PDA

View Full Version : Will We See Changes



SoCalDukeFan
03-05-2007, 02:45 PM
IMHO Coach K is a guy who is a great coach, competitive, but also a little stubborn.

This year's team has lots of highly recruited players. The basic rotation was 8 players. The players all seem like great college kids and all seem to want a true multi-year college experience, not one and done.

However we were 8-8 in the ACC.

We got beat by teams that were deeper and more athletic.

The game changed with the shot clock, the 3 point shot, and with early entry. Coach K made adjustments and was successful. We are now seeing more, deeper teams.

Will K adjust?

Does he have to adjust?

Thanks

Jfrosh
03-05-2007, 03:12 PM
I think in many ways he has adjusted, only with recruiting it takes a couple of years to come to fruition. As you said none of our current players seem to be "one and done" or "none and done" which has hurt us in the recent past, and is one of the main reasons we were so young this year.
Remember because of our youth and the unbalanced schedule a lot of people were predicting a 9-7 record this year which is pretty close to how it ended up. I don't know next year's schedule yet, but I expect to see a significantly better record soley based on experience to go along with increased athleticism.

ghost
03-05-2007, 03:25 PM
Might it be more difficult to identify those "one and done"s with the new NBA rules?

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 03:46 PM
In the past, I've called Coach K "rigid." After watching him this season, I no longer think that's the case. He's made so many changes from last year to this year, and then within this year, that I've actually marveled at his ability to adjust.
First, the larger philosophies:

1) His recruiting has changed, to a certain degree. Yes, he wanted Brandan Wright. Yes, Duke's hot after Greg Monroe. But Coach K never recruited the maximum number of scholarship players in the past. Now, he's routinely bringing in large numbers of players, and he's targeting a number of 3- or 4-year guys. I think this year we're caught right in the middle of the transition, because Duke is ridiculously young, but not filled with the type of young players who will dominate right away. But there's no question that guys like Henderson and Scheyer will be outstanding players at Duke, that they have tons of room to get better, and that they'll probably be at Duke for 3 and 4 years, respectively.

2) Offensive system -- Coach K completely changed the team's offense from what he'd done the previous couple of years (run J.J. off screens or dump it into Shelden), utilized McRoberts' skills as a point center and put more true motion back into the O.

3) Defensive system -- The help scheme has changed somewhat this year, as has the ball pressure. Duke always used to trade forced turnovers for offensive rebounds given up. Well, Duke's not forcing as many turnovers this year, but the team is rebounding better than any Duke team in a long time.

In-season adjustments:

1) K revamped the offense again during the season. He stopped running stuff through McRoberts as a point forward. Then he started dumping the ball into the block to McRoberts. Then he stopped that, and added the weave to put even more motion into the system. And then yesterday, he essentially played 5-out on offense, spreading the floor, opening up the lane for guys to drive and cut. These are more changes within one season than I can remember.

2) Handling Paulus -- The staff deserves a lot of credit for helping Paulus overcome some of his struggles (I'm willing to bet that we find out after the year that his foot never healed, just like how we never knew about his wrist injury until he had surgery after last season). He went to more of a motion system that took the ball out of Greg's hands some and helped Greg find confidence in his jumper. Now, when Greg shoots, I think the ball's going in. (As an aside, picture last year's team with Paulus shooting like he is now, a healthy Nelson and McClure ... sigh).

3) Bench utlization. Others disagree, but I think we've seen K make many adjustments here. Of the nine scholarship players, everyone except Pocius was earning major minutes in at least one point of the season. Zoubek, people forget, got big minutes against several of our early, tough opponents, including Marquette (13) and Georgetown (16). Then his minutes dropped again. Then he played double digits 3 out of 4 games (SJ St., Temple, VT, GT). Then they dropped again. His fluctuation was almost always tied to performance. And, in a game like Maryland, for instance, he stayed in when he was playing well. Thomas' minutes have fluctuated even more wildly, again based on performance. And Pocius, who was getting DNP-CDs early in the year, is at least getting into games now.
K has tried all sorts of rotations, all sorts of lineup combinations. Lately, he's settled into a routine of playing everyone in the first half, and then going to seven guys in the second half, which should be enough to prevent fatigue. Yesterday, the seven-man second half became six, and the small lineup cut into the lead before UNC ran away with it. But it's totally unfair to say that K hasn't given everyone a chance to play, and earn more playing time. Guys who have played well have been rewarded; don't forget that McClure opened the year in a reduced role (only 15 and 13 minutes against Air Force and Marquette, respectively), as did Henderson (single-digit minutes in those same two games, 12 minutes against Georgetown, etc.).

In short, I think we've seen a ton of adjustments this year, and they will benefit Duke greatly down the road. There's only so much you can ask a guy to do. Just because someone is a high recruit doesn't mean he should be expected to play that way immediately. Zoubek, for instance, was never expected to be a stud as a freshman. If you watch him play, you know his lower body needs to get stronger (I've been saying that since December on the old board). That's going to take another summer, at least. We live in such an instant-gratification society that we forget that player development takes time. Just think back to all the previous Duke players who improved dramatically from their freshman to senior seasons.

Patience, guys. Patience.

Kewlswim
03-05-2007, 04:22 PM
In the past, I've called Coach K "rigid." After watching him this season, I no longer think that's the case. He's made so many changes from last year to this year, and then within this year, that I've actually marveled at his ability to adjust.
First, the larger philosophies:

1) His recruiting has changed, to a certain degree. Yes, he wanted Brandan Wright. Yes, Duke's hot after Greg Monroe. But Coach K never recruited the maximum number of scholarship players in the past. Now, he's routinely bringing in large numbers of players, and he's targeting a number of 3- or 4-year guys. I think this year we're caught right in the middle of the transition, because Duke is ridiculously young, but not filled with the type of young players who will dominate right away. But there's no question that guys like Henderson and Scheyer will be outstanding players at Duke, that they have tons of room to get better, and that they'll probably be at Duke for 3 and 4 years, respectively.

2) Offensive system -- Coach K completely changed the team's offense from what he'd done the previous couple of years (run J.J. off screens or dump it into Shelden), utilized McRoberts' skills as a point center and put more true motion back into the O.

3) Defensive system -- The help scheme has changed somewhat this year, as has the ball pressure. Duke always used to trade forced turnovers for offensive rebounds given up. Well, Duke's not forcing as many turnovers this year, but the team is rebounding better than any Duke team in a long time.

In-season adjustments:

1) K revamped the offense again during the season. He stopped running stuff through McRoberts as a point forward. Then he started dumping the ball into the block to McRoberts. Then he stopped that, and added the weave to put even more motion into the system. And then yesterday, he essentially played 5-out on offense, spreading the floor, opening up the lane for guys to drive and cut. These are more changes within one season than I can remember.

2) Handling Paulus -- The staff deserves a lot of credit for helping Paulus overcome some of his struggles (I'm willing to bet that we find out after the year that his foot never healed, just like how we never knew about his wrist injury until he had surgery after last season). He went to more of a motion system that took the ball out of Greg's hands some and helped Greg find confidence in his jumper. Now, when Greg shoots, I think the ball's going in. (As an aside, picture last year's team with Paulus shooting like he is now, a healthy Nelson and McClure ... sigh).

3) Bench utlization. Others disagree, but I think we've seen K make many adjustments here. Of the nine scholarship players, everyone except Pocius was earning major minutes in at least one point of the season. Zoubek, people forget, got big minutes against several of our early, tough opponents, including Marquette (13) and Georgetown (16). Then his minutes dropped again. Then he played double digits 3 out of 4 games (SJ St., Temple, VT, GT). Then they dropped again. His fluctuation was almost always tied to performance. And, in a game like Maryland, for instance, he stayed in when he was playing well. Thomas' minutes have fluctuated even more wildly, again based on performance. And Pocius, who was getting DNP-CDs early in the year, is at least getting into games now.
K has tried all sorts of rotations, all sorts of lineup combinations. Lately, he's settled into a routine of playing everyone in the first half, and then going to seven guys in the second half, which should be enough to prevent fatigue. Yesterday, the seven-man second half became six, and the small lineup cut into the lead before UNC ran away with it. But it's totally unfair to say that K hasn't given everyone a chance to play, and earn more playing time. Guys who have played well have been rewarded; don't forget that McClure opened the year in a reduced role (only 15 and 13 minutes against Air Force and Marquette, respectively), as did Henderson (single-digit minutes in those same two games, 12 minutes against Georgetown, etc.).

In short, I think we've seen a ton of adjustments this year, and they will benefit Duke greatly down the road. There's only so much you can ask a guy to do. Just because someone is a high recruit doesn't mean he should be expected to play that way immediately. Zoubek, for instance, was never expected to be a stud as a freshman. If you watch him play, you know his lower body needs to get stronger (I've been saying that since December on the old board). That's going to take another summer, at least. We live in such an instant-gratification society that we forget that player development takes time. Just think back to all the previous Duke players who improved dramatically from their freshman to senior seasons.

Patience, guys. Patience.


Hi,

I am patient. I am a wee bit scared that some of the kids, such as Lance, might not be so patient and bolt to another program because they are not getting enough playing time. :mad: I realize that kids want to play and when they don't, they get antsy. So, to me, it isn't just about being fresh during games it is about keeping kids happy.

GO DUKE!

dbchamblee
03-05-2007, 04:28 PM
Did you hear K's comments on ESPN's Sunday Conversation about this team's need for a younger, more emotional coaching style. I would say we've certainly seen that. If you've read his books then you know this game's about a whole lot more than Xs and O's and raw physical ability to him.

WiJoe
03-05-2007, 05:14 PM
Jumbo:
You make a ton of good points. Not that I needed it, but you post makes it that much easier to keep the faith.

tbyers11
03-05-2007, 05:14 PM
1) His recruiting has changed, to a certain degree. Yes, he wanted Brandan Wright. Yes, Duke's hot after Greg Monroe. But Coach K never recruited the maximum number of scholarship players in the past. Now, he's routinely bringing in large numbers of players, and he's targeting a number of 3- or 4-year guys. I think this year we're caught right in the middle of the transition, because Duke is ridiculously young, but not filled with the type of young players who will dominate right away. But there's no question that guys like Henderson and Scheyer will be outstanding players at Duke, that they have tons of room to get better, and that they'll probably be at Duke for 3 and 4 years, respectively.

I'd like to comment on Jumbo's points about recruiting philosophy. I agree that we are in a transition period of stocking the roster with players that might not dominate right away but will be very good-to-great in their 3rd and 4th years. I think this philosophy shifted as a result of how the Deng/Humphries/Livingston situations played out. Not only did it leave this year's roster almost completely devoid of upperclassmen, but I believe that getting only 1 year of playing time combined from all three has led Coach K to limit the number of immediate impact recruits that he pursues.

Speaking of immediate impact recruits, I think not getting Brandan Wright really impacted this year's team. Nothing against Lance Thomas, who I really like and think will be a very good player in the Antonio Lang mold, but I think Duke would be a significantly better team if you swap him for Wright. Then, even if Wright leaves for the NBA after a year, you still have a solid foundation of Scheyer, Zoubek, and Henderson from that class. But you can't get everything that you want and have to make the best of the cards that you are dealt.

Combine a key recruiting miss, a lack of upperclass experience, key injuries and inconsistent play from your returning leaders with a ridicuously difficult conference slate and some plain bad luck against VT, UVa, and FSU and you get an 8-8, 22-9 season. Not a great season, in my opinion, but not an awful one either. Flashes of great things have appeared this year and if they come together now we could be looking at a Final Four run.

I hate looking ahead while a current season is still in progress, but, regardless of how this season plays out, I am not in the doom and gloom camp for next year. I think all the parts are there for a very good team next year and agree with Jumbo that as fans we need a little patience. I think this is something difficult for a lot of younger Duke fans, myself included, to have because we haven't had to use it often.

Bob Green
03-05-2007, 05:32 PM
K has tried all sorts of rotations, all sorts of lineup combinations. Lately, he's settled into a routine of playing everyone in the first half, and then going to seven guys in the second half, which should be enough to prevent fatigue. Yesterday, the seven-man second half became six, and the small lineup cut into the lead before UNC ran away with it. But it's totally unfair to say that K hasn't given everyone a chance to play, and earn more playing time.

Great post Jumbo. You provide invaluable insight to this forum. I agree with the majority of what you say and specifically agree with your comments about the bench. I'm amazed that some fans continue to carp about "bench development" when the bench has been utilized all year.

I would be interested in your views on next year's freshmen. Specifically, do you have any knowledge on their speed? Will the addition of Singler, King, and Smith increase our team speed?

