally has a good shooting game. But for a guy who came to Duke as a PG, he's decidedly limited as a PG (to the point that we've been forced to play Curry out of position for two years running).

At best (if he continues to shoot extremely well), he could become a Greg Paulus-type SG with slightly better defense (especially better off-ball defense). But if we're looking for a PG, he's not going to be the solution.


Tyler will play hard 100% of the time he is in. He will not try things he shouldn't. He is conservative, I see him being more the Scheyer type in 2010 as he progresses.

This may be the most ridiculous statement made in this entire thread. Do you realize that in 2010 Scheyer almost set the Duke record for assist to turnover ratio? Do you realize that Scheyer's assist per game average in 2010 (4.8) was higher than Thornton's career high in scoring average (4.1)? And that Scheyer's lowerst assist per game (1.8) is almost as high as Thornton's career high in assists per game (2.0)? There is absolutely NOTHING to suggest that Thornton will be anything remotely close to what Scheyer was in 2010, either in production or style of play.

greybeard
11-12-2012, 12:15 AM
Well, since there is no ballplayer on this team (or on last year's team) who is actually named "Thorton," I disagree..

"A rose by any other name . . . ." Tell me a Duke team that went anywhere that didn't have a tough, tough guy who played substantial minutes. If you have to have Tyler on the court, and you have no choice but to accept that K thinks he must, and all of you guys believe that he has no offense, then why would you not want him initiating the offense by bringing it up the court, giving it up to someone like Curry, instead of the other way around? Why wouldn't you want your shooter, Curry, off the ball, at least in some of the plays or sets (anyone who thinks that plays or sets are not being called from the bench, well, I have no comback for that)? And, when, somebody throws a matchup zone that has your team confused and puts extreme pressure put on the exterior players, you probably need the ball in Curry's hands more often. But then, you better damn well have somebody very tough and skilled at the other end, someone who does not get rattled in the face of his own and/or his teammates' failings on offense, someone who will make plays on the other end. You need that or the air goes out of the balloon real fast for everybody. That somebody is Tyler.

I understand that these on court percentage things count for something. Where does tough show up on that chart? How does,"hey, dude got himself a defensive rebound that had to go to the other team but it didn't" show up? These numbers that are run have their place, but somehow, gentlemen, K disagrees with all your reads. It might have nothing whatsoever to do with who earned what, but rather who brings what. Tyler brings to Duke something that it needs. He is tough and brilliant about the game. Why do I say brilliant? Because you cannot defend in every sense of the word the way he does, you cannot show up in spots where the ball just happens to wind up the way he does, and you cannot beat faster guys to the loose balls the way he does, or go to the ground against guys with 30 pounds on him and come away unhurt and usually with the ball the way he does, without seeing the game exceptionally well and having the intelligence to be able to compute and act in the same moment. It does not happen. And, that, "my droogy droogs," happens to be brilliance.

It seems to me passing strange to think that Tyler is not more important to this club than the guys who are sitting while he is getting the minutes. The only logical inquery, it seems to me, is why K puts Tyler at the vortex of the action whenever a game is at a significant juncture. How come? Outworks Cook, is that really your (the collective you) answer? Cook is a champion. He does not get outworked.



Sheesh, you've been touting this guy since before he arrived at Duke, and you never get his name right.

We've done this dance, and I'm not dancing no more. It is what it is. Let's stick to the facts. The facts are that I was "touting" Cook's value to the sky before he arrived here, unfortunately with a bumb knee. The fact is that I was touting Tyler because, as I've said, he was considered the Man when I saw him play in high school, playing the same type game you are seeing now, and because it just so happens that K makes you have to "tout" him. There is no other option. You have one, Keds? That's what I thought.

