PDA

View Full Version : Why I'm sick of the "Duke's not deep" criticism



scottdude8
01-04-2013, 12:48 PM
As Duke finishes the non-conference season with an impressive undefeated record and remains No. 1 going into conference play, the over-analysis of this team continues to come at a fast and furious pace. Without question, the most common of these criticisms is the idea that Duke isn't "deep" and doesn't have the bench to compete towards the end of the season.

I'm personally sick of this criticism, because it simply isn't true. While our starters do play an abnormally high amount of minutes in comparison to other schools, that isn't by necessity (which a lack of depth would create), but by Coach K's choice. Whether that choice is right or wrong can be open to debate (and always seems to be), but the quality of our bench players shouldn't be.

In fact, I think our bench can be a strength later this season if it has to be. In my opinion Tyler and Josh are the ideal bench contributors, especially at Duke—guys who, while not extremely talented on the offensive side of the floor, provide great defense and energy and know their roles in the offensive sets, rarely playing outside of themselves. In the 5 minute or so spurts that they see the floor, this is exactly what we need.

Meanwhile, Alex, Amile and Marshall (when healthy) are all players who could start (or at least play 15+ minutes a game) for many ACC teams who need them. Alex has shown he can score, Amile is a solid defender and rebounder given his current body, and Marshall is 7 feet tall. Critics consistently imply that their lack of playing time is due to their lack of talent, lack of maturity, lack of experience, lack of a healthy foot, etc., but that does them all a huge disservice and I'm personally sick of it. These are all extremely talented basketball players who just aren't at this stage of their careers better than our starters, and given Coach K's philosophy that means they don't see the floor that often. That doesn't mean that we aren't a "deep" team, just that Coach K's philosophy and coaching style rarely makes use of said depth unless it is necessary due to injuries, foul trouble, or poor play.

2010 was not a "deep" team—we only had one guard off the bench in Andre. This year's bench doesn't see the floor that much more than the 2010 team. But that in no way means we aren't deep, just that we are lucky enough to have starters talented enough so that utilizing that depth isn't necessary.

This has been bugging me for a while so I wanted to put my loose argument out there and see what others think, especially those who can compare this team to situations in the more distant past that may shed some light on the situation. I'm curious to hear what others think.

CDu
01-04-2013, 12:54 PM
All of what you say may be true. But the reality is that none of Marshall, Murphy, or Jefferson have performed against quality opponents. When we've faced good teams, those guys have been DNP-CD or played VERY sparingly. So it's hard to argue that those guys are certainly ready to contribute at an ACC (or higher) level.

It's completely reasonable to assess Duke's bench based on what Duke's bench has actually done in meaningful games. And to this point we've gone with our 7-man rotation in meaningful games. And the two guys that do play in meaningful games are very limited offensively.

scottdude8
01-04-2013, 01:01 PM
All of what you say may be true. But the reality is that none of Marshall, Murphy, or Jefferson have performed against quality opponents. When we've faced good teams, those guys have been DNP-CD or played VERY sparingly. So it's hard to argue that those guys are certainly ready to contribute at an ACC (or higher) level.

It's completely reasonable to assess Duke's bench based on what Duke's bench has actually done in meaningful games. And to this point we've gone with our 7-man rotation in meaningful games. And the two guys that do play in meaningful games are very limited offensively.

I understand your argument here, but I think it feeds in to my larger point, which is there is (in my mind at least) a very big difference in saying, A) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because Coach K hasn't chosen to play them 5 minutes a game; vs. B) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because our bench isn't talented enough, or hasn't developed enough, etc. The later is what many people seem to be saying and that I disagree with—my argument is that the apparent lack of depth is due not to lack of talent, but to a strategic choice by Coach K given the talent of our starters, not the lackthereof amongst our bench.

cbarry
01-04-2013, 01:07 PM
I really like this team, and proud of them for being undefeated so far. I hope we don't see a trend we have seen in a lot of recent seasons, where we peak too early, and trail off as the season goes along. A reasonable explanation for this might be that we don't get enough out of our bench. An injury or illness to one of our starters is not only possible, it is likely, given the rigorous practice schedule and game schedule we play.