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

SoCalDukeFan
03-05-2007, 06:22 PM
First of all, thanks Jumbo.

I have not see Singler or Smith. King will not add to team speed. He is a tough player and certainly not afraid to shoot but he is not quick. He does have a quick shot.

SoCal

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 06:52 PM
Hi,

I am patient. I am a wee bit scared that some of the kids, such as Lance, might not be so patient and bolt to another program because they are not getting enough playing time. :mad: I realize that kids want to play and when they don't, they get antsy. So, to me, it isn't just about being fresh during games it is about keeping kids happy.

GO DUKE!

There is no reason to assume Lance or anyone else will leave. With that having been said, with K planning to recruit to the maximum 13 guys, players inevitably will leave at some point. But K has been burned too many times by early entry, where he ends up with guys like Reggie Love playing major minutes, not to recruit this way. After that, it's up to the players to earn their playing time. There's something to be said for working hard toward a goal, showing patience, and eventually persevering. Duke's had plenty of guys who didn't get a ton of playing time early in their career who finished up playing huge roles. It doesn't make sense to play guys simply to keep them happy, especially when you're trying to establish an ethos that runs through a program. You work hard, you earn playing time. It's that simple. And if a player decideds he's not good enough, or he doesn't want to put in that work, he can transfer. But that can often be as much a reflection on that particular kid's attitude as it is on the coaching staff.
Again, though, I don't see that being a problem with this group, especially Lance.

bluebear
03-05-2007, 08:08 PM
I'd like to comment on Jumbo's points about recruiting philosophy. I agree that we are in a transition period of stocking the roster with players that might not dominate right away but will be very good-to-great in their 3rd and 4th years. I think this philosophy shifted as a result of how the Deng/Humphries/Livingston situations played out. Not only did it leave this year's roster almost completely devoid of upperclassmen, but I believe that getting only 1 year of playing time combined from all three has led Coach K to limit the number of immediate impact recruits that he pursues.

Speaking of immediate impact recruits, I think not getting Brandan Wright really impacted this year's team. Nothing against Lance Thomas, who I really like and think will be a very good player in the Antonio Lang mold, but I think Duke would be a significantly better team if you swap him for Wright. Then, even if Wright leaves for the NBA after a year, you still have a solid foundation of Scheyer, Zoubek, and Henderson from that class. But you can't get everything that you want and have to make the best of the cards that you are dealt.

Combine a key recruiting miss, a lack of upperclass experience, key injuries and inconsistent play from your returning leaders with a ridicuously difficult conference slate and some plain bad luck against VT, UVa, and FSU and you get an 8-8, 22-9 season. Not a great season, in my opinion, but not an awful one either. Flashes of great things have appeared this year and if they come together now we could be looking at a Final Four run.

I hate looking ahead while a current season is still in progress, but, regardless of how this season plays out, I am not in the doom and gloom camp for next year. I think all the parts are there for a very good team next year and agree with Jumbo that as fans we need a little patience. I think this is something difficult for a lot of younger Duke fans, myself included, to have because we haven't had to use it often.

Great points, tbyers11..This season is a product of a number of early defections which have left us with a very young team...I disagree though about LT who I think fits perfectly into the model..Duke is building a program that will be solid with upper classman who grow into their roles, supported with younger players who are developing. There will always be players leaving early, but the program looks very strong for the forseeable future..

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 08:39 PM
Great post Jumbo. You provide invaluable insight to this forum. I agree with the majority of what you say and specifically agree with your comments about the bench. I'm amazed that some fans continue to carp about "bench development" when the bench has been utilized all year.

I would be interested in your views on next year's freshmen. Specifically, do you have any knowledge on their speed? Will the addition of Singler, King, and Smith increase our team speed?

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Bob,
As usual, you are way too kind. As far as next year's freshmen go, I'll start with the caveat that I try to follow recruiting as little as possible. It's sort of the "making of sausage" of college hoops that I don't enjoy. That said, I can state the following things from what I've seen/heard about those three recruits:

-They're not going to "solve" Duke's speed issues, per se, although Smith is very quick and Singler moves well for his position. However, I actually don't think Duke has a speed problem to begin with. Last year, Duke had a speed problem. But Josh, McClure, Markie and Scheyer are all faster/more athletic than Shelden, Lee, Dockery and Redick were. I think this team has enough athletes; I think that complain has been misplaced this year. Yes, I wish Paulus were quicker with the ball and better at stopping dribble penetration (though I'm also convinced his foot is still hurt). But other than that, I think Duke's plenty quick at the other positions.

-Singler is going to be special. Really special. He's going to step in and score right away. One of the more frustrating things about this team has been the inability to finish plays, particularly inside. Singler finishes. He has legit post moves, a sweet jumper, and can take guys off the dribble. He is so perfectly suited to play the "4" in Duke's system that I almost can't explain it. You'll see what I mean next fall. And, I apologize for tooting my own horn a little bit, but while everyone was going nuts over Henderson last spring, I said Scheyer would have the greatest impact of the freshmen. I am similarly confident in my feelings about Singler. He's an immediate starter, is a far better post scorer than people realize (the Dunleavy comparisons don't capture that), and could become a go-to guy. Just being able to run a play for him on the block will take pressure off the offense, to say nothing of his ability to run the high pick-and-roll. He'd actually play beautifully next to Josh, but I do not expect Josh to return.

-The other two guys will have a chance to earn minutes. But the backcourt is crowded with Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson and Pocius returning, so Smith will have to bring it. Plus, he's not a natural point guard. I don't expect King to play much right away, but his shooting could help the team in spots.

Anyway, thanks again for your kind words.

Bob Green
03-05-2007, 08:47 PM
Thanks! I admit I was one of the guys who expected Henderson to start as a Freshman. Scheyer has been great this year and now Henderson is coming on strong at the right time of the year.

Singler and Smith have looked very good in the film clips I have seen but I've not seen any clips on King. Anyway, I don't want to get the cart in front of the horse as there is much basketball left to be played this year.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

DukeDevilDeb
03-05-2007, 09:21 PM
Jumbo: Fantastic set of posts. Thank you. I always learn a lot from you. I agree with virtually everything you said. But I do have one question.

You said, "He'd actually play beautifully next to Josh, but I do not expect Josh to return." I recognize that the NBA drafts on potential rather than performance. But do you think Josh is ready to be a big impact player in the NBA? He's having a hard time being any kind of an impact player in the NCAA. If he goes, so be it... hard to tell a 20 year old that however many millions of dollars should be ignored. I just didn't think this was the kind of break out year that one would hope for right before going with the draft.

Any comments are very welcome. Thanks.

dyedwab
03-05-2007, 09:45 PM
Jumbo,

Just wanted to say that I always look forward to reading your posts, and those in this thread bring great insight and helpful perspective.

I think your point about the being a transition year in terms of recruiting philosophy is really worth emphasizing. We don't have upperclassmen because players we recruited in small classed didn't give us the years we expected. I think it is unlikely we will ever see single man classes, such as Chris Duhon, Daniel Ewing, or Luol Deng ever again. It also seems to be that Duke got bitten hard by early entry at the exact point that the implications 5/8 rule were becoming clear.

I have to say, that as I was watching the Missouri Valley Conference final, I was thinking that none of those players went to Creighton or SIU or Northern Iowa thinking they would go to the NBA after their freshman year of college. And if Duke can get the best players in the country that don't think they can go pro after one year (which we probably can), we will be fine.

Jumbo, once again, thanks for the great insight

Chard
03-05-2007, 09:55 PM
Jumbo, great post. I agree with pretty much everything you said. You must be old and wise or something. However, I think Josh will stay. I say 65% he stays.

The recruiting mistakes manifested this year. Such is college sports. The team is stocked with players now and will runneth over next year.

We may yet find out that Paulus was hurt the whole year. Either way, I admire his grit. He has played very well with some ups and downs. What do you expect from a sophomore? I for one am delighted with his 180 since the start of the ACC season.

The bench did see significant minutes this year. Marty played in almost every game since he became healthy. Maybe he is trying to hard but I liked his aggressiveness. Next year he could find some additional minutes. I think he progressed.

Zoubek is just to weak to make significant contributions against college level players. Next year will be a different story. Hit the weights, big guy!

Henderson is showing us all what a smooth player he is in the last few games. I expect great things from him.

Thomas has great post moves. He also needs to hit the weights this summer.

Coach K has really impressed me this year. I don't think I've ever seen him this demonstrative on the sideline. All of the wrinkles that we saw on offense really threw me for loops at times. That weave is something.

Next year makes me giddy looking ahead but this year is not over.

Again, great post Jumbo. I didn't realize who wrote it until after I read it. I should have known.

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 10:00 PM
Jumbo: Fantastic set of posts. Thank you. I always learn a lot from you. I agree with virtually everything you said. But I do have one question.

You said, "He'd actually play beautifully next to Josh, but I do not expect Josh to return." I recognize that the NBA drafts on potential rather than performance. But do you think Josh is ready to be a big impact player in the NBA? He's having a hard time being any kind of an impact player in the NCAA. If he goes, so be it... hard to tell a 20 year old that however many millions of dollars should be ignored. I just didn't think this was the kind of break out year that one would hope for right before going with the draft.

Any comments are very welcome. Thanks.

Do I think Josh is ready to be a big impact player in the NBA? No. Few rookies are ever ready to be impact players, of course, but I think Josh has a few things he really needs to fix if he ever wants to be an impact player.

Do I think there is any chance Josh will come back to Duke, though? No. Zilch. I was very surprised when he came back last year. I will be stunned if he's back next year.

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 10:04 PM
However, I think Josh will stay. I say 65% he stays.

How, I wish that were true. Sadly, while I think you (and everyone else) should still be giddy about next year, you should not be including Josh in your plans. C'est la vie.
Either way, thanks for another nice reply, Chard. I'm glad to see the board calming down a bit after yesterday, and I hope we can all enjoy what's left of the season.

dukie8
03-05-2007, 10:06 PM
In the past, I've called Coach K "rigid." After watching him this season, I no longer think that's the case. He's made so many changes from last year to this year, and then within this year, that I've actually marveled at his ability to adjust.
First, the larger philosophies:

1) His recruiting has changed, to a certain degree. Yes, he wanted Brandan Wright. Yes, Duke's hot after Greg Monroe. But Coach K never recruited the maximum number of scholarship players in the past. Now, he's routinely bringing in large numbers of players, and he's targeting a number of 3- or 4-year guys. I think this year we're caught right in the middle of the transition, because Duke is ridiculously young, but not filled with the type of young players who will dominate right away. But there's no question that guys like Henderson and Scheyer will be outstanding players at Duke, that they have tons of room to get better, and that they'll probably be at Duke for 3 and 4 years, respectively.

2) Offensive system -- Coach K completely changed the team's offense from what he'd done the previous couple of years (run J.J. off screens or dump it into Shelden), utilized McRoberts' skills as a point center and put more true motion back into the O.

3) Defensive system -- The help scheme has changed somewhat this year, as has the ball pressure. Duke always used to trade forced turnovers for offensive rebounds given up. Well, Duke's not forcing as many turnovers this year, but the team is rebounding better than any Duke team in a long time.

In-season adjustments:

1) K revamped the offense again during the season. He stopped running stuff through McRoberts as a point forward. Then he started dumping the ball into the block to McRoberts. Then he stopped that, and added the weave to put even more motion into the system. And then yesterday, he essentially played 5-out on offense, spreading the floor, opening up the lane for guys to drive and cut. These are more changes within one season than I can remember.

2) Handling Paulus -- The staff deserves a lot of credit for helping Paulus overcome some of his struggles (I'm willing to bet that we find out after the year that his foot never healed, just like how we never knew about his wrist injury until he had surgery after last season). He went to more of a motion system that took the ball out of Greg's hands some and helped Greg find confidence in his jumper. Now, when Greg shoots, I think the ball's going in. (As an aside, picture last year's team with Paulus shooting like he is now, a healthy Nelson and McClure ... sigh).