tommy
11-12-2012, 03:13 AM
OK so it can't hurt to put some actual numbers to some of what is being discussed in this thread. Granted, it's just one game, it was Georgia State, and we'll get a much more important data point Tuesday night. And I'm on record as being a Quinn Cook guy, and believing that Cook is the guy with the talent and skill set to bring us to a whole 'nother level than are our other options at the point. But I just finished re-watching the game (actually just the first 32 minutes of it -- got too tired and the game was well in hand), this time with pad and paper taking notes on a couple of different areas, and here's what I found:

Thornton was far and away the first option to defend Hunter. He guarded him on 28 halfcourt possessions, as opposed to 7 by Curry, 4 by Cook, and 7 by Sulaimon. Now Duke, as usual, did a lot of switching so many times Ty was not the guy who ended up on Hunter, and indeed was off of him early in the possession sometimes, but he clearly was the guy who usually at least started most possessions on Hunter. OK.

Who was our primary point guard on offense? When we ran halfcourt offense, Curry ran the point 10 times, Thornton 7, and Cook 24 times. Sulaimon, none. Any time both Cook and Thornton were in the game, it was Cook running the point.

As far as making penetrating passes or passes that put the recipient in an advantageous position, as opposed to just passes around the perimeter that don't do much, all four guys were about equal in the quality passes category in the halfcourt. Cook had three and the other three guys had four.

In terms of getting loose balls and just making extra effort/hustle plays, to nobody's surprise it was Thornton who had the most of these, with four, though one I credited to him kinda just came right to him. Curry had two, including taking a nice charge at 8:45 of the second half. Cook had one.

And then I just noted some individual plays, positive and negative, by these guys that caught my eye and seemed worthy of mention:

The first possession of the game Thornton made a bad turnover as Hunter just took it away from him, and then blew by him going the other way on the break for an easy layup.
At 15:30 of the first half, Ty made another bad turnover by giving it away in the halfcourt.
At 13:21 Quinn did a nice job of pressuring the ball, causing a 5 second call.
At 13:10 Cook made a bad pass -- the ill-advised alley oop to Mason.
At 8:40 Quinn made another bad pass, this one the 25 footer right at Mason's feet.
At 4:11, Thornton made the nice no-look to Mason on the break for the and-one.
At 1:31 Quinn's aggressive D forced the turnover as he pressured the GSU player into dribbling off his own leg
At 18:50 of the second half, Tyler had an excellent blockout on the defensive boards of a much bigger GSU player, resulting in the GSU player getting called for over the back.
At 16:25 Thornton played the passing lane well, made a nice steal, took it the other way, and finished.

I'm still a big Quinn Cook fan, and believe he should be starting and getting 30 mpg, but there's no doubt that Tyler had a pretty good game on Friday night. Let's see what happens Tuesday.

CDu
11-12-2012, 07:38 AM
I'm still a big Quinn Cook fan, and believe he should be starting and getting 30 mpg, but there's no doubt that Tyler had a pretty good game on Friday night. Let's see what happens Tuesday.

I don't think anyone came out of Friday's game saying Cook outplayed Thornton. In fact, I suspect everyone agrees it was the other way around. The question is one of ceiling (both individual and team) and the answer in my opinion is that the ceiling is higher with Cook running the show.

Now, that doesn't mean I want Cook handed the reins. I want him to earn the job. Performances like Friday aren't going to cut it.

Matches
11-12-2012, 09:17 AM
I don't think anyone came out of Friday's game saying Cook outplayed Thornton. In fact, I suspect everyone agrees it was the other way around. The question is one of ceiling (both individual and team) and the answer in my opinion is that the ceiling is higher with Cook running the show.

Now, that doesn't mean I want Cook handed the reins. I want him to earn the job. Performances like Friday aren't going to cut it.

This. A million times this. It's hard to imagine anyone who actually saw Friday night's game coming away with the idea that Cook outplayed Thornton. Clearly he did not. The point of contention seems to be whether Cook should be on the floor anyway, playing through his mistakes, with the idea that game action will lead to him maturing faster and thus pay dividends later in the year.

And that's unknowable, of course.

But what we do know is this - K doesn't think that way. Never has. His philosophy has ALWAYS been that guys improve in practice, not during games. Generally when he's thrown someone out there to sink or swim, it's because he had no choice.