Count me in as someone who wishes we had given guys like Amile, Alex, and (now that his foot is ?healthy?) Marshall more playing time up to this point. I know K has always played the best people, and is not a "minutes" coach.K is notorious for shortening the bench as the season progresses, so there is little possibility of any of those 3 getting more than 3-4 minutes each per game from here on out, barring an injury to a starter. These 3 will certainly be useful to us next year, but I wonder if they get frustrated at their lack of PT. I would hate to see if happen, but I could certainly see 1 or more of those 3 transferring after the season due to lack of PT.

gumbomoop
01-04-2013, 01:11 PM
I think Jay Bilas commented Wed eve during Davidson game that the 2 areas "Duke needs to address" are rebounding and "developing a deeper bench." Or something pretty close to those words.

It struck me that implicitly Bilas was criticizing, or at least "wondering aloud" about, K's apparent 7-man [closer to 6 and 1/2] rotation in recent games. It's a reasonable concern, oft-debated on EK, but K's gonna do what K thinks will lead to wins, lots of wins, all season long.

Those of us, including me, who wish we had maybe a 9-man rotation at this point in the season - well, we're right, of course, but K is stubborn, hard to convince, not much of a track record. We'll only have to put up with it for another 5-7 years.

CDu
01-04-2013, 01:14 PM
I understand your argument here, but I think it feeds in to my larger point, which is there is (in my mind at least) a very big difference in saying, A) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because Coach K hasn't chosen to play them 5 minutes a game; vs. B) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because our bench isn't talented enough, or hasn't developed enough, etc. The later is what many people seem to be saying and that I disagree with—my argument is that the apparent lack of depth is due not to lack of talent, but to a strategic choice by Coach K given the talent of our starters, not the lackthereof amongst our bench.

The problem with your argument isn't that it is necessarily wrong. It might be correct. The problem is that there's no reason to assume that Coach K is not playing those guys for strategic (not ability) reasons alone. You're making the assumption that Marshall, Murphy, and Jefferson are ready to contribute. The outsiders who question our bench do so because they make the assumption that if these guys are ready, they'd be playing in games against decent opponents.

Further, I don't think anyone is saying the bench isn't talented enough. I think most people acknowledge that Murphy and Jefferson (and perhaps Marshall too) have talent. I think the critics are saying that we'll need to get more production out of our bench to win it all, and that the talented freshman haven't shown enough development to be ready to contribute. That's a combination of A and B from your choices above. And I think it's just as reasonable to assume this as it is to assume that those guys are ready but Coach K is simply choosing not to play them.

Matches
01-04-2013, 01:21 PM
Depth is overrated IMO. It's useful to have in case of an injury or significant foul trouble. But there are only 200 minutes to go around, and when the chips are down you want your best players on the court as much as they're able to be there. I've always thought that having more than 8 players in a college team's rotation is a sign that the best players aren't very good.

Saratoga2
01-04-2013, 01:21 PM
I understand your argument here, but I think it feeds in to my larger point, which is there is (in my mind at least) a very big difference in saying, A) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because Coach K hasn't chosen to play them 5 minutes a game; vs. B) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because our bench isn't talented enough, or hasn't developed enough, etc. The later is what many people seem to be saying and that I disagree with—my argument is that the apparent lack of depth is due not to lack of talent, but to a strategic choice by Coach K given the talent of our starters, not the lackthereof amongst our bench.

By coach K's own comments, Marshall may be the 6th best player on the team. He is nearly 7 feet, has been in the program for more than one year and has quite a bit of athleticism. Alex is very athletic and quick. I would think he is one of the top 3 athletes on the team. He can shoot and he is certainly a determined player. Amile is long and athletic and seems to be a tough kid, willing to go into the trenches, rebound and fight for the ball. Why don't they get a sniff in most games? I also think it boils down to coach K not choosing to play them over the others for several reasons.

1. Not experienced enough to do a first class defensive job
2. Not as good in practice as the subs that are playing
3. Not as physically strong as the subs who are playing.

I can buy the argument that Thorton is doing an excellent job defensively and can hit shots if left open. Hard to argue that he could be replaced by one of our three bench subs. I think the argument for Josh is that he is physically strong and of course more experienced than the three not getting into games. Personally, I think Josh tends to give gratuitious fouls which lead to opponents getting 1 and 1's earlier in the half. To me, it can be argued that any of the three possibles might do as well or better than Josh, but it is coach K's call and afterall, he has been extremely successful.