3) Bench utlization. Others disagree, but I think we've seen K make many adjustments here. Of the nine scholarship players, everyone except Pocius was earning major minutes in at least one point of the season. Zoubek, people forget, got big minutes against several of our early, tough opponents, including Marquette (13) and Georgetown (16). Then his minutes dropped again. Then he played double digits 3 out of 4 games (SJ St., Temple, VT, GT). Then they dropped again. His fluctuation was almost always tied to performance. And, in a game like Maryland, for instance, he stayed in when he was playing well. Thomas' minutes have fluctuated even more wildly, again based on performance. And Pocius, who was getting DNP-CDs early in the year, is at least getting into games now.
K has tried all sorts of rotations, all sorts of lineup combinations. Lately, he's settled into a routine of playing everyone in the first half, and then going to seven guys in the second half, which should be enough to prevent fatigue. Yesterday, the seven-man second half became six, and the small lineup cut into the lead before UNC ran away with it. But it's totally unfair to say that K hasn't given everyone a chance to play, and earn more playing time. Guys who have played well have been rewarded; don't forget that McClure opened the year in a reduced role (only 15 and 13 minutes against Air Force and Marquette, respectively), as did Henderson (single-digit minutes in those same two games, 12 minutes against Georgetown, etc.).

In short, I think we've seen a ton of adjustments this year, and they will benefit Duke greatly down the road. There's only so much you can ask a guy to do. Just because someone is a high recruit doesn't mean he should be expected to play that way immediately. Zoubek, for instance, was never expected to be a stud as a freshman. If you watch him play, you know his lower body needs to get stronger (I've been saying that since December on the old board). That's going to take another summer, at least. We live in such an instant-gratification society that we forget that player development takes time. Just think back to all the previous Duke players who improved dramatically from their freshman to senior seasons.

Patience, guys. Patience.

jumbo, thanks for a well thought out and well reasoned post. i do, however, disagree with you and the other posters that seem to think that k now is passing on the "1 and done" guys and going for players that will hang around for 3 or 4 years and slowly develop into all americans. for one, mcroberts is precisely that kind of player -- he was ranked #1 or #2 coming out of high school (depending on who was doing the ranking) and was flirting with the nba both during his senior year in hs and last year. he is the epitomy of the kind of player people on this thread think that k now eschews! the problem is that he hasn't come even remotely close to what he was projected to become. paulus was ranked #13 overall and the #2 pg who went to college (behind chalmers). he was supposed to get handed the keys to the pg slot for 4 years and be a star all 4 years. after playing nearly 2 full seasons at the starting pg at duke, he was not supposed to be getting shown up by the #93 rated freshman, vasquez, this year.

if we then move to this year's class, henderson was ranked #10 out of hs and right in front of darrell arthur. he was followed by thomas (#20), zoubek (#25) and scheyer (#28). after unc's 3 in the top 8, that was the best recruiting class. reading some of these posts, you would think that k has decided to slum it and dig down into the 100+ ranked recruits. these guys are as blue chip as they come but just have not lived up to their advance billing. i think it is very revisionist now to be looking at a team full of high school all americans that have struggled mightily this year and conclude that this is all part of some master plan by k to build a team with 3 and 4 year guys. contrast that to the recruiting that guys like skinner do -- smith and dudley weren't even ranked in their high school classes!

btw, i was using rsci for the rankings, which can be found here:

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/

jipops
03-05-2007, 10:29 PM
In the past, I've called Coach K "rigid." After watching him this season, I no longer think that's the case. He's made so many changes from last year to this year, and then within this year, that I've actually marveled at his ability to adjust.
First, the larger philosophies:

1) His recruiting has changed, to a certain degree. Yes, he wanted Brandan Wright. Yes, Duke's hot after Greg Monroe. But Coach K never recruited the maximum number of scholarship players in the past. Now, he's routinely bringing in large numbers of players, and he's targeting a number of 3- or 4-year guys. I think this year we're caught right in the middle of the transition, because Duke is ridiculously young, but not filled with the type of young players who will dominate right away. But there's no question that guys like Henderson and Scheyer will be outstanding players at Duke, that they have tons of room to get better, and that they'll probably be at Duke for 3 and 4 years, respectively.

2) Offensive system -- Coach K completely changed the team's offense from what he'd done the previous couple of years (run J.J. off screens or dump it into Shelden), utilized McRoberts' skills as a point center and put more true motion back into the O.

3) Defensive system -- The help scheme has changed somewhat this year, as has the ball pressure. Duke always used to trade forced turnovers for offensive rebounds given up. Well, Duke's not forcing as many turnovers this year, but the team is rebounding better than any Duke team in a long time.

In-season adjustments:

1) K revamped the offense again during the season. He stopped running stuff through McRoberts as a point forward. Then he started dumping the ball into the block to McRoberts. Then he stopped that, and added the weave to put even more motion into the system. And then yesterday, he essentially played 5-out on offense, spreading the floor, opening up the lane for guys to drive and cut. These are more changes within one season than I can remember.

2) Handling Paulus -- The staff deserves a lot of credit for helping Paulus overcome some of his struggles (I'm willing to bet that we find out after the year that his foot never healed, just like how we never knew about his wrist injury until he had surgery after last season). He went to more of a motion system that took the ball out of Greg's hands some and helped Greg find confidence in his jumper. Now, when Greg shoots, I think the ball's going in. (As an aside, picture last year's team with Paulus shooting like he is now, a healthy Nelson and McClure ... sigh).

3) Bench utlization. Others disagree, but I think we've seen K make many adjustments here. Of the nine scholarship players, everyone except Pocius was earning major minutes in at least one point of the season. Zoubek, people forget, got big minutes against several of our early, tough opponents, including Marquette (13) and Georgetown (16). Then his minutes dropped again. Then he played double digits 3 out of 4 games (SJ St., Temple, VT, GT). Then they dropped again. His fluctuation was almost always tied to performance. And, in a game like Maryland, for instance, he stayed in when he was playing well. Thomas' minutes have fluctuated even more wildly, again based on performance. And Pocius, who was getting DNP-CDs early in the year, is at least getting into games now.
K has tried all sorts of rotations, all sorts of lineup combinations. Lately, he's settled into a routine of playing everyone in the first half, and then going to seven guys in the second half, which should be enough to prevent fatigue. Yesterday, the seven-man second half became six, and the small lineup cut into the lead before UNC ran away with it. But it's totally unfair to say that K hasn't given everyone a chance to play, and earn more playing time. Guys who have played well have been rewarded; don't forget that McClure opened the year in a reduced role (only 15 and 13 minutes against Air Force and Marquette, respectively), as did Henderson (single-digit minutes in those same two games, 12 minutes against Georgetown, etc.).

In short, I think we've seen a ton of adjustments this year, and they will benefit Duke greatly down the road. There's only so much you can ask a guy to do. Just because someone is a high recruit doesn't mean he should be expected to play that way immediately. Zoubek, for instance, was never expected to be a stud as a freshman. If you watch him play, you know his lower body needs to get stronger (I've been saying that since December on the old board). That's going to take another summer, at least. We live in such an instant-gratification society that we forget that player development takes time. Just think back to all the previous Duke players who improved dramatically from their freshman to senior seasons.

Patience, guys. Patience.

Thanks for this, makes reading the board fun. Regarding your comments on Zoubek, his weak lower body strength seems to be the primary reason for the traveling issue. I truly do believe the kid has some nice low post skills, even if he is slow to make them. With no strength in the lower body it makes things difficult for him to make a move in the paint. Certainly hope this will be a focus for him in the offseason. Certainly is nice to see him become a strong one-on-one defender in the post. The help part obviously needs work, as is the case with most young bigs.

bhd28
03-05-2007, 10:33 PM
It always interests me when people to ask if Josh is ready to be an impact player in the NBA. Of course he isn't. Shelden averages less than 5 and 5 and shoots less than 45% from the field. JJ averages 6, 1, and 1 shooting under 41%. So apparently, they weren't ready to make an impact. (People like LeBron have definitely spoiled our expectations of NBA rookies... outside of the top few players, not too many make impacts their first years... and even them having a big impact is rare.) Josh will not think about next year. He will think about whether being at Duke or on an NBA team will have greater potential to make him into an impact player in years to come. That only makes sense. I am definitely glad he was around this year. It would have been a very rough year without him. I hope he comes back, though... even if it isn't likely.

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 10:40 PM
i do, however, disagree with you and the other posters that seem to think that k now is passing on the "1 and done" guys and going for players that will hang around for 3 or 4 years and slowly develop into all americans.

Good point -- one I should have been more clear in addressing. I don't think Coach K is eschewing top players. As you mentioned, he brought in Josh. When Duke recruited him, the coaches didn't think he'd go pro out of high school, but there was a very strong chance he was going to leave after last season. Duke has Singler coming in next year, who is a consensus top-5 player. Duke is going hard after Greg Monroe the next year, who might be the top player in his class. Clearly, Duke will keep recruiting elite talent.

There are a couple of places where a philosophy change is evident, though. One is already happening -- bringing in bigger classes. Last year K brought in five guys. This year we've got four frosh. Next year, hopefully we'll have four frosh again. These stocked rosters will protect Duke against one-and-done guys. Yes, there might be some attrition in the form of transfers, but by and large, Duke should always have a solid core of returning players moving forward.

Secondly, I don't think K is going to recruit multiple Josh McRobertses or Greg Monroes. One "superstar" per class might be enough. I could be reaching here, but I think we might see some sort of revolving door of short-term players, potentially one per class. (Of course, if Coach K signs the top 2 players in the class of 2009 or something, forget I ever said that).

Finally, I do not think Coach K will recruit players who are clear one-and-done guys. I think when K went after Brandan Wright, he honestly believed he'd be a guy who would stay for two years. K got two years out of Josh. K should get two, at least, out of Singler. I've heard it said that Duke could have gotten involved in Ellington's recruitment early on, but decided he was likely a one-year guy, while Henderson would likely stay three years. Coach K said on ESPN's Sunday Conversation last night that he doesn't like the one-year rule, that guys should be free to go pro out of high school, but that if you come to college, you really should stay at least two years so you've made progress toward a degree. So, I think K will try to find the best players who have the best chance of staying a while, moving forward.

Finally, just a small note on recruiting rankings. I hate 'em. They are such an inexact science, and the worst thing of all is the way guys shoot up the boards once Duke or UNC or Kansas start recruiting them. The recruiting "gurus" notice a top program on the tail of a kid, and decide he must be great. It's the same phenomenon with McDonald's All-Americans -- guys get named to the team, sometimes, just because they are heading to Duke. If you look back at old recruiting rankings, it's amazing how they end up all over the map. I don't even look at kids as "disappointments" anymore when they don't live up to what Dave Telep or Bob Gibbons said about them in high school, nor do I see guys as huge surprises when they exceed those same expectations. Recruiting is a really tricky thing, and there's just no good way to measure a player's true ability to contribute at the college level.

dukie8
03-05-2007, 10:44 PM
It always interests me when people to ask if Josh is ready to be an impact player in the NBA. Of course he isn't. Shelden averages less than 5 and 5 and shoots less than 45% from the field. JJ averages 6, 1, and 1 shooting under 41%. So apparently, they weren't ready to make an impact. (People like LeBron have definitely spoiled our expectations of NBA rookies... outside of the top few players, not too many make impacts their first years... and even them having a big impact is rare.) Josh will not think about next year. He will think about whether being at Duke or on an NBA team will have greater potential to make him into an impact player in years to come. That only makes sense. I am definitely glad he was around this year. It would have been a very rough year without him. I hope he comes back, though... even if it isn't likely.

what makes you think that? dunleavy had zero money concerns at duke and went for the quick buck over a possible second national title and very possible national poy award. shav was at best a role player at duke and now is earning more than probably every non-athlete in his class at duke. money talks and mcroberts can be making a lot of it next year if he wants it.

dukie8
03-05-2007, 10:55 PM
i agree that rankings are ridiculous but we live in a society that is obsessed with rankings. just look at how much people care what we are ranked despite the fact that the polls are a disgrace.

do you think that k now would not bring in a super class like the brand/battier/burgess/avery or the boozer/j will/dunleavy ones if he could? it's a good problem to have. i agree that by using all the scholarships and bringing in big classes, he won't be caught offguard like he was this year with no seniors and only 1 junior who basically missed 1 of his seasons. however, i also think that we are going to get hit with more transfers. we had 2 this year. if we bring in 3 top frosh next year, the 200 minutes per game can't be chopped up to satisfy everyone. at least 1 of marty, zoubek or thomas is gone in that case. however, it has been pointed out numerous times before on here, none of duke's transfers over the past 20 years really did much after leaving duke (chappell won a nc but he hardly was a key cog in it).

tbyers11
03-05-2007, 10:55 PM
jumbo, thanks for a well thought out and well reasoned post. i do, however, disagree with you and the other posters that seem to think that k now is passing on the "1 and done" guys and going for players that will hang around for 3 or 4 years and slowly develop into all americans. for one, mcroberts is precisely that kind of player -- he was ranked #1 or #2 coming out of high school (depending on who was doing the ranking) and was flirting with the nba both during his senior year in hs and last year. he is the epitomy of the kind of player people on this thread think that k now eschews! the problem is that he hasn't come even remotely close to what he was projected to become. paulus was ranked #13 overall and the #2 pg who went to college (behind chalmers). he was supposed to get handed the keys to the pg slot for 4 years and be a star all 4 years. after playing nearly 2 full seasons at the starting pg at duke, he was not supposed to be getting shown up by the #93 rated freshman, vasquez, this year.

if we then move to this year's class, henderson was ranked #10 out of hs and right in front of darrell arthur. he was followed by thomas (#20), zoubek (#25) and scheyer (#28). after unc's 3 in the top 8, that was the best recruiting class. reading some of these posts, you would think that k has decided to slum it and dig down into the 100+ ranked recruits. these guys are as blue chip as they come but just have not lived up to their advance billing. i think it is very revisionist now to be looking at a team full of high school all americans that have struggled mightily this year and conclude that this is all part of some master plan by k to build a team with 3 and 4 year guys. contrast that to the recruiting that guys like skinner do -- smith and dudley weren't even ranked in their high school classes!

btw, i was using rsci for the rankings, which can be found here:

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/

I don't think that Coach K is eschwing "one and done" players. McRoberts is an example of a player that few, likely Coach K included, expected to be around after a year or two. I said that I don't think Duke is going to recruit as many of these players at once for fear that the team will be left in the current situation with very few upperclassmen should these one and done players leave early. Therefore, I don't expect Coach K to recruit multiple one-and-doners in the same class (like Lawson, Wright, and Ellington down the road), but to mix in these one-and-doners with more likely 3 and 4 year players.