I also reject the notion that Thornton/ Cook is an either-or proposition, given that (a) they played together for awhile Friday night, and (b) Thornton wasn't running the point most of the time he was in the game. K is using Thornton like a beefier version of Sean Dockery - no reason he can't be valuable in that role.

Jderf
11-12-2012, 09:41 AM
The boards are getting heated early this year! Who needs to watch the actual games? These threads tend to be more exciting. My prediction is that this whole argument becomes meaningless when Zafirovski explodes onto the scene with a 20-10 game against UK, pushing Mason to the 4 and forcing both Tyler and Quinn further down the depth chart for the rest of the season. :)

elvis14
11-12-2012, 10:11 AM
I'd like to say I'm surprised the the path that this thread has taken but I'm really not. I was watching the game with a friend of mine and we were pretty surprised when Tyler started and QC was on the bench. I'll state for the record that I think QC needs to start, gets lots of playing time and be allowed to play through some mistakes. Tyler had a nice game Friday...against Ga. State. I do agree with others that QC didn't have a great game on Friday and that Tyler had a better game. To me the difference is that what we saw on Friday is a great game for Tyler and I don't expect much more than that on his good nights. While watching the game, my best friend and I noted that there were quite a few times where the other team simply ignored Tyler when we were on offense. We saw this at the end of last year as well. It results in some open threes but it also results in the other team being able to clog the lane and double other players at will. Although Quinn did have some turnovers there are two things that are positives for him: his defense was much improved, he's clever with the ball. He just sees some things and makes passes that Seth and TT don't.

OK, so I almost feel like apologizing for feeding the TT vs. QC argument 1 game into the season. Here are some other game thoughts:


Mason was a beast, particularly on the boards. I was a bit concerned about how he had a hard time scoring effectively on the low blocks when given an entry pass. The contrast between Mason's methodical handling of the ball around the rim and Amile's catch and go style is somewhat interesting.
Ryan had one of those games were he was somewhat effective but quiet. I'd like to see him get more mid range jumpers. I'd also like to see him get more rebounds!
Seth played pretty well. His shooting is big deal for this team. I really hope his injury improves so he doesn't have to play in pain.
Rasheed had a good first game. Played within himself (that's a good thing for a freshman's first game) and did good things on both ends of the floor
Did anyone else notice that we weren't pushing the ball at all? Mason would come down with a rebound and just hold it until one of the guards looped back around him for a hand off. That really bothered me (unless they were doing to to show respect for Duke's football season). Mason's pretty good at throwing the outlet pass (and running the floor behind it). I don't need to see the team "run and gun" but there's a lot to be said for getting easy, quick baskets.
I was really disappointed that we didn't get to see Alex Murphy play at all. I'd love to know what's really going on there because a game against Ga. State were we had a comfortable lead the entire second half seems like a pretty good opportunity to get him some PT.
Every time I see Amile play I continually think "We are really going to like this guy". And then I think "OMG are his arms long!". He's going to really help our team this year doing a little bit of everything. Meaning I don't expect big scoring numbers but I can see him scoring pretty well, rebounding pretty well, playing good defense, etc. He brings some good energy as well (and seems to control it).
It's really cool to be talking about a real game and not speculating about what might be. Then again, after reading this thread....


It's going to be sweet when we beat Ky Tuesday night!!

ChillinDuke
11-12-2012, 10:52 AM
I, for one, think this Cook v. Thornton debate is getting way too much focus this early in the season.

Over the summer I agreed with the consensus on this board that Cook should start. Clearly, K thought so at least to some extent by naming Cook the starter. Clearly, K either no longer thinks so or felt that this was a one-off game in which Thornton was better suited to start or some other reason that we are not privy to. In a game in which Alex Murphy DNP'd and we were thrown multiple different zones to deal with, I'm not sure this is a good barometer on which to start debating our optimal lineups.