OldPhiKap
01-04-2013, 01:22 PM
I really like this team, and proud of them for being undefeated so far. I hope we don't see a trend we have seen in a lot of recent seasons, where we peak too early, and trail off as the season goes along. A reasonable explanation for this might be that we don't get enough out of our bench. An injury or illness to one of our starters is not only possible, it is likely, given the rigorous practice schedule and game schedule we play.

Count me in as someone who wishes we had given guys like Amile, Alex, and (now that his foot is ?healthy?) Marshall more playing time up to this point. I know K has always played the best people, and is not a "minutes" coach.K is notorious for shortening the bench as the season progresses, so there is little possibility of any of those 3 getting more than 3-4 minutes each per game from here on out, barring an injury to a starter. These 3 will certainly be useful to us next year, but I wonder if they get frustrated at their lack of PT. I would hate to see if happen, but I could certainly see 1 or more of those 3 transferring after the season due to lack of PT.

Of course, they have the opportunity to compete every day and show that they should get more minutes. If a guard plays better defense than Tyler, they'll get some burn. If a big guy bodies up better than Jiggy, they'll get time. If a wing emerges as a crazy good force, they will get some minutes when Rasheed or Ryan come out.

I just don't buy the idea that one of these guys would be able to replace Mason, Ryan or Quinn just because they got an extra three minutes a game.

I cannot see any of the three transferring, but I think that a long discussion of the topic is counterproductive and thus will just leave it at that.

uh_no
01-04-2013, 01:30 PM
Of course, they have the opportunity to compete every day and show that they should get more minutes. If a guard plays better defense than Tyler, they'll get some burn. If a big guy bodies up better than Jiggy, they'll get time. If a wing emerges as a crazy good force, they will get some minutes when Rasheed or Ryan come out.

I just don't buy the idea that one of these guys would be able to replace Mason, Ryan or Quinn just because they got an extra three minutes a game.

I cannot see any of the three transferring, but I think that a long discussion of the topic is counterproductive and thus will just leave it at that.

That's the money point. You see all the improvement mason has made, and quinn has made....is that from playing minutes in games? No. It was from working their butts off in practice (bother personal and team). No doubt game experience is important...but if it were the key thing, then we'd see players get phenomenally better during the season and stagnate (or regress) during the offseason...because they aren't seeing game minutes. As that's not the case, we have to believe that it is, in fact, possible (contrary to the beliefs of many here) to develop as a player without seeing a ton of game time.

I think it's even more silly, as you point out, to think that 3 minutes a game will make one bit of difference.

CDu
01-04-2013, 01:35 PM
Of course, they have the opportunity to compete every day and show that they should get more minutes. If a guard plays better defense than Tyler, they'll get some burn. If a big guy bodies up better than Jiggy, they'll get time. If a wing emerges as a crazy good force, they will get some minutes when Rasheed or Ryan come out.

I just don't buy the idea that one of these guys would be able to replace Mason, Ryan or Quinn just because they got an extra three minutes a game.

Totally agree with this. Coach K has always been a coach that stresses that playing time is earned in practice. If Coach K felt those guys were earning the PT in practice, they'd be playing.

And I could not agree more with the last sentence. A few extra game minutes isn't going to make those guys any better off. All it will do is sooth the fans' nerves. But those guys will be just as ready with or without an additional 3-5 mpg of time on the court. Could there be a benefit to game play? Sure. But I doubt that the impact of a couple of minutes here or there on a player's readiness is anything significant. And that potential benefit is offset by reducing the time available to the primary players, and the primary guys are the ones that we'll be counting on in big games.


I cannot see any of the three transferring, but I think that a long discussion of the topic is counterproductive and thus will just leave it at that.

In this day and age, I've come to the stance that anyone is a threat to transfer. Guys like Gbinije and Williams transferred away from teams that had plenty of minutes available to them in the coming year. Randolph left what would have been a chance to play starter's minutes (even though it might have been as a reserve) on a championship contender. Anything can happen. I agree that it isn't worth discussing the possibility of a transfer, though.

Chris Randolph
01-04-2013, 02:04 PM
When it is hard to find much wrong with a team, seems to me that "lack of quality depth" or "need more bench scoring" is a common statement made just to find something to say. KU made it all the way to the big one last year with very little depth at all. In 2010 we won it all with an average to below average bench (production wise). Heck in that tournament the minutes of our bench were very little.

Our "lack of depth" is just fine. Our five (whomever makes up that five) together on the floor (all that matters) are really good.