Also, recruiting rankings aren't based only on the impact that freshman are predicted to have in the first year. Scheyer and Zoubek both need to grow into their bodies. Lance's offensive game needs time to develop. IMO, Gerald had the biggest opportunity to have a significant impact from day one. He has started to show that ability recently. Did his preseason injuries or his asthma hold him back or did he just need time to adjust to the college game, I don't know.

Josh hasn't had the season most expected him to have, especially on the offensive end. That is a big reason for Duke's less than great season. Paulus, IMO, has played quite well since the first Georgia Tech game as he finally started to get healthy. Has he lived up to the mythical #2 ranking bestowed on him, I don't think so. However, with point guards like Greg that are not blow-by-their-man with ease point guards like Singletary or Lawson, success is much more dependent on the other members of the team functioning as a cohesive unit. Yes, I realize that if Greg plays better the team plays better. But, I think right now that the rest of team is a bigger problem than Greg. I'm sure many will disagree with me on this point.

Paulus is never going to be Jason Williams, but I think his role in running the team is similar to Chris Duhon. Duhon was vilified on Duke message boards in his junior year when he and the team were "struggling" compared to the previous year. That 2003 team lost have several key players from the previous year and had returning players have to fill new leadership roles with several incoming freshman. This year's team has the same issues as the 2003 team. Ewing's junior year compares to Nelson's year. Paulus' struggles compare to Duhon's. A big difference is that Josh hasn't stepped up like Dahntay did in 2003. Give Duke 2007 a weaker ACC, a less hellish conference schedule and a shot or two to fall against VT, UVa, or FSU and I tihnk Duke 2007's conference record would be pretty close to the 11-5 record posted by Duke 2003.

I also think that Duke 2008 will be much closer to the 2004 team record-wise than it will be to this year's team and that Paulus will have a big role in the success of that team as the entire team gets more experience and he, knock on wood, has a healthy season.

Jumbo
03-05-2007, 11:14 PM
i agree that rankings are ridiculous but we live in a society that is obsessed with rankings. just look at how much people care what we are ranked despite the fact that the polls are a disgrace.

do you think that k now would not bring in a super class like the brand/battier/burgess/avery or the boozer/j will/dunleavy ones if he could? it's a good problem to have. i agree that by using all the scholarships and bringing in big classes, he won't be caught offguard like he was this year with no seniors and only 1 junior who basically missed 1 of his seasons. however, i also think that we are going to get hit with more transfers. we had 2 this year. if we bring in 3 top frosh next year, the 200 minutes per game can't be chopped up to satisfy everyone. at least 1 of marty, zoubek or thomas is gone in that case. however, it has been pointed out numerous times before on here, none of duke's transfers over the past 20 years really did much after leaving duke (chappell won a nc but he hardly was a key cog in it).

I think a future "superclass" would depend on the types of kids involved. Obviously, if K could ever find another Shane Battier, he'd grab him in a heartbeat, since K would know he'd get a long career out of him. Dunleavy was a late-bloomer who stayed three years. The J-Will/Boozer combo was interesting, in that they both ended up staying three years, even though Boozer flirted with going pro out of high school. I think K will have to take a look at the kind of person the kid is as much as the kind of player he is (not that he doesn't already). Plus, it's always important to remember that given Duke's academic standards, there's a very high percentage of recruits that Duke just can't touch in the first place. So, it's not like Duke can even consider every top kid -- it's only a small list that end up on Duke's radar.

As far as transfers go, I'm not especially worried. Boykin's transfer was totally unrelated to playing time. I can guarantee you that Zoubek is going nowhere and I'm very, very confident that Lance won't go anywhere. I guess I could see Marty leaving for more playing time or a chance to play pro in Europe, but he also seems to be a kid who loves Duke. But, again, I can live with attrition as a result of big classes. It's going to become a survival of the fittest type of situation with 12 or 13 guys on scholarship. And I also think guys will be rewarded for sticking it out and working hard.

bhd28
03-05-2007, 11:27 PM
what makes you think that? dunleavy had zero money concerns at duke and went for the quick buck over a possible second national title and very possible national poy award. shav was at best a role player at duke and now is earning more than probably every non-athlete in his class at duke. money talks and mcroberts can be making a lot of it next year if he wants it.

Oh... I didn't mean Josh wouldn't think about the $$ he could make next year, or that it wouldn't be a decision based on $$. I posted for people who say he isn't ready to be an impact guy next year. I think Josh knows he probably wouldn't be an impact guy next year. If he goes it will be partly about getting paid ASAP and partly because he thinks he could develop as quickly or more quickly in the NBA while getting paid as he could at Duke. Could he? Who knows. That is up to Josh and how hard he is willing to work.

SoCalDukeFan
03-06-2007, 12:39 AM
How has the NBA affected this year's team?

I know that Deng would be a senior so I guess we lost senior leadership. But we had plenty of time to recruit to replace the talent. And it was probably wishful thinking to think he was staying 4 years.

Livingston - again plenty of team to replace the talent and wishful thinking to think he would be here.

Anyone I forgot?

SoCal

BDevilU
03-06-2007, 12:45 AM
This "change" just in....

Per the league office:

Duke Blue Devil players will now be required to call out "BOOYA!" when setting solid screens vs. UNC... so that Tar Heel players will be able to avoid any "malicious" contact that might cause them to rattle their teeth or otherwise damage their pretty little faces. This rule will be known as the "Future Endorsement Protection Clause" aka The Tyler Wants To Sell Trucks On TV Rule.

Jumbo
03-06-2007, 08:09 AM
How has the NBA affected this year's team?

I know that Deng would be a senior so I guess we lost senior leadership. But we had plenty of time to recruit to replace the talent. And it was probably wishful thinking to think he was staying 4 years.

Livingston - again plenty of team to replace the talent and wishful thinking to think he would be here.

Anyone I forgot?

SoCal

We've had time to replace talent, but not experience. Duke got a combined one year out of Deng, Humphries and Livingston. That's not what was expected. Plus, those smaller classes in general left us with the void in upperclassmen Duke is now trying to fill. The more important thing is not that Deng didn't stay through his senior year; it's that K didn't bring anyonee else in with him (hence no other seniors). That won't happen again.

The Gordog
03-06-2007, 09:23 AM
How, I wish that were true. Sadly, while I think you (and everyone else) should still be giddy about next year, you should not be including Josh in your plans. C'est la vie.
Either way, thanks for another nice reply, Chard. I'm glad to see the board calming down a bit after yesterday, and I hope we can all enjoy what's left of the season.

Let's all just hope that Patrick Patterson (sp?) agrees with you. If he concludes that Josh is gone it seems more likely he'll choose Duke.

crimsondevil
03-06-2007, 10:59 AM
if we then move to this year's class, henderson was ranked #10 out of hs and right in front of darrell arthur. he was followed by thomas (#20), zoubek (#25) and scheyer (#28). after unc's 3 in the top 8, that was the best recruiting class. reading some of these posts, you would think that k has decided to slum it and dig down into the 100+ ranked recruits. these guys are as blue chip as they come but just have not lived up to their advance billing. i think it is very revisionist now to be looking at a team full of high school all americans that have struggled mightily this year and conclude that this is all part of some master plan by k to build a team with 3 and 4 year guys. contrast that to the recruiting that guys like skinner do -- smith and dudley weren't even ranked in their high school classes!

I agree (as Jumbo clarified) that we are not totally passing on "one-and-dones", but K does seem to be deemphasizing. Remember, there are not 20 guys every year who could potentially be one-and-dones. Glancing at last year's list, I'd say it extends to about #8 (before Henderson). Contrast K's approach with UNC who has 3 possible one-and-dones.

DukieUGA
03-06-2007, 11:06 AM
i remember when people were saying that Zoubek had great post moves for a high school 7 footer and that he would have an immediate impact. Hasn't happened. People were saying that McRoberts had such a polished skill set that he would be dominating quickly, and although he does have lots of skills, he is far from dominating. Z may well develop those skills, and McRoberts may well dominate later but i point that out simply b/c people are now saying that Singler will step in and score lots of points right away with his great post moves etc. Could happen, just don't count on it.

Matches
03-06-2007, 11:50 AM
Could happen, just don't count on it.

Very true. I think a lot of folks view recruiting as an exact science. It isn't.

FewFAC
03-06-2007, 02:07 PM
Most of these players probably could have had an immediate impact under a different philosophy. I think the "earn PT" philosophy is pretty counterproductive developmentally speaking. The University has already concluded they have "earned" a $150,000 scholarship, and the staff rubs it with a diaper.

Chard
03-06-2007, 02:16 PM
i remember when people were saying that Zoubek had great post moves for a high school 7 footer and that he would have an immediate impact. Hasn't happened. People were saying that McRoberts had such a polished skill set that he would be dominating quickly, and although he does have lots of skills, he is far from dominating. Z may well develop those skills, and McRoberts may well dominate later but i point that out simply b/c people are now saying that Singler will step in and score lots of points right away with his great post moves etc. Could happen, just don't count on it.


Good point. However, once you see Singler play I bet you will change your mind.

VaDukie
03-06-2007, 02:30 PM
I am anxiously waiting for Singler to arrive on campus. Singler + an improved Henderson makes us a top 5 team.

Jumbo
03-06-2007, 04:14 PM
Most of these players probably could have had an immediate impact under a different philosophy. I think the "earn PT" philosophy is pretty counterproductive developmentally speaking. The University has already concluded they have "earned" a $150,000 scholarship, and the staff rubs it with a diaper.

Playing time shouldn't be earned? OK, then, how should it be determined?

Jumbo
03-06-2007, 04:15 PM
Very true. I think a lot of folks view recruiting as an exact science. It isn't.

I certainly don't think recruiting is an exact science. I do trust my own eyes, however. I will be very surprised if what I've seen from Singler doesn't translate at the next level.

FewFAC
03-06-2007, 05:06 PM
Playing time shouldn't be earned? OK, then, how should it be determined?

I didn't say that. I'm saying at $600,000 a piece, I'd like to see a substantially greater return. Plus, when you "hand over the keys," the implication is that PT is not earned anyway, so why the pretense?

dukie8
03-06-2007, 06:26 PM
I didn't say that. I'm saying at $600,000 a piece, I'd like to see a substantially greater return. Plus, when you "hand over the keys," the implication is that PT is not earned anyway, so why the pretense?

my problem with pt this year is that with marty, zoubek and lt, i feel like when they go in, they are told that if they make just the slightest mistake, then they are going to get pulled. however, starters, such as nelson and paulus, basically have a carte blanche to make almost unlimited mistakes and they won't get sent to the bench. how many times this year have paulus and nelson made just completely horrible decisions and k keeps them in there? the only time i can remember one of them actually getting benched was the va tech game when paulus basically was unplayable (and k still had him in during the overtime!).