Clearly, Tyler played well on Friday by and large. Is that because he has improved? Because of the one-off nature of this particular game/team that Coach K saw? Random variance? Something else?

Listen, I don't agree with anyone on this board who thinks that anything is cut and dry, A or B. My belief is there's a spectrum to everything. Players obviously improve in practice. Players obviously need game experience as well. Some improve in one more than the other, I'm sure. This is why we have contractually employed one of the best coaches to have ever lived to evaluate and manage these nuanced decisions.

It's great that we collectively debate on this (and every) issue, but I'm not sure it's warranted to this degree at this point. Frankly, I think that we have two very different PGs in Quinn Cook and Tyler Thornton. I think they both have an important role (and increasingly so as the year goes on) on this team. To my eye Tyler is our best off-the-ball, harassing defender. Best hustler. Does the dirty work. We have had this many times in recent memory in players like Sean Dockery, David McClure, and Lance Thomas, none of which ever (EVER) averaged more than 7.1ppg or less than 7.4mpg - and if you throw out McClure's freshman and redshirt junior seasons the minimum goes up to 10.5mpg. They cumulatively started 42 games their respective junior years as well, so K had plenty of room to play these guys significant minutes despite non-flashy stat lines (even during their freshmen years).

I understand most are not saying Tyler should not play significant minutes. Most seem to be of the mindset that he not start (should not "hold the reigns", so to speak). Regardless, Tyler is going to play. And I think he needs to. There is value there. As for Quinn, he needs to play too. I'm just not sure to what extent. There's psychology there, health, matchups, abilities, season-long considerations, chemistry, gamesmanship, so many variables.

I just think as of right now, Tyler did nothing in that first game that warranted not playing the minutes he played. Until he does something to dissuade me, I agree with the lineup that was out there. Next game will undoubtedly be a bigger test and a better evaluation of what lineups we are looking at.

- Chillin

phaedrus
11-12-2012, 11:23 AM
Clearly, Tyler played well on Friday by and large. Is that because he has improved? Because of the one-off nature of this particular game/team that Coach K saw? Random variance? Something else?



The bare possibility that TT had an above-average game (for him) and QC a below-average game (for him), with a resulting one-game swing in playing time towards TT and no further implications for the long-term, seems to be the under-discussed option. Keep playing the guy who's having a great game. The same phenomenon could, in an upcoming game, result in Josh taking minutes that would otherwise go to Mason (to pick an extreme example). Mason would remain the starter and go-to guy.

Matches
11-12-2012, 11:29 AM
Clearly, Tyler played well on Friday by and large. Is that because he has improved? Because of the one-off nature of this particular game/team that Coach K saw? Random variance? Something else?



Coming into the season I thought the big thing for TT was to develop the ability to knock down an open 3. Last season he was a total liability on offense because he simply did not have to be guarded at all most of the time.

Early results clearly were good - he knocked down most of his open looks. Only 1 game, though - too early to tell if it signals improvement or is an outlier.

TT reminds me a lot of Wojo, and I always thought the big key to Wojo's improvement between his soph and junior seasons was his ability to hit that open jumper. Hopefully we'll see something similar from TT.

TT had a nice pass on a breakway, too - probably a play he could not have made last year.

ChillinDuke
11-12-2012, 11:31 AM
The bare possibility that TT had an above-average game (for him) and QC a below-average game (for him), with a resulting one-game swing in playing time towards TT and no further implications for the long-term, seems to be the under-discussed option. Keep playing the guy who's having a great game. The same phenomenon could, in an upcoming game, result in Josh taking minutes that would otherwise go to Mason (to pick an extreme example). Mason would remain the starter and go-to guy.

Agreed. Often, the simplest answer is the best answer. Not every result stems from a complicated set of reasons. Not every plan a conspiracy.

TT played well. Cook played eh. We play Kentucky. Who will play?

- Chillin

CDu
11-12-2012, 11:33 AM
I, for one, think this Cook v. Thornton debate is getting way too much focus this early in the season.