CDu
01-04-2013, 02:21 PM
When it is hard to find much wrong with a team, seems to me that "lack of quality depth" or "need more bench scoring" is a common statement made just to find something to say. KU made it all the way to the big one last year with very little depth at all. In 2010 we won it all with an average to below average bench (production wise). Heck in that tournament the minutes of our bench were very little.

Our "lack of depth" is just fine. Our five (whomever makes up that five) together on the floor (all that matters) are really good.

Yeah, if you're going to have a concern, a "lack of depth" is the concern to have. We have five guys who may average 10+ ppg, any of whom can give us 15-20 on any given night. We have two more guys who know their roles and are happy to be non-factors on offense. We have 2-3 more guys who may or may not be capable/ready to make an impact if needed (that remains to be seen). But even if they aren't ready, teams have won titles with virtually no bench production before.

SupaDave
01-04-2013, 03:14 PM
That's the money point. You see all the improvement mason has made, and quinn has made....is that from playing minutes in games? No. It was from working their butts off in practice (bother personal and team). No doubt game experience is important...but if it were the key thing, then we'd see players get phenomenally better during the season and stagnate (or regress) during the offseason...because they aren't seeing game minutes. As that's not the case, we have to believe that it is, in fact, possible (contrary to the beliefs of many here) to develop as a player without seeing a ton of game time.

I think it's even more silly, as you point out, to think that 3 minutes a game will make one bit of difference.

See Zoubek, Brian

Fact of the matter is that K plays you if you're ready - or needed.

Marshall will certainly see an uptick in minutes once healthy - no explanation needed. Amile is getting to play but he stays on the floor so much I'm sure Coach is trying not to get him killed. And Alex is simply at the wrong position - next year he'll see lots of minutes at the 4 and truly be ready. Right now Coach would much rather sub Josh in for Ryan bc of his body, surprising production, and knowledge of the system. Ryan and Mason are almost never out of the game at the same time.

COYS
01-04-2013, 03:16 PM
But even if they aren't ready, teams have won titles with virtually no bench production before.

The issue of depth is funny to me because it seems that in college basketball, depth is regarded in the exact opposite way that it is regarded in the NBA. In college, fans and commentators make statements like player X needs to develop so that he will be ready to contribute in March. In the NBA, the argument is the opposite. Commentators and fans critique the success of recent NBA regular season powerhouse teams like San Antonio and the pre-Rose injury Bulls noting that they are winning in large part because their benches are stronger than most benches in the league. During the grind of the league season, opposing teams play their starters less but when the playoffs come around, the starters play heavy minutes and the advantage of having a good bench is diminished. I think that college basketball is actually closer to the NBA. Most coaches tighten their rotations heading into the postseason. Even teams that have 10 guys averaging significant minutes will drop the 10th, 9th or 8th guys from the rotation when the games get really tough.

It would obviously be wonderful to have a starting five backed up by an equally talented second five who could seamlessly sub in and out of the game without any drop off, whatsoever. However, that has probably never happened in the history of the sport. The reality that you want your starters to be as good as they can possibly be because when the game is on the line in March, you need them on the floor. Bench depth only becomes a real issue for a team's championship aspirations in the event of injury or foul trouble. We saw this first hand last year after Ryan was injured. Of course, UNC saw the same drop off after Marshall went out with a wrist injury, and Roy is famous for giving his bench guys lots of run. In both cases, there was no one on the roster who could step in and replace the skillset of the player lost, regardless of how many players were available on the bench.

In short, bench depth is something that would be nice for any team. However, playing bench players in a game has little advantage unless those players are really good and are able to at least approach the abilities of the primary players. In the event of injury, it doesn't really matter how many players a team has on the bench if none of them are as good as the guy who went down. The team will still see a big drop off.

Bob Green
01-04-2013, 03:38 PM
All of what you say may be true. But the reality is that none of Marshall, Murphy, or Jefferson have performed against quality opponents.

I have not read all the posts in the thread so perhaps I repeating a point someone else has already made, but Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson perform against quality opponents everyday in practice. Duke's starters are pretty much the definition of quality opponents. I'd like to see the bench get a few more minutes in games but I'll stop shy of labeling bench minutes a problem, or even a concern, seeing as a short bench is Coach K's style and he is very successful.