Jumbo
03-06-2007, 07:45 PM
I didn't say that. I'm saying at $600,000 a piece, I'd like to see a substantially greater return. Plus, when you "hand over the keys," the implication is that PT is not earned anyway, so why the pretense?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Jumbo
03-06-2007, 08:07 PM
my problem with pt this year is that with marty, zoubek and lt, i feel like when they go in, they are told that if they make just the slightest mistake, then they are going to get pulled. however, starters, such as nelson and paulus, basically have a carte blanche to make almost unlimited mistakes and they won't get sent to the bench. how many times this year have paulus and nelson made just completely horrible decisions and k keeps them in there? the only time i can remember one of them actually getting benched was the va tech game when paulus basically was unplayable (and k still had him in during the overtime!).

Dukie8, in light of DBR's post today, it would be great if you could tone down your choice of words just a little bit. It's certainly possible to describe Paulus' performance without the word "unplayable." Remember that parents, players and coaches read this forum. There are better ways to get the same point across; everyone remembers that game.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I disagree with two things. First, I don't think Thomas, Zoubek and Pocius are routinely pulled after "just the slightest mistake." Case in point -- Zoubek against UNC at Cameron. In that game, he traveled three consecutive times when he posted up. Yet he stayed in the game, even after the third. Both he and Thomas have played big minutes in several games. They've made mistakes in those games. And they've stayed in. And while Pocius has been pulled after a couple of memorable mistakes (i.e. his behind-the-back pass vs. SJU), he's also remained in after plenty.

Secondly, I believe players earn the right to make more bad plays than others by making more good plays. I cringe when Markie drives with nowhere to go, but I also remember how many incredible defensive plays he's made. I get frustrated when Paulus throws a pass to no one in particular, but I remember how many huge jumpers he's hit. Also, keep in in mind that we see very little of what's actually going on. We're not at practice, so we don't know what Coach K's asking the team to do, we don't know what Coach K is asking an individual to do and we don't know if a player is routinely making mistakes there. We're not in the huddle, so we don't know what Coach K tells a player before he enters the game. And we're not designing Duke's system, so often we don't even know when a mistake has been made. As another small example, think back to the Maryland game at Cameron. At one point, Marty had the ball toward the right wing. One of our bigs (I think it was Thomas or Zoubek) set a screen for a guard to pop to the corner. Marty passed the ball toward the basket, and it went out of bounds. It was Marty's turnover. But was he pulled? No. Guess who was? The guy who set the screen. Why? Because the screener forgot a basic fundamental: After you set a screen, you "open up." Marty correctly read the defense, saw that the screener would be open, and threw the correct pass. The screener never turned. So while Marty got tagged with the turnover, it was the screener's mistake. He came out of the game, and Coach K immediately explained what he did wrong. Marty stayed in.

So, I don't think Coach K has it out for anyone. At the same time, it's naive not to think that certain players can earn longer leashes by making more positive contributions, both in practice or games. You can't say Zoubek and Thomas haven't been given chances -- Thomas has been a starter for much of the season and Zoubek played a lot in several key games. They just haven't played as well as the guys in front of them. And they are still part of the rotation. I just think you have to remember that they are freshmen and Marty's a sophomore, and each player develops at a different rate. I have no doubt that at some point, each player will figure things out and contribute during his career. It just might not happen at the same time for each guy.

Buckeye Devil
03-06-2007, 08:13 PM
jumbo, thanks for a well thought out and well reasoned post. i do, however, disagree with you and the other posters that seem to think that k now is passing on the "1 and done" guys and going for players that will hang around for 3 or 4 years and slowly develop into all americans. for one, mcroberts is precisely that kind of player -- he was ranked #1 or #2 coming out of high school (depending on who was doing the ranking) and was flirting with the nba both during his senior year in hs and last year. he is the epitomy of the kind of player people on this thread think that k now eschews! the problem is that he hasn't come even remotely close to what he was projected to become. paulus was ranked #13 overall and the #2 pg who went to college (behind chalmers). he was supposed to get handed the keys to the pg slot for 4 years and be a star all 4 years. after playing nearly 2 full seasons at the starting pg at duke, he was not supposed to be getting shown up by the #93 rated freshman, vasquez, this year.

if we then move to this year's class, henderson was ranked #10 out of hs and right in front of darrell arthur. he was followed by thomas (#20), zoubek (#25) and scheyer (#28). after unc's 3 in the top 8, that was the best recruiting class. reading some of these posts, you would think that k has decided to slum it and dig down into the 100+ ranked recruits. these guys are as blue chip as they come but just have not lived up to their advance billing. i think it is very revisionist now to be looking at a team full of high school all americans that have struggled mightily this year and conclude that this is all part of some master plan by k to build a team with 3 and 4 year guys. contrast that to the recruiting that guys like skinner do -- smith and dudley weren't even ranked in their high school classes!

btw, i was using rsci for the rankings, which can be found here:

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/

When you speak of Henderson, Thomas, Zoubek, and Scheyer ranking after UNC, are you referring to the ACC or nationally?

There is one set of freshmen this year that are higher impact players than Duke's frosh, and are at least as good, if not better than UNC's: Oden, Cook, and Conley Jr. Maybe they won't have the long term success due to bolting to the NBA prematurely, but for this year IMHO, they are the best freshmen in the nation.

dukie8
03-06-2007, 08:56 PM
Dukie8, in light of DBR's post today, it would be great if you could tone down your choice of words just a little bit. It's certainly possible to describe Paulus' performance without the word "unplayable." Remember that parents, players and coaches read this forum. There are better ways to get the same point across; everyone remembers that game.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I disagree with two things. First, I don't think Thomas, Zoubek and Pocius are routinely pulled after "just the slightest mistake." Case in point -- Zoubek against UNC at Cameron. In that game, he traveled three consecutive times when he posted up. Yet he stayed in the game, even after the third. Both he and Thomas have played big minutes in several games. They've made mistakes in those games. And they've stayed in. And while Pocius has been pulled after a couple of memorable mistakes (i.e. his behind-the-back pass vs. SJU), he's also remained in after plenty.

Secondly, I believe players earn the right to make more bad plays than others by making more good plays. I cringe when Markie drives with nowhere to go, but I also remember how many incredible defensive plays he's made. I get frustrated when Paulus throws a pass to no one in particular, but I remember how many huge jumpers he's hit. Also, keep in in mind that we see very little of what's actually going on. We're not at practice, so we don't know what Coach K's asking the team to do, we don't know what Coach K is asking an individual to do and we don't know if a player is routinely making mistakes there. We're not in the huddle, so we don't know what Coach K tells a player before he enters the game. And we're not designing Duke's system, so often we don't even know when a mistake has been made. As another small example, think back to the Maryland game at Cameron. At one point, Marty had the ball toward the right wing. One of our bigs (I think it was Thomas or Zoubek) set a screen for a guard to pop to the corner. Marty passed the ball toward the basket, and it went out of bounds. It was Marty's turnover. But was he pulled? No. Guess who was? The guy who set the screen. Why? Because the screener forgot a basic fundamental: After you set a screen, you "open up." Marty correctly read the defense, saw that the screener would be open, and threw the correct pass. The screener never turned. So while Marty got tagged with the turnover, it was the screener's mistake. He came out of the game, and Coach K immediately explained what he did wrong. Marty stayed in.

So, I don't think Coach K has it out for anyone. At the same time, it's naive not to think that certain players can earn longer leashes by making more positive contributions, both in practice or games. You can't say Zoubek and Thomas haven't been given chances -- Thomas has been a starter for much of the season and Zoubek played a lot in several key games. They just haven't played as well as the guys in front of them. And they are still part of the rotation. I just think you have to remember that they are freshmen and Marty's a sophomore, and each player develops at a different rate. I have no doubt that at some point, each player will figure things out and contribute during his career. It just might not happen at the same time for each guy.

i apologize if writing that paulus "basically was unplayable" was out of bounds regarding the only game he was benched for extended periods.

regarding zoubek and thomas, i disagree with you. for every small transgression marty makes that doesn't get him yanked, there must be 5 others that cause him to be yanked. the most recent that comes to mind is the first time he went in against unc on sunday. the first time he got the ball, he drove to the basket, got rejected and then immediately was shown the bench. the MOST zoubek has played in an acc game is 11 minutes and in 2 of them (unc and maryland), mcroberts had 4 fouls, so it was more out of necessity. a whole 11 minutes is not "big minutes" in my book. thomas did have a stretch where he played 22 and 20 minutes against bc and uva (he grabbed 10 and 9 rebounds as well), but his minutes have tailed off to the point that he played 6 minutes in each of the last 2 games (games that we lost and looked completely run down by the end as well).

i do agree that none of us knows what goes on in practice, what goes on in the locker room and what goes on in k's head but i certainly am not alone in thinking that all 3 of these guys get the quick hook when they make just the slightest mistake (marty the most). something isn't working, because the team is limping into the post season 4-6 in its last 10 (and one of those 4 was against a horrific st johns team) so why not give these guys more than a minute or 2 here or there?

dukie8
03-06-2007, 08:58 PM
When you speak of Henderson, Thomas, Zoubek, and Scheyer ranking after UNC, are you referring to the ACC or nationally?

There is one set of freshmen this year that are higher impact players than Duke's frosh, and are at least as good, if not better than UNC's: Oden, Cook, and Conley Jr. Maybe they won't have the long term success due to bolting to the NBA prematurely, but for this year IMHO, they are the best freshmen in the nation.

i could weasel out and say that i meant the acc but i meant nationally. ohio st's class definitely was considered better before the season started (even more so know) and that was an omission on my part.

Jumbo
03-06-2007, 10:23 PM
i apologize if writing that paulus "basically was unplayable" was out of bounds regarding the only game he was benched for extended periods.
No worries; I think we're just aiming for a bit of a lighter touch around here. It's just hoops, after all.


regarding zoubek and thomas, i disagree with you.
Reasonable minds can disagree. All I can ask is that at least you understand where I'm coming from.


for every small transgression marty makes that doesn't get him yanked, there must be 5 others that cause him to be yanked. the most recent that comes to mind is the first time he went in against unc on sunday. the first time he got the ball, he drove to the basket, got rejected and then immediately was shown the bench.

I remember the play, and the drive. Marty got 3 minutes in the game, and I could've sworn he was in a bit longer after the play you described. Again, though, we don't know what the game plan was. For all we know, K could have told him "Don't drive middle," or "We're taking two dribbles and kicking" or something. Point is, if Marty's already on a short leash because he might not be as good, or as reliable as the guys in front of him, one mistake can compound that. But I'm willing to bet there are more mistakes that don't get him yanked than ones that do. Besides, he'll have a great chance to show what he can do on Thursday -- should be interesting. I'll be rooting for him.


the MOST zoubek has played in an acc game is 11 minutes and in 2 of them (unc and maryland), mcroberts had 4 fouls, so it was more out of necessity. a whole 11 minutes is not "big minutes" in my book.
That's not fair. Zoubek started the UNC game; clearly he wasn't playing just because of foul trouble. And I consider playing double-digit minutes to be "big minutes" for a backup center. In fact, if Zoubek were playing 10 minutes every night, no one would be complaining. But I also think it's been very clear that Zoubs has to work on his lower body strength and agility. He's getting pushed off the block too easily on offense and is not recovering quickly enough on defense. It's just a tough spot for him as a freshman -- Duke's defense, in particular, requires its bigs to be able to help and switch, and he's struggling in that area. To be fair, he has significantly improved his on-ball defense. My point is, though, that he's been given a number of opportunities, especially early in the year, to show what he can do. Your biggest lament with Boateng, if I remember correctly, was that he never got a chance to show his stuff. That's not true with Zoubek -- K has given him significant playing time in a number of games.


thomas did have a stretch where he played 22 and 20 minutes against bc and uva (he grabbed 10 and 9 rebounds as well), but his minutes have tailed off to the point that he played 6 minutes in each of the last 2 games (games that we lost and looked completely run down by the end as well).
Thomas has been very inconsistent, and his playing time has reflected that. Every time I think he's going to bust out (like the UVA game), where he posts and scores, grabs big boards, and even hits a face-up jumper seems to be followed by one where he picks up two fouls in a span of about three seconds and seems lost. That's sort of what you'd expect out a freshman, though, right? And considering that he did spend a good portion of the year in the starting lineup, it's very hard to say that Lance hasn't been given a chance (rhyme not intended).


i do agree that none of us knows what goes on in practice, what goes on in the locker room and what goes on in k's head but i certainly am not alone in thinking that all 3 of these guys get the quick hook when they make just the slightest mistake (marty the most). something isn't working, because the team is limping into the post season 4-6 in its last 10 (and one of those 4 was against a horrific st johns team) so why not give these guys more than a minute or 2 here or there?