Agreed, though there isn't much news other than PG and SF to discuss with regard to the team right now. So it's understandable.


Over the summer I agreed with the consensus on this board that Cook should start. Clearly, K thought so at least to some extent by naming Cook the starter. Clearly, K either no longer thinks so or felt that this was a one-off game in which Thornton was better suited to start or some other reason that we are not privy to. In a game in which Alex Murphy DNP'd and we were thrown multiple different zones to deal with, I'm not sure this is a good barometer on which to start debating our optimal lineups.

This is an excellent point. GSU was not going to beat us, so Coach K could (if he so desired) make a statement to his team against GSU. The coming games against Kentucky, Minnesota, and potentially Memphis and Louisville should provide a better barometer for where we are as a lineup early in the season. And even then, the situation will probably be fluid well into the year.


It's great that we collectively debate on this (and every) issue, but I'm not sure it's warranted to this degree at this point. Frankly, I think that we have two very different PGs in Quinn Cook and Tyler Thornton. I think they both have an important role (and increasingly so as the year goes on) on this team. To my eye Tyler is our best off-the-ball, harassing defender. Best hustler. Does the dirty work. We have had this many times in recent memory in players like Sean Dockery, David McClure, and Lance Thomas, none of which ever (EVER) averaged more than 7.1ppg or less than 7.4mpg - and if you throw out McClure's freshman and redshirt junior seasons the minimum goes up to 10.5mpg. They cumulatively started 42 games their respective junior years as well, so K had plenty of room to play these guys significant minutes despite non-flashy stat lines (even during their freshmen years).

I'd say the bolded part slightly differently. Thornton hasn't played much PG for us. He will occasionally bring the ball up court (as well all of the other guards), and occasionally reset the offense. But he spends the majority of his time on offense on the wing. Aside from that, though, I agree that each brings a different value to the court.

The question with Thornton is, given that he's not really a PG at the college level, he's competing with Curry and Sulaimon (and potentially Murphy and Jefferson) on the wings. If he's shooting like he did Friday, he should be on the court. But when his shot isn't falling, I'm not convinced that he's enough of an asset. He becomes a non-entity on offense at that point, and we're playing 4-on-5 on offense. That puts a LOT of pressure on his defensive abilities.


I just think as of right now, Tyler did nothing in that first game that warranted not playing the minutes he played. Until he does something to dissuade me, I agree with the lineup that was out there. Next game will undoubtedly be a bigger test and a better evaluation of what lineups we are looking at.

Totally agree here. And if Thornton continues to play near the level he played against GSU, I have no problem with him playing major minutes. I remain skeptical that he can consistently be effective against better competition, so we'll see. Of course, the same can be said for Cook.

But I think an additional question is whether or not we're better off with Murphy or Jefferson than Thornton on the wing. It's not just a question of Cook v Thornton. Since Thornton has really more of a wing player (with Curry running the point), he should really be in the discussion with Murphy and Jefferson (he's not beating out Sulaimon) for the second wing spot. It will be interesting to see how he fares against either Goodwin or Poythress if Coach K decides to again go small against UK.

CDu
11-12-2012, 11:37 AM
CTT reminds me a lot of Wojo, and I always thought the big key to Wojo's improvement between his soph and junior seasons was his ability to hit that open jumper. Hopefully we'll see something similar from TT.

I think the Wojo comp is a very good one, with the exception that I don't think Thornton is as good a passer as Wojo, and may not be as good a ballhandler either. But in terms of being a scrappy, smart, good at defensive court awareness, decent but perhaps overrated a bit in terms of on-ball defense, and vocal skills, I see a lot of similarities.

If he can consistently hit the open 3, he becomes a viable option on the wing for us for sure.

ChillinDuke
11-12-2012, 12:04 PM
This is an excellent point. GSU was not going to beat us, so Coach K could (if he so desired) make a statement to his team against GSU. The coming games against Kentucky, Minnesota, and potentially Memphis and Louisville should provide a better barometer for where we are as a lineup early in the season. And even then, the situation will probably be fluid well into the year.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if there was a bit of gamesmanship being played here by K. Don't show your cards, and all that. But then again, it really could've been as simple as the zone defenses. Or something completely unrelated.