In my personal opinion, Coach Krzyzewski uses too short of a rotation while Coach Williams uses too deep of a rotation. The perfect rotation would be somewhere in between, but seeing as those two have combined for six national championships I'm intent to conclude they know what style fits their program best. The old saying, "there's more than one way to skin a cat" seems apropos.

Matches
01-04-2013, 03:41 PM
The issue of depth is funny to me because it seems that in college basketball, depth is regarded in the exact opposite way that it is regarded in the NBA. In college, fans and commentators make statements like player X needs to develop so that he will be ready to contribute in March. In the NBA, the argument is the opposite. Commentators and fans critique the success of recent NBA regular season powerhouse teams like San Antonio and the pre-Rose injury Bulls noting that they are winning in large part because their benches are stronger than most benches in the league.

Legs are more of a concern in the NBA just due to the length and pace of the season. The NBA schedule is really far too long, particularly when you add in the effect of frequent travel. Even the most well-conditioned NBA player is going to have a hard time going 40+ minutes, 3-4 times a week, over an 82-game season. Even the really intense competitors, the Kobes of the world, have to acknowledge that they pace themselves during the regular season. There's little of that in college, especially at Duke where K absolutely expects everyone to be going full-throttle every night.


Bench depth only becomes a real issue for a team's championship aspirations in the event of injury or foul trouble. We saw this first hand last year after Ryan was injured. Of course, UNC saw the same drop off after Marshall went out with a wrist injury, and Roy is famous for giving his bench guys lots of run. In both cases, there was no one on the roster who could step in and replace the skillset of the player lost, regardless of how many players were available on the bench.

In short, bench depth is something that would be nice for any team. However, playing bench players in a game has little advantage unless those players are really good and are able to at least approach the abilities of the primary players. In the event of injury, it doesn't really matter how many players a team has on the bench if none of them are as good as the guy who went down. The team will still see a big drop off.

Yes - and for any team, at some point injuries can overcome a team's ability to cope. A few years ago the Atlanta Braves had 4 starting pitchers go down at once. They fell apart. We can talk about depth all day long but eventually any team can be felled by a significant number of injuries.

And there's always a few key guys - the Marshalls of the world - who even a deep team just can't live without. The deepest Duke team I can recall was the loaded '99 team - but if William Avery had experienced a major injury we would've been in big trouble.

wilko
01-04-2013, 04:19 PM
Only the Philosophy Department knows for sure...

CDu
01-04-2013, 04:27 PM
I have not read all the posts in the thread so perhaps I repeating a point someone else has already made, but Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson perform against quality opponents everyday in practice. Duke's starters are pretty much the definition of quality opponents. I'd like to see the bench get a few more minutes in games but I'll stop shy of labeling bench minutes a problem, or even a concern, seeing as a short bench is Coach K's style and he is very successful.

In my personal opinion, Coach Krzyzewski uses too short of a rotation while Coach Williams uses too deep of a rotation. The perfect rotation would be somewhere in between, but seeing as those two have combined for six national championships I'm intent to conclude they know what style fits their program best. The old saying, "there's more than one way to skin a cat" seems apropos.

Sorry, I worded that poorly. I meant that we have not seen what Marshall, Murphy, and Jefferson can do against quality opponents. Of course they are practicing against said opponents. My point was more with regard to whether or not they are ready to contribute against quality opponents. We know that they have practiced against quality opponents, but because we don't see practices and they haven't played any games against quality opponents, we have no idea whether their lack of appearances against quality opponents is simply a strategic move or if it is because Coach K feels they aren't ready to contribute. The original poster was making the assumption of the former, while some (not all) of the critics seem to be assuming the latter.

Of course, some other critics (such as Bilas) are doing something different altogether. He is making no statements about the freshmen's readiness - just that he thinks Duke will eventually need them to produce more.

OldPhiKap
01-04-2013, 04:28 PM
Only the Philosophy Department knows for sure...

Would that be a priori knowledge?

As if there was some sort of universal truth. Feh.



(I would throw in some reference to Schrödinger's cat but for the life of me I don't get it).

ChillinDuke
01-04-2013, 05:00 PM
By coach K's own comments, Marshall may be the 6th best player on the team. He is nearly 7 feet, has been in the program for more than one year and has quite a bit of athleticism. Alex is very athletic and quick. I would think he is one of the top 3 athletes on the team. He can shoot and he is certainly a determined player. Amile is long and athletic and seems to be a tough kid, willing to go into the trenches, rebound and fight for the ball. Why don't they get a sniff in most games? I also think it boils down to coach K not choosing to play them over the others for several reasons.