Of course it doesn't make you alone. It doesn't make you right, either. ;) But, again, I feel like those guys have been given more than a minute or two here or there. They all play in the first half. The guys who bring it get a second shift in the first half, and if that goes well, they expand the rotation from seven to eight or even nine in the second half. I really, really don't think depth is this team's problem. In fact, if pressed, I could come up with 10 bigger problems than depth ... and sadly I don't think Zoubek, Thomas or Pocius is ready to solve any of those problems at the moment. And that's fine; they're young players and, as K says, they are running their own races.
Finally, I'd say that the 4-6 stretch sounds worse than it is; we all know Duke had the toughest schedule in the ACC (which is by far the best conference in the nation), there wasn't an easy game in the bunch (well, except for the SJU game) and a number of games went down to the wire. Again, I think there are bigger fish to fry, and some of them are beyond Duke's control.

dukie8
03-06-2007, 10:51 PM
That's not fair. Zoubek started the UNC game; clearly he wasn't playing just because of foul trouble. And I consider playing double-digit minutes to be "big minutes" for a backup center. In fact, if Zoubek were playing 10 minutes every night, no one would be complaining. But I also think it's been very clear that Zoubs has to work on his lower body strength and agility. He's getting pushed off the block too easily on offense and is not recovering quickly enough on defense. It's just a tough spot for him as a freshman -- Duke's defense, in particular, requires its bigs to be able to help and switch, and he's struggling in that area. To be fair, he has significantly improved his on-ball defense. My point is, though, that he's been given a number of opportunities, especially early in the year, to show what he can do. Your biggest lament with Boateng, if I remember correctly, was that he never got a chance to show his stuff. That's not true with Zoubek -- K has given him significant playing time in a number of games.

wow. with the new boards, we are starting to agree more and more. he definitely has been given plenty of opportunities to show what he can do and definitely has gotten a lot more looks than the 2 Bs last year. people have compared him to hibbert his freshman year and i think that they really are very similar -- both extremely tall, thin, not very strong and very little low post moves. if he can make even half the progress did in 2 years, we will be very very happy.


Thomas has been very inconsistent, and his playing time has reflected that. Every time I think he's going to bust out (like the UVA game), where he posts and scores, grabs big boards, and even hits a face-up jumper seems to be followed by one where he picks up two fouls in a span of about three seconds and seems lost. That's sort of what you'd expect out a freshman, though, right? And considering that he did spend a good portion of the year in the starting lineup, it's very hard to say that Lance hasn't been given a chance (rhyme not intended).

someone posted that he looked really mad at the end of the unc game. does anyone else know anything about that? i was surprised at how little he played in unc ii -- particularly knowing how much royo rotates his bigs in and out. i guess i have a hard time figuring out if his low minute games are because he came in and played badly or because he never got a chance. i can't say that he had that much of a chance to do much of anything on sunday.



Of course it doesn't make you alone. It doesn't make you right, either. ;) But, again, I feel like those guys have been given more than a minute or two here or there. They all play in the first half. The guys who bring it get a second shift in the first half, and if that goes well, they expand the rotation from seven to eight or even nine in the second half. I really, really don't think depth is this team's problem. In fact, if pressed, I could come up with 10 bigger problems than depth ... and sadly I don't think Zoubek, Thomas or Pocius is ready to solve any of those problems at the moment. And that's fine; they're young players and, as K says, they are running their own races.
Finally, I'd say that the 4-6 stretch sounds worse than it is; we all know Duke had the toughest schedule in the ACC (which is by far the best conference in the nation), there wasn't an easy game in the bunch (well, except for the SJU game) and a number of games went down to the wire. Again, I think there are bigger fish to fry, and some of them are beyond Duke's control.[/QUOTE]

i agree again that our 7-9 guys aren't going to solve the really big problems this year. maybe we could have snuck an extra win or 2 out (maybe not) if they had played more but depth certainly has not been a problem this year and very few people (if any) have harped on it.

back to the "super class" discussion, i think that given how k is building the roster now with full allocations of scholarships and big classes of guys who won't jump to the nba, i think that it would be very difficult to bring a "super class" even if k were to be in a position to assemble one. the reason is that for the foreseeable future, duke is going to have a lot of guys who have experience and who expect to play. if he were to bring in 3 top 10 guys, it would be similar to when unc brought in stackhouse and wallace, or even unc this year to a lesser extent, where guys go from starting to riding pine to make room for the super frosh. i think that there is a lot of off the court tension and team chemistry falls apart in that case because there are not enough minutes to go around. i'm not saying that k wouldn't bring in the next brand/battier/burgess if he could, but it is going to be a lot harder when there are 5 to 8 guys already on the roster who expect to play a lot and who have experience.

FewFAC
03-07-2007, 01:34 AM
I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Scholarship = $150,000/yr *4 yrs = $600,000

$600,000 is a lot of money to just bury on the bench because you don't feel comfortable using it. Unlike Cameron's father's Ferrari Sypder California, the return to Duke for recruiting a player and paying the scholarship and then not play the player amounts to a pretty damn expensive tackling dummy, or burial.

Either way, I would either:

1) Seriously question the judgment of "this kid is worth spending $600,000+ on, but I have no faith in him and he doesn't deserve to play."

or

2) Seriously question the ability of whoever invested $600,000 and was incapable of creating at least a marginal amount of marketable development in the players' skill set.

Either way is an error, and it's not necessarily on the kid. I have a hard time believing the scholarship players are not giving their all in practice or in the classroom, or at least are slacking enough to bury a $600K investment. Either the kid deserves to play, or someone isn't doing their job well in terms of developing the kid to play.

I understand that not everyone lives up to recruiting hype, but to conclude that the coaching staff knows best when they have a decent history of failing to develop players requires accountability on someone's part, and it's not necessarily on the kids.

Bob Green
03-07-2007, 02:05 AM
...into tuition, room & board, books, incidental expenses, etc...Maybe I am out to lunch (it wouldn't be the first time) but your figure seems high to me. I was under the impression that a Duke education was running approximately $40,000 per year. Regardless, I fail to see the connection between scholarship money expended and playing time. Playing time is earned by performance. You are making the mistake of equating participation to performance.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 08:05 AM
Scholarship = $150,000/yr *4 yrs = $600,000

$600,000 is a lot of money to just bury on the bench because you don't feel comfortable using it. Unlike Cameron's father's Ferrari Sypder California, the return to Duke for recruiting a player and paying the scholarship and then not play the player amounts to a pretty damn expensive tackling dummy, or burial.

Either way, I would either:

1) Seriously question the judgment of "this kid is worth spending $600,000+ on, but I have no faith in him and he doesn't deserve to play."

or

2) Seriously question the ability of whoever invested $600,000 and was incapable of creating at least a marginal amount of marketable development in the players' skill set.

Either way is an error, and it's not necessarily on the kid. I have a hard time believing the scholarship players are not giving their all in practice or in the classroom, or at least are slacking enough to bury a $600K investment. Either the kid deserves to play, or someone isn't doing their job well in terms of developing the kid to play.

I understand that not everyone lives up to recruiting hype, but to conclude that the coaching staff knows best when they have a decent history of failing to develop players requires accountability on someone's part, and it's not necessarily on the kids.

First of all, I LOVE the Ferris Bueller reference.

Secondly, I can't buy your analogy. Placing a monetary value on these kids and treating them as a commodity dehumanizes them. More to the point, it allows no room for nuance. C'mon, FewFAC, I've seen you talk about basketball enough to KNOW that you understand that players develop over time, and that a guy might not be ready to play in his first year or two at Duke, might improve enough to justify the "investment" in him by his junior or senior year. See Melchionni, Lee for a recent example.

Plus, it almost sounds like you are advocating playing everyone who is on scholarship. Well, if we have 12 or 13 scholarship players (as could be the case next year), that's just not possible. Someone's going to have to sit. And that won't mean that said player will not have been worth the investment. It will just mean that at that time, some other players are better.

throatybeard
03-07-2007, 08:15 AM
So everyone who doesn't get a lot of PT is a waste of $600K? Then to save $$, we should only have 5 players. Or 8, since that's the alleged perfect rotation.

Of course, then we couldn't practice. Oops.

The Gordog
03-07-2007, 09:18 AM
Scholarship = $150,000/yr *4 yrs = $600,000

$600,000 is a lot of money to just bury on the bench because you don't feel comfortable using it. Unlike Cameron's father's Ferrari Sypder California, the return to Duke for recruiting a player and paying the scholarship and then not play the player amounts to a pretty damn expensive tackling dummy, or burial.

Either way, I would either:

1) Seriously question the judgment of "this kid is worth spending $600,000+ on, but I have no faith in him and he doesn't deserve to play."

or

2) Seriously question the ability of whoever invested $600,000 and was incapable of creating at least a marginal amount of marketable development in the players' skill set.

Either way is an error, and it's not necessarily on the kid. I have a hard time believing the scholarship players are not giving their all in practice or in the classroom, or at least are slacking enough to bury a $600K investment. Either the kid deserves to play, or someone isn't doing their job well in terms of developing the kid to play.

I understand that not everyone lives up to recruiting hype, but to conclude that the coaching staff knows best when they have a decent history of failing to develop players requires accountability on someone's part, and it's not necessarily on the kids.

1. Your grasp of the cost of a private school education is a bit off. Duke costs $42,000 per year next year. If that goes up 5% per year going forward that comes to $181,025.30.

2. Either way it's a sunk cost once you give the kid his scholly and should not figure in your decision about whether or not to play him.

throatybeard
03-07-2007, 09:30 AM
That $40K isn't tuition, it's the comprehensive fee that includes tuition, housing, meal plan, fees &c.

I believe I read in the alumni magazine at some point that it actually costs Duke about $15K-$20K over and above the comprehensive fee to educate one kid. Let's call it $60K for easy math purposes. (The remainder is made up by giving). So then we're somehwere around $240K.

All of this is sort of simplistic, though, since normal students don't fly chartered jets to Boston College in the middle of the week, on the athletic department's coin.

I'm fairly certain that the athletic department knows what their balance sheet looks like.


Either way it's a sunk cost once you give the kid his scholly and should not figure in your decision about whether or not to play him.

Precisely.

mcdukie
03-07-2007, 10:16 AM
I agree that the backcourt is crowded but I am not big on Pocius and K must not be either judged by his minutes. Smith is not a natural point guard but I think he can defend an opposing point guard better than Paulus and will be much better at the point than Scheyer. We'll see, I hope the rotation goes a little deeper so that we don't have anyone transfer.

Zeke
03-07-2007, 11:44 AM
Jumbo, A few posts ago you said you were convinced that Z wouldn't transfer. Why do you feel that way? I think he's going to be a really good player with more experience and weight room time, but Duke's post men have always been more power forward type ((McRoberts, Leitner (probably spelled wrong), even Sheldon). Z may not be quick enough for the Duke system whatever he does and may decide he is better suited somewhere else. If McRoberts leaves and Z leaves where are we then??

phaedrus
03-07-2007, 12:29 PM
i could weasel out and say that i meant the acc but i meant nationally. ohio st's class definitely was considered better before the season started (even more so know) and that was an omission on my part.

for what it's worth, scout.com has the classes ranked like so: unc, ohio state, texas, duke. hard to argue with that. wright, ellington, and lawson were all considered #1 (or close) at their positions (pf, sg, pg).

interestingly, on rivals zoubek is rated the #3 center while scheyer doesn't even make the list at 2-guard (henderson is second). i guess there just aren't as many talented centers after oden and spencer hawes.

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 12:51 PM
Jumbo, A few posts ago you said you were convinced that Z wouldn't transfer. Why do you feel that way? I think he's going to be a really good player with more experience and weight room time, but Duke's post men have always been more power forward type ((McRoberts, Leitner (probably spelled wrong), even Sheldon). Z may not be quick enough for the Duke system whatever he does and may decide he is better suited somewhere else. If McRoberts leaves and Z leaves where are we then??

I'm convinced that Z won't transfer because he's getting playing time, he knows exactly what and how he needs to improve, the staff likes him and has big plans for him, and he seems to like Duke. I've heard absolutely nothing to suggest that he's even considering leaving.
If he doesn't develop in another year or two, sure, he could consider leaving. But it's not happening this summer, especially with the strong likelihood of Josh turning pro leaving the middle open for Zoubek to take.
And, come on now, you really don't know how to spell Laettner??? ;)

weezie
03-07-2007, 12:58 PM
Plus, isn't Zoubek a brainiac? Wasn't he straight As in high school and super SATs?
A truly smart guy.

devilsadvocate85
03-07-2007, 01:21 PM
Oh... I didn't mean Josh wouldn't think about the $$ he could make next year, or that it wouldn't be a decision based on $$. I posted for people who say he isn't ready to be an impact guy next year. I think Josh knows he probably wouldn't be an impact guy next year. If he goes it will be partly about getting paid ASAP and partly because he thinks he could develop as quickly or more quickly in the NBA while getting paid as he could at Duke. Could he? Who knows. That is up to Josh and how hard he is willing to work.