I'd say the bolded part slightly differently. Thornton hasn't played much PG for us. He will occasionally bring the ball up court (as well all of the other guards), and occasionally reset the offense. But he spends the majority of his time on offense on the wing. Aside from that, though, I agree that each brings a different value to the court.

The question with Thornton is, given that he's not really a PG at the college level, he's competing with Curry and Sulaimon (and potentially Murphy and Jefferson) on the wings. If he's shooting like he did Friday, he should be on the court. But when his shot isn't falling, I'm not convinced that he's enough of an asset. He becomes a non-entity on offense at that point, and we're playing 4-on-5 on offense. That puts a LOT of pressure on his defensive abilities.

I agree with you far more than I disagree. But I would perhaps argue (although I'm not sure if I actually believe this or am just getting baited into responding) that this thought process inaccurately characterizes the team into defined positions. I [think I] believe that Thornton is not competing on the wing, but instead is competing for time. Similar to Kedsy's common discussion of playing time in the historical context. Again and more specifically, I point to guys like Sean Dockery, Dave McClure, or even Lance Thomas who had limited versatility on offense and really could not be relied on as an offensive option at any point in their careers. Yet, despite this, they all saw significant time on the court.

I guess my point is that players' lack of offense has not been a reason for benching if they bring intangibles/defense/other traits to the court. And to be clear, I think Tyler is better than a junior McClure, so I do think he fits this general player comparison.

Again, none of this is happening in a vacuum. I see no reason we can't get positive contributions from both Tyler and Quinn, or all of Tyler/Seth/Rasheed. The question is to what degree and to the betterment/detriment of the team as a whole. My guess: Tyler will play 20+mpg this season in varying roles of starter/reserve and PG/off-ball and that this will not impede the progression of Quinn or the team in any noticeable way.

- Chillin

CDu
11-12-2012, 12:21 PM
I agree with you far more than I disagree. But I would perhaps argue (although I'm not sure if I actually believe this or am just getting baited into responding) that this thought process inaccurately characterizes the team into defined positions. I [think I] believe that Thornton is not competing on the wing, but instead is competing for time. Similar to Kedsy's common discussion of playing time in the historical context. Again and more specifically, I point to guys like Sean Dockery, Dave McClure, or even Lance Thomas who had limited versatility on offense and really could not be relied on as an offensive option at any point in their careers. Yet, despite this, they all saw significant time on the court.

I guess my point is that players' lack of offense has not been a reason for benching if they bring intangibles/defense/other traits to the court. And to be clear, I think Tyler is better than a junior McClure, so I do think he fits this general player comparison.

Again, none of this is happening in a vacuum. I see no reason we can't get positive contributions from both Tyler and Quinn, or all of Tyler/Seth/Rasheed. The question is to what degree and to the betterment/detriment of the team as a whole. My guess: Tyler will play 20+mpg this season in varying roles of starter/reserve and PG/off-ball and that this will not impede the progression of Quinn or the team in any noticeable way.

- Chillin

I'm not really looking at it as purely a position thing. The main issue is one of available minutes. We aren't going to play six perimeter guys 20+ mpg. So Thornton is implicitly competing with Curry, Sulaimon, Cook, Murphy, and Jefferson for the 120(ish) minutes at guard/wing (I'm assuming that Mason, Kelly, Marshall, and Hairston are going to combine for roughly 75-80 mpg). If you assume that Curry will get 30+ mpg and Sulaimon is going to get 25+ mpg, that leaves 60-65 guard/wing minutes left for 4 guys. So somebody is going to get squeezed. Unless Coach K decides to go small (i.e., predominantly 3 guards), it's unlikely that both Thornton and Cook will both see 20+ mpg, unless Murphy and/or Jefferson see their minutes take a huge nosedive.