Another thing to note (as has been implied by other posters - I will try to be explicit) is that it doesn't matter how good you are. It matters how relatively good you are. Marshall may well be the 6th best on the team, heck he can even be the 2nd best player on the team. But, with Marshall logically overlapping positions with Mason who may very well be the best player on the team, he won't see the court in any meaningful way. Mason takes the minutes. This is K's view.

You can have the personal view of Bob Green (e.g.) in that K should play more players - in other words, give less minutes to Mason in favor of Marshall (e.g.) - but K plays his best player. Since Marshall and Mason can't reasonably see the court at the same time, you are left with a situation in which Mason gets the lion's share of minutes and Marshall sits.

It doesn't matter how good Marshall is. He just isn't as good as Mason. Thus, he sits.

- Chillin

Newton_14
01-05-2013, 10:38 PM
I understand your argument here, but I think it feeds in to my larger point, which is there is (in my mind at least) a very big difference in saying, A) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because Coach K hasn't chosen to play them 5 minutes a game; vs. B) Marshall, Murphy and Jefferson aren't ready to contribute because our bench isn't talented enough, or hasn't developed enough, etc. The later is what many people seem to be saying and that I disagree with—my argument is that the apparent lack of depth is due not to lack of talent, but to a strategic choice by Coach K given the talent of our starters, not the lackthereof amongst our bench.

I agree with you on this. In the Delaware game when Seth sat, Murphy played a lot and played well. Amile also played well that game. After the game K said the following:


On development of role players:
“Those guys are good guys, but you know what, for me the main guys to develop are Mason [Plumlee], Ryan [Kelly] and Seth [Curry]. This is not like an AAU team or whatever; you have to make sure your group understands its role. Mason’s role this year is different from last year – he has to get a lot of minutes. To see Alex [Murphy] and Amile [Jefferson] and Josh [Hairston] play so well today, that is great, but it doesn’t mean that we are going to get this wave of substitutions and things like that. We already knew they could do it, but the fact that they are out there and got those minutes is great. You never know is Seth’s case, if he is going to be able to play. The kid who always goes unnoticed is Tyler [Thornton]. We can plug him in anywhere, he is a winner. He comes out with 10 assists and tough defense, such an easy guy to play with.”


Today he was asked the same thing and responded with the following:

On developing the team’s depth:
“The development of our starters is much more important than the development of our depth. The development of every player is important. We are dealing in an injured player in Seth [Curry]. I know because he’s playing you think everything is good, but he’s not. He’s had gutty performances. Ryan [Kelly] was hurt during the holidays. He tweaked his foot. They have to be ready to go. And also for your future. Those three kids – Amile, Alex and Marshall – are really good players. They’re playing behind three seniors. It’s a different dynamic. There’s more separation than normal. And that’s good. That’s why we’re 14-0. It’s why we’ve won. You have to develop your depth and young guys in a little bit different way with this team.”

So that is from the horses mouth in a very open and matter of fact statement. No reading between the lines. He believes in playing his top guys a lot of minutes so they can gel as a team and reach peak performance. He also seems to believe in his heart of hearts that the peak performance/ceiling of a 6 to 7ish man rotation will be better than the peak performance/ceiling of a 8 to 10 man rotation, and that young players can be developed effectively in practice. I agree with him 100% on development in practice, but I am not so sure about the shorter rotation having a higher ceiling. To me it all depends on how good the 7th thru 10th guy is. But that's just me and I have never won a college game as a coach.

Hard to argue with his results, especially with this team. I do think it is fair to debate whether the team would be better with Amile getting some of Josh's minutes, as well as wondering if playing Alex some at the 3 when either Rasheed or Seth is resting, would be better. The problem with playing Alex right now though, is it means 1 of Quinn, Seth, Rasheed, and Tyler would have to have their minutes reduced. All four are playing at a high level so I can certainly see K's point that taking minutes away from any of those 4 would not help the team, and would likely hurt it. That does not mean Alex is not a good player. He is.

Giving Marshall more minutes means that Mason's minutes are reduced and that certainly is not good for the team either. So again, K's logic there is sound.