He will be an impact guy in the NBA. (my bad on the earlier post) The guy can score, rebound, defend, pass, etc. Just because he doesn't take over games offensively, why are people so critical? He is the most unique and potentially best all-around player in the conference if not the country. How many teams have 6-10 guys who could play point guard in a pinch?

devilsadvocate85
03-07-2007, 01:31 PM
my problem with pt this year is that with marty, zoubek and lt, i feel like when they go in, they are told that if they make just the slightest mistake, then they are going to get pulled. however, starters, such as nelson and paulus, basically have a carte blanche to make almost unlimited mistakes and they won't get sent to the bench. how many times this year have paulus and nelson made just completely horrible decisions and k keeps them in there? the only time i can remember one of them actually getting benched was the va tech game when paulus basically was unplayable (and k still had him in during the overtime!).

Coach K doesn't yank players for "slight" mistakes.....he's using Pocius and Zoubek for specific roles. Those roles have to do with matchups and rest for other players. Who would you rather have on the floor at a key time, McRoberts a little tired or Zoubek?

If you watch other teams, players get yanked for all kinds of mistakes, very quickly. (Gary Williams and Jim Calhoun come to mind) Coach K will yank a guy for a stupid play, for not hustling, for not playing defense, but I don't know that I've ever seen an instance where a guy got yanked just for making a "mistake". He may take guys out if the matchups or combinations aren't working, but not just for making a mistake.

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 01:36 PM
He will be an impact guy in the NBA. (my bad on the earlier post) The guy can score, rebound, defend, pass, etc. Just because he doesn't take over games offensively, why are people so critical? He is the most unique and potentially best all-around player in the conference if not the country. How many teams have 6-10 guys who could play point guard in a pinch?

DA, with all due respect, you're overstating your case here. Josh has a number of excellent skills -- athleticism, ball-handling, court-vision, rebounding and shot-blocking. But he also has a glaring weakness -- his inability to score. Josh is not a good jump shooter right now. His post moves need a lot of work. And he does not have a good touch, even close to the basket -- he struggles to finish plays.
Josh has the potential to improve all these weaknesses. It's just going to take a lot of hard work.
Finally, a pet peeve that drives me crazy with announcers. No one can be the "most unique" anything. Unique means one-of-a-kind -- you can't more more "one-of-a-kind" than anyone else. Unique is not a word that can be used with degrees.

FewFAC
03-07-2007, 01:44 PM
1. Your grasp of the cost of a private school education is a bit off. Duke costs $42,000 per year next year. If that goes up 5% per year going forward that comes to $181,025.30.

2. Either way it's a sunk cost once you give the kid his scholly and should not figure in your decision about whether or not to play him.

I realized I transposed numbers from another project I was working on, but it was late and I didn't feel like correcting the math error.


Plus, it almost sounds like you are advocating playing everyone who is on scholarship. Well, if we have 12 or 13 scholarship players (as could be the case next year), that's just not possible. Someone's going to have to sit. And that won't mean that said player will not have been worth the investment. It will just mean that at that time, some other players are better.

Well, this certainly isn't peewee soccer, but I have an extremely difficult time believing, especially having seen them play, that the guys who play 30+ minutes are 20+ minutes better than those who do not. And if they are, there is no quantitative way to judge so, meaning the judgment is somewhat subjective, and thus subject to arbitrary input from feeling with little to no basis in fact.

I mentioned elsewhere that "handing over the keys" to any player by definition implies that PT is not earned, at least by some players, so any attempt to conclude that there is not an arbitrary standard, or different standards for different players, collapses any attempt to appear evenhanded and consistent. Besides, if the staff can alter the entire game philosophy to cover one player's defensive liabilities, how is it that they cannot do the same for any other player? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stubbornness?

While K has certainly earned the right to run the program however he sees fit, the inconsistencies between what he says and how he performs justify my inability to continue to support his decisions.

devilsadvocate85
03-07-2007, 01:52 PM
DA, with all due respect, you're overstating your case here. Josh has a number of excellent skills -- athleticism, ball-handling, court-vision, rebounding and shot-blocking. But he also has a glaring weakness -- his inability to score. Josh is not a good jump shooter right now. His post moves need a lot of work. And he does not have a good touch, even close to the basket -- he struggles to finish plays.
Josh has the potential to improve all these weaknesses. It's just going to take a lot of hard work.
Finally, a pet peeve that drives me crazy with announcers. No one can be the "most unique" anything. Unique means one-of-a-kind -- you can't more more "one-of-a-kind" than anyone else. Unique is not a word that can be used with degrees.

He has the broadest range of abilities and skills - better?

Since when did 12.6 points per game become a glaring weakness? Have we heard Coach K say that for Duke to improve McRoberts has to score more? Have we heard Coach K say that Josh needs to shoot more? I don't believe the coaching staff asks him to put up 18-20 per game. It might be good for Duke, it might not. I'll go with the expertise on the coaching staff to determine that. I agree that he has struggled around the basket. He's an above average shooter for a 6-10 guy and looks to me like he continues to work on his all-around game. Not every big guy is a "back-to-the-basket" scorer. Why do so many people feel that he has to fit some perceived mold of a "big guy"?

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 02:02 PM
He has the broadest range of abilities and skills - better?

Since when did 12.6 points per game become a glaring weakness?

It's not. His shooting/scoring ability is. Many of his points come off the offensive glass, alley-oops, etc. He's not a guy who you're going to give the ball and say "get us a basket." You had listed his ability to score among his other strong qualities. I don't believe it's on par with his other skills.


Have we heard Coach K say that for Duke to improve McRoberts has to score more? Have we heard Coach K say that Josh needs to shoot more? I don't believe the coaching staff asks him to put up 18-20 per game. It might be good for Duke, it might not. I'll go with the expertise on the coaching staff to determine that.

I don't believe he has to score 18-20 ppg either for Duke to play well. No one is arguing that point. This is a straw man.


I agree that he has struggled around the basket. He's an above average shooter for a 6-10 guy and looks to me like he continues to work on his all-around game. Not every big guy is a "back-to-the-basket" scorer. Why do so many people feel that he has to fit some perceived mold of a "big guy"?

I don't believe Josh has to fit some preceived mold of a "big guy." He's a face-up player at the next level who should be able to post up smaller players. There's two problems with that: 1) He's not close to an above average shooter for a 6'10" guy. Not even close. 6'10" guys in the NBA routinely hit three-pointers (Rashard Lewis, anyone?). Josh struggles to hit threes from the closer college line. Teams are playing off Josh, daring him to shoot from the outside. He doesn't have a smooth stroke, and this is an area that needs work. Personally, watching him shoot those right-handed jump hooks, I almost wish he shot his jumper with his right hand. He just doesn't look natural shooting the ball.
And he doesn't have to be a conventional big man, but to be as good as he'd like to be, he needs to be improve his moves and touch around the basket. He has the quickness and athleticism to be a very special player; if he wants it badly enough, he'll work on the areas that still need improvement.

Troublemaker
03-07-2007, 02:03 PM
Besides, if the staff can alter the entire game philosophy to cover one player's defensive liabilities, how is it that they cannot do the same for any other player? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stubbornness?


Which player is this? How is the entire game philosophy being altered?

devilsadvocate85
03-07-2007, 02:06 PM
It's not. His shooting/scoring ability is. Many of his points come off the offensive glass, alley-oops, etc. He's not a guy who you're going to give the ball and say "get us a basket." You had listed his ability to score among his other strong qualities. I don't believe it's on par with his other skills.



I don't believe he has to score 18-20 ppg either for Duke to play well. No one is arguing that point. This is a straw man.



I don't believe Josh has to fit some preceived mold of a "big guy." He's a face-up player at the next level who should be able to post up smaller players. There's two problems with that: 1) He's not close to an above average shooter for a 6'10" guy. Not even close. 6'10" guys in the NBA routinely hit three-pointers (Rashard Lewis, anyone?). Josh struggles to hit threes from the closer college line. Teams are playing off Josh, daring him to shoot from the outside. He doesn't have a smooth stroke, and this is an area that needs work. Personally, watching him shoot those right-handed jump hooks, I almost wish he shot his jumper with his right hand. He just doesn't look natural shooting the ball.
And he doesn't have to be a conventional big man, but to be as good as he'd like to be, he needs to be improve his moves and touch around the basket. He has the quickness and athleticism to be a very special player; if he wants it badly enough, he'll work on the areas that still need improvement.

Less than half of the big guys in the NBA can shoot at all. That's how I feel that Josh is a better than average shooter for a 6-10 guy. There are some exceptional shooters at that size and a lot of terrible shooters.

Troublemaker
03-07-2007, 02:16 PM
Jumbo, thanks for your outstanding thoughts and time in this thread.

I have simple, quick question for you. Why would you be shocked if Josh returned for his junior year? Is it because of your knowledge of how close he came to leaving last year? Was there some declaration of "one more year" from Josh when he came back? I ask because, from the level of a fan without inside sources, (i.e. as an outside observer looking in), I can't see why it'd be shocking if he returned. I know there are reasons to leave (money), but I feel like there are compelling reasons to stay as well. I have to believe he's disappointed in how this year has turned out for him. As a competitor, I would think he might want to leave his mark or become a great player on this level before moving on. I know that didn't stop Maggette, but usually when a player has jumped early from Duke, he's performed at a very high level before doing so. And at least Corey played in the Final Four. I would think Josh might want to make a run for a championship before leaving. I just don't understand why you feel so strongly that he's gone.

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 02:21 PM
Well, this certainly isn't peewee soccer, but I have an extremely difficult time believing, especially having seen them play, that the guys who play 30+ minutes are 20+ minutes better than those who do not. And if they are, there is no quantitative way to judge so, meaning the judgment is somewhat subjective, and thus subject to arbitrary input from feeling with little to no basis in fact.

Two question, then. 1) If you have 13 scholarship players, should all 13 play in every game? And, if so, how much. 2) Forget Duke for a second. You can't tell if guys who play big minutes are way better than guys who barely play? Of course there are quantitative ways to judge so -- new stats are popping up all the time. But it also doesn't take any stats for someone to be able to see that LeBron James is 20-plus minutes better than Damon Jones.


I mentioned elsewhere that "handing over the keys" to any player by definition implies that PT is not earned...
I don't understand what you're talking about with this "handing the keys over" thing. What's this in reference to?


Besides, if the staff can alter the entire game philosophy to cover one player's defensive liabilities, how is it that they cannot do the same for any other player? Laziness? Ineptitude? Stubbornness?
This is a straw man. Which players' defensive liabilities have resulted in the staff altering the entire game philosophy? And what player has not been given that benefit, assuming there's an answer to the first part? Plus, maybe, some players are actually just better than others.


While K has certainly earned the right to run the program however he sees fit, the inconsistencies between what he says and how he performs justify my inability to continue to support his decisions.

Some specific examples would be nice here. It's hard to even tell what you want, at this point.

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 02:22 PM
Less than half of the big guys in the NBA can shoot at all. That's how I feel that Josh is a better than average shooter for a 6-10 guy. There are some exceptional shooters at that size and a lot of terrible shooters.

Want to go through the list of starting NBA power forwards and determine whether each of them can shoot at all? It might be fun, actually. Let me know if you're up for it, and if so, away we go! ;)

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 02:24 PM
Jumbo, thanks for your outstanding thoughts and time in this thread.

I have simple, quick question for you. Why would you be shocked if Josh returned for his junior year? Is it because of your knowledge of how close he came to leaving last year? Was there some declaration of "one more year" from Josh when he came back? I ask because, from the level of a fan without inside sources, (i.e. as an outside observer looking in), I can't see why it'd be shocking if he returned. I know there are reasons to leave (money), but I feel like there are compelling reasons to stay as well. I have to believe he's disappointed in how this year has turned out for him. As a competitor, I would think he might want to leave his mark or become a great player on this level before moving on. I know that didn't stop Maggette, but usually when a player has jumped early from Duke, he's performed at a very high level before doing so. And at least Corey played in the Final Four. I would think Josh might want to make a run for a championship before leaving. I just don't understand why you feel so strongly that he's gone.

Everything I've heard has left me with this mindset. I apologize for not being able to be more specific.