So the debate about playing time is inherently a discussion of Thornton vs Cook or Thornton/Cook vs Murphy/Jefferson, by virtue of the finite number of available minutes.

Kedsy
11-12-2012, 01:58 PM
Totally agree here. And if Thornton continues to play near the level he played against GSU, I have no problem with him playing major minutes. I remain skeptical that he can consistently be effective against better competition, so we'll see. Of course, the same can be said for Cook.

I think Tyler played a decent game, but I don't think he played nearly as well as some other people think he played. I was trying to figure out why I saw it differently from others, so I looked at the box score.

Here are Tyler's stats while the score was within 10 points (17 minutes of game time; Tyler played 11 of those minutes):

0 pts, 0-2 3ptrs, 2 TOs, 1 asst, 1 stl, 1 reb

Here are Tyler's stats while the score was in double-digits (23 minutes of game time; Tyler played 19 of those minutes):

13 pts, 2-2 FTs, 3-4 3ptrs, 2 TOs, 2 assts, 1 stl, 3 rebs

In his favor, his strong play at the beginning of the 2nd half was instrumental in Duke stretching our lead from 13 to 21, but during the 17 minutes it was a relatively close game, Tyler's level of play wasn't all that high. I'm not saying he played poorly, his defense was reasonably strong, but if he doesn't hit those two late threes when the game was already well in hand, I don't think anybody's saying what a wonderful game he played.

Just my opinion, of course.

Kedsy
11-12-2012, 02:29 PM
Another thing that may or may not be in my imagination is either coincidentally or for whatever reason, our other guard doesn't seem to perform as well when Tyler's in the game. In past seasons I documented that in 2011 Nolan Smith's stats were significantly worse when Tyler was in the game than when he wasn't, and that in 2012, Seth Curry's stats were generally a lot worse when he teamed with Tyler than when he didn't. This season's sample is so small it's probably meaningless, but I would mention that against Georgia State, Seth played without Tyler on the floor for 8 minutes and scored 7 points while in the 22 minutes they were both on the floor Seth scored just 8 points. Probably meaningless, but for what little it's worth it does seem to be a continuation of a trend.

elvis14
11-12-2012, 02:45 PM
Another thing that may or may not be in my imagination is either coincidentally or for whatever reason, our other guard doesn't seem to perform as well when Tyler's in the game. In past seasons I documented that in 2011 Nolan Smith's stats were significantly worse when Tyler was in the game than when he wasn't, and that in 2012, Seth Curry's stats were generally a lot worse when he teamed with Tyler than when he didn't. This season's sample is so small it's probably meaningless, but I would mention that against Georgia State, Seth played without Tyler on the floor for 8 minutes and scored 7 points while in the 22 minutes they were both on the floor Seth scored just 8 points. Probably meaningless, but for what little it's worth it does seem to be a continuation of a trend.

It's because teams don't guard TT much. We were talking during the game and commenting about how GSU was leaving TT alone (which is what teams did last year). Several times I said to the friend I was watching with "look at that, they aren't even guarding Thornton!". That allows his defender to sag into the paint or wander over to Seth or any other guard and basically gum up the offense (except for any open 3's Thornton hits).

Kedsy
11-12-2012, 03:10 PM
It's because teams don't guard TT much. We were talking during the game and commenting about how GSU was leaving TT alone (which is what teams did last year). Several times I said to the friend I was watching with "look at that, they aren't even guarding Thornton!". That allows his defender to sag into the paint or wander over to Seth or any other guard and basically gum up the offense (except for any open 3's Thornton hits).

I think that's probably a big part of it. But I suspect the way Tyler spaces the floor, because he's used to being a point guard but he doesn't really play point in our offense, is also less conducive to scoring opportunities for our other guard. Hard to say for certain.

jv001
11-12-2012, 03:15 PM
It's because teams don't guard TT much. We were talking during the game and commenting about how GSU was leaving TT alone (which is what teams did last year). Several times I said to the friend I was watching with "look at that, they aren't even guarding Thornton!". That allows his defender to sag into the paint or wander over to Seth or any other guard and basically gum up the offense (except for any open 3's Thornton hits).