Sum it all up, and the only thing I question is would it be better for the team if either Amile or Alex got some or all of Josh's minutes at the 4. I think the fact that Josh is a Junior who knows the defensive scheme's well, has enough weight and strength to bang with ACC bigs, and embraces his role and generally plays within himself, is why K goes with him over the two Freshmen. Not horrible logic there either.

Two things though. One, if Josh slips and goes in a funk or something, and either Amile or Alex start outplaying him in practice, K will not hesitate to make the switch in games. We have seen that in years past

Second, the starting five are really good and complement each other very well with the varying skill sets. We are at our very best when those 5 are in the game.

Kedsy
01-05-2013, 10:46 PM
Second, the starting five are really good and complement each other very well with the varying skill sets. We are at our very best when those 5 are in the game.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. As highly as I think of Marshall, Alex, and Amile (Josh and Tyler, too), in the second half of today's game when the 2nd unit came out and our starters went back in, the entire complexion of the game changed (or perhaps it changed back). I got the feeling that our starters were in complete control and there was no way Wake could beat them; I certainly didn't have that feel when the 2nd unit was in, not even close.

scottdude8
01-05-2013, 11:42 PM
Love the last two posts. They get to the core of my argument, which K seems to be inconspicuously agreeing with in those comments, which is just because we aren't playing a lot of depth doesn't mean it isn't there. We can debate about whether that is a legitimate strategy all we want, I just don't like when those debates devolve into unwarranted criticism of our bench. K's coaching style just makes it very difficult to earn minutes when we have elite guys in the starting lineup.

OldPhiKap
01-06-2013, 08:29 AM
Love the last two posts. They get to the core of my argument, which K seems to be inconspicuously agreeing with in those comments, which is just because we aren't playing a lot of depth doesn't mean it isn't there. We can debate about whether that is a legitimate strategy all we want, I just don't like when those debates devolve into unwarranted criticism of our bench. K's coaching style just makes it very difficult to earn minutes when we have elite guys in the starting lineup.

K also addressed the bench issue in the post-game press conference, stating that these three kids are playing behind three really good seniors who themselves are still developing. It is more important to develop the starters than the reserves, because their games are still growing too. But the bench players have an impact on the team now and going forward.

Indoor66
01-06-2013, 08:39 AM
K also addressed the bench issue in the post-game press conference, stating that these three kids are playing behind three really good seniors who themselves are still developing. It is more important to develop the starters than the reserves, because their games are still growing too. But the bench players have an impact on the team now and going forward.

Each player has to run his own race.

sagegrouse
01-06-2013, 08:49 AM
Love the last two posts. They get to the core of my argument, which K seems to be inconspicuously agreeing with in those comments, which is just because we aren't playing a lot of depth doesn't mean it isn't there. We can debate about whether that is a legitimate strategy all we want, I just don't like when those debates devolve into unwarranted criticism of our bench. K's coaching style just makes it very difficult to earn minutes when we have elite guys in the starting lineup.


K also addressed the bench issue in the post-game press conference, stating that these three kids are playing behind three really good seniors who themselves are still developing. It is more important to develop the starters than the reserves, because their games are still growing too. But the bench players have an impact on the team now and going forward.

Someone else has made this point:

We have a phenomenal starting five:


A developing, but extraordinary point guard.

An NPOY candidate in the middle who is strong and relentless.

A 6-11 guy with lots of smarts who can shoot from the outside.

A powerful freshman who is close to being a lockdown defender and can get to the rim.

A lights-out shooter who knows the game.

Sophomore Cook and freshman Sulaimon need lots of minutes to advance their game, so there is only so much to go around. The three seniors, who are our leading scorers, are going to play all they can.

I want to see the three freshman play as well, but I assume they are learning a lot in Duke's very tough practices. And next year there will be three vacancies to compete for.

sagegrouse

TruBlu
01-06-2013, 10:37 AM
K also addressed the bench issue in the post-game press conference, stating that these three kids are playing behind three really good seniors who themselves are still developing. It is more important to develop the starters than the reserves, because their games are still growing too. But the bench players have an impact on the team now and going forward.

On the Duke radio post game, Coach Capel made the same point, also stating that when the 5 starters are so good, sometimes it is difficult to find minutes for the bench. Speaking specifically about Alex, he stated that Alex was very talented and had a great attitude, but just needed to gain confidence in himself. I was really pleased to hear the part about his great attitude.