Didn't Tyler have 3 or 4 turnovers that led to baskets on the other end? His handle is not very good and therefore he cannot penetrate against a zone or man to man. Just thinking about a 3 guard offense scares the heck out of me. A 3 guard offense is ok if the 3 can play good man to man defense, create turnovers and help with rebounding. I just don't think this group of guards as a whole can do this very well. GoDuke!

mr. synellinden
11-12-2012, 03:22 PM
Boy, so much for Alex Murphy not playing being the story of the game. In case anyone still cares about that - here's some fodder:

http://dukereport.com/duke-basketball/are-alex-murphy-concerns-warranted-kline/

elvis14
11-12-2012, 04:00 PM
Boy, so much for Alex Murphy not playing being the story of the game. In case anyone still cares about that - here's some fodder:

http://dukereport.com/duke-basketball/are-alex-murphy-concerns-warranted-kline/

I suspect that Alex not playing SHOULD be the story of the game. Thanks for the link, it's a good read. I think it goes without saying that we all know how important having a guy like Murphy is to the team. I for one kept waiting to see Silent G take the leap and start contributing more last year. It never happened. My fear is that Murphy could have a similar year. Note, I'm not predicting that, I'm just saying that it's a scenario that has me worried. I really think we'll need Murphy or Amile (or better yet both of them) to play a solid SF/3/Wing/label in order for this team to reach it's maximum potential (preferably in March).

wilko
11-12-2012, 04:06 PM
So much hand wringing around Cook and Murphy.
And I cant say I blame you guys all that much. I too had hoped to see things further along as well.

My unconnected, uninformed, misguided opinion is that this is about assertion and aggression and developing leaders. This is saying an opportunity is there... "Who wants to take it? - Then TAKE IT!"
Its looking for guys to man up and seize the opportunity with both hands.

I thought Cook had some flashes - he had a nice rapport with Jefferson on a couple of sequences that struck me as worth remembering. Angles, spacing and speed while seeing "the game". If Cook can shake the "is this the right play?" mentality and transition to the "killer instinct" to "make the play". Perhaps then he can get his timing right more quickly with Mason on some easy buckets around the rim.

Who can say with Alex since we haven't really seen him...
My guess is something the staff saw showed them his passion needed to be tested for much the same reason to get him going.

sagegrouse
11-12-2012, 04:16 PM
Boy, so much for Alex Murphy not playing being the story of the game. In case anyone still cares about that - here's some fodder:

http://dukereport.com/duke-basketball/are-alex-murphy-concerns-warranted-kline/

At most schools, especially Duke, you earn your playing time in practice. I particularly like Roy Williams' phrasing: "I don't decide who plays; the players do."

TT started 19 of 34 games last season; Quinn started 4. Of course, Tyler is fighting like crazy to keep his starting position. And BTW TT is always "fighting like crazy," which is one reason K likes him.

WRT to Alex: it may be play in practice or it may be something else.

sage
'Remember the debacle against St. John's two years ago? Duke went quietly and mostly without a struggle. Tyler, however, chalked up five fouls and one fight in his nine minutes. K certainly noticed because the next game he was in the starting lineup'

devil84
11-12-2012, 10:53 PM
The moderators have been busy in this thread today taking care of some rudeness and borderline incivility between a few posters. There's plenty of room for disagreement on this thread and it can be done with respect. There's no need to be rude or point out character flaws.

The board rules (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21833-Decorum-amp-Posting-Guidelines-%28Please-read-before-posting!%29) state:

Incivility. You are free to disagree with other posters; all we ask that you respectfully disagree. Challenge the content of the post: point out flaws in their logic, dispute facts, or counter the argument respectfully. Attacking the poster by being snarky, name-calling, or engaging in a flame war is not tolerated. Avoid "gotcha" posts.