Troublemaker
03-07-2007, 02:37 PM
That's fine, Jumbo. I respect that you're unable to divulge that information.

If it turns out that Josh does leave, though, hooboy, I hope that folks are willing to be patient again with the team. While Duke will almost certainly be a better team next year regardless, we're not going to be a top 5 team or a strong contender for a championship in 2008. Even a guy like Aaron Gray (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=15476 ) took three years to become a good player, so I wouldn't expect Z to develop at a faster rate. And if Z isn't going to be a consistent force in the post next year, then Duke will be too small to be a true contender. We'll be better than this year, more entertaining for sure, but 2009 really becomes the target date then, for a strong championship run. I'm okay with that. I hope others are.

And yes, Patrick Patterson could change things, but it's unlikely that he'll be here as well.

FewFAC
03-07-2007, 02:48 PM
The law of diminishing returns strikes again. You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make him drink. If you don't see what I am talking about, then you're not paying attention. Given the lack of a demonstrable positive return on my time and effort, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

phaedrus
03-07-2007, 02:52 PM
Want to go through the list of starting NBA power forwards and determine whether each of them can shoot at all? It might be fun, actually. Let me know if you're up for it, and if so, away we go! ;)

when you do this, you can leave off power forwards like tim duncan and randolph (or boozer and brand) since they actually have back-to-the-basket games. how does his shooting compare to jump-shooting power forwards (i.e. bosh, garnett, marion, that tall guy from dallas is a decent shooter too)? hell, i'd love to see josh knock down that 15 footer with the consistency of udonis haslem.

Bob Green
03-07-2007, 02:56 PM
And yes, Patrick Patterson could change things, but it's unlikely that he'll be here as well.

Troublemaker,

Why do you say it's unlikely PP will be at Duke? My understanding is that Duke, Florida, & Kentucky are all still in the mix. Yes, PP had a great weekend at Florida, but he didn't commit. The jury is still out. Do you know different? I agree with you that we will be small with Josh in the NBA and PP at Florida or Kentucky.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 03:01 PM
The law of diminishing returns strikes again. You can lead the horse to the water, but you can't make him drink. If you don't see what I am talking about, then you're not paying attention. Given the lack of a demonstrable positive return on my time and effort, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

You have yet to provide a single, salient example in this thread. This is starting to anger me slightly, so I'm going to take a deep breath, relax, and let this go. But you aren't backing up what you are saying, and in some cases, not making much sense at all. If the reader isn't understanding you clearly, chances are you aren't articulating your point very well. Or you don't have much of a point at all.

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 03:01 PM
Troublemaker,

Why do you say it's unlikely PP will be at Duke? My understanding is that Duke, Florida, & Kentucky are all still in the mix. Yes, PP had a great weekend at Florida, but he didn't commit. The jury is still out. Do you know different? I agree with you that we will be small with Josh in the NBA and PP at Florida or Kentucky.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Funny, last I heard UVA was making a major run at PP.

Bob Green
03-07-2007, 03:09 PM
Funny, last I heard UVA was making a major run at PP.

This is actually why I like to follow recruiting. It's a big unknown right up until the kid declares. And, the experts are wrong as many times as they're right.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Troublemaker
03-07-2007, 03:18 PM
Troublemaker,

Why do you say it's unlikely PP will be at Duke? My understanding is that Duke, Florida, & Kentucky are all still in the mix. Yes, PP had a great weekend at Florida, but he didn't commit. The jury is still out. Do you know different? I agree with you that we will be small with Josh in the NBA and PP at Florida or Kentucky.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan


Bob, my statement was just in regards to the pure numbers game. As Jumbo mentioned, UVA is in it as well, so I give us a 1 in 4 shot without having any other knowledge. From what I've been able to gather from folks that DO have inside info, Duke isn't at the top of the list and never has been.

Ima Facultiwyfe
03-07-2007, 04:01 PM
It's so great to have the knowledgeable writers back. I'm learning stuff again!

Love, Ima

Chard
03-07-2007, 04:02 PM
If Josh leaves Duke will be hurt but not as much as you think. What is left should that transpire?

Zoubek in the middle. You'll be amazed at what a summer in the weight room will do for him. Remember Mike D? The same goes for Lance Thomas. He has a solid frame that could add 10 - 15 lbs with the right diet and training. He is just too skinny and it still growing into his body. He is still 18 or 19 right? I think he comes back as an experienced player with a bit more bulk. McClure is getting major minutes this year in the front court. He will be back. Singler and King are in next year and they both add height. They aren't center material but they will play down low as well as outside. I already see them as better shooters than Josh. This alone should make them better threats to score off the dribble and on the outside. It has been said already: Josh is being played off of because teams don't consider him an outside threat. If PP matriculates here then Duke will actually have enough bangers to get the job done. Mind you, I'm not saying Duke will be better without Josh. They won't but the cupboard won't be bare.

Zeke
03-07-2007, 07:48 PM
Jumbo, this is the 2nd time you've ragged on my not knowing the spelling of player's names. You MUST be an English teacher. :D If he is smart then Princton, Yale etc. probably would love to have him, I feel sure. I hope your right though. I really like this kid.

imagepro
03-07-2007, 08:43 PM
Was it coincidence? Possibly so. What am I talking about? Maryland game at Cameron. We are 12 down. Staff elects to go big, using Zou and Josh inside for several minutes. We tie game. Then Terps go up by 3. We get entry to pass inside to Zou, who does make a turnover in a very critical situation. No, he didn't travel, he lost the ball. He was taken out at the next dead ball, didn't return, and as we all know, Md killed us inside down the stretch.

Was he about to come out anyway? Or did he come out as result of the t/o ? I don't know. Unless you're on the staff, you probably don't either. I think Dukie8 is referring to situations such as these. I have seen Marty make a mistake defensively, and come out at the next dead ball. Again, maybe coincidence, but it appears as being "yanked". I think that's what he (Dukie8) means guys.

dukie8
03-07-2007, 08:58 PM
He will be an impact guy in the NBA. (my bad on the earlier post) The guy can score, rebound, defend, pass, etc. Just because he doesn't take over games offensively, why are people so critical? He is the most unique and potentially best all-around player in the conference if not the country. How many teams have 6-10 guys who could play point guard in a pinch?

these are the kinds of arrogant/ignorant statements made by duke fans that just add fuel to the duke hatred fire. first, you cannot be serious that mcroberts could play pg "in a pinch" in the acc. yes, he has great dribbling skills for a 6'10" guy, but that equates very poorly to the dribbling skills required to run and offense and break the press. if he were able to play pg, don't you think that k would have put him in there at least once? he's no grant hill, magic or walt williams in terms of pg skills.

second, yes, mcroberts has a wide range of skills but to call him the best all around player in the acc if not the country is just a wee bit hyperbolic. durant obviously is A LOT better all-around. it's not even close. here are some other guys just off the top of my head and how they compare:

mcroberts: 35 min, 12.6 pt, 7.8 rb, 3.5 asst and 1.2 st
noah: 26 min, 12.2 pt, 8.1 rb, 2.4 asst and 1.1 st
wright: 28 min, 12.0 pt, 8.1 rb, 2.3 asst and 1.5 st
g davis: 35 min, 17.8 pt, 10.4 rb, 2.4 asst and 1.1 st

even in the acc, dudley and thornton more than hold their weight. here are their numbers:

dudley: 38 min, 19.3 pt, 8.5 reb, 3.0 asst, 1.3 st
thornton: 32min, 20.1 pt, 7.2 reb, 0.8 asst, 1.4 st

dukie8
03-07-2007, 09:02 PM
Plus, isn't Zoubek a brainiac? Wasn't he straight As in high school and super SATs?
A truly smart guy.

does duke have a monopoly of smart d1 players? crawford palmer was very smart and elected to hightail it out of durham.

dukie8
03-07-2007, 09:07 PM
Coach K doesn't yank players for "slight" mistakes.....he's using Pocius and Zoubek for specific roles. Those roles have to do with matchups and rest for other players. Who would you rather have on the floor at a key time, McRoberts a little tired or Zoubek?

If you watch other teams, players get yanked for all kinds of mistakes, very quickly. (Gary Williams and Jim Calhoun come to mind) Coach K will yank a guy for a stupid play, for not hustling, for not playing defense, but I don't know that I've ever seen an instance where a guy got yanked just for making a "mistake". He may take guys out if the matchups or combinations aren't working, but not just for making a mistake.

did you watch the unc game on sunday? please describe marty's first stint of the game and what transpired. i'll give you a hint. it was about 20 seconds long. i really don't know how you can watch duke games and not see k yanking guys for making a mistake. it happens multiple times every game to marty, zoubek and thomas.

regarding your other question, i would much rather have marty than nelson on the floor in the last 2 minutes of a game where the other team is fouling. he can shoot fts and dribble much better than nelson but k almost always keeps nelson out there.

bhd28
03-07-2007, 09:09 PM
I think Josh's trouble 'shooting' isn't how many shots he makes from 12-18 feet now. As said, people are playing off of him.

The problem I see is that he shoots what is basically a set-shot. He doesn't get any height on his 'jumper.' That could be trouble because it will be hard to get off when closely guarded. Also, that time of shot will not allow him to hit a 'pull-up' or an effective 'turn around' or 'fall away' without really working on it. That can definitely happen (Joe Johnson shot a set-shot when he came out of Arkansas, and he turned into a pretty good jump shooter), he will just have to work hard to do so.

Am I mistaken in my evaluation of his shooting form?

dukie8
03-07-2007, 09:15 PM
another item that nobody has mentioned is whether k will go the red-shirting route if he has a full house of guys who want to and can play next year. i know that k doesn't normally red-shirt unless there is an injury, but if he legitimately has 12 guys on scholarship who want to play, it may be one way to deal with possible transfers. if the football team is going to go that route, why can't basketball?

Jumbo
03-07-2007, 09:21 PM
did you watch the unc game on sunday? please describe marty's first stint of the game and what transpired. i'll give you a hint. it was about 20 seconds long. i really don't know how you can watch duke games and not see k yanking guys for making a mistake. it happens multiple times every game to marty, zoubek and thomas.

regarding your other question, i would much rather have marty than nelson on the floor in the last 2 minutes of a game where the other team is fouling. he can shoot fts and dribble much better than nelson but k almost always keeps nelson out there.

Dukie8,
I'm begging you to soften your tone a bit. Please. It's also possible your recollection might be off a bit in certain situations. Marty, for instance, played three minutes against Carolina. It might have felt like 20 seconds, but he did not come out immediately after his drive.

The FT is interesting. At the end of a recent game -- I think it was St. John's, but it might've been a closer win -- K did just what you suggested. He took Nelson out at a point when the other team was fouling and put Marty in. I think he was testing Marty in case that situation were to arise down the road. And maybe he could end up like another Marty -- we all remember Marty Clark knocking down those huge FTs in 1992 against Indiana.

dukie8
03-07-2007, 09:40 PM
Dukie8,
I'm begging you to soften your tone a bit. Please. It's also possible your recollection might be off a bit in certain situations. Marty, for instance, played three minutes against Carolina. It might have felt like 20 seconds, but he did not come out immediately after his drive.

The FT is interesting. At the end of a recent game -- I think it was St. John's, but it might've been a closer win -- K did just what you suggested. He took Nelson out at a point when the other team was fouling and put Marty in. I think he was testing Marty in case that situation were to arise down the road. And maybe he could end up like another Marty -- we all remember Marty Clark knocking down those huge FTs in 1992 against Indiana.

my recollection may be off but marty was yanked at the first dead ball after his drive. i know that he was in at the end because he was right in the middle of "the elbow," which would account for at least 1 of the 3 minutes. i can't find a site that has play-by-play with player substitutions to see exactly how long he was in in the first half but iirc k yanked him quicker than torre yanks rivera's set-up man after a walk in the 9th of a close game.

Fish80
03-07-2007, 10:11 PM
I have the game on tape.

13:46 Media Time Out, Marty comes in
13:11 Marty missed shot
12:34 Dead ball, Marty comes out (DeMarcus comes back in)

1:12 off the clock

It looks like Marty was in to give DeMarcus an extended rest, bridging the media time out.

Bob Green
03-07-2007, 11:17 PM
regarding your other question, i would much rather have marty than nelson on the floor in the last 2 minutes of a game where the other team is fouling. he can shoot fts and dribble much better than nelson but k almost always keeps nelson out there.

I would rather have DeMarcus on the court the last two minutes of the game due to his defense, rebounding and ability to finish in transition. No question that DeMarcus Nelson struggled from the charity stripe this year (59.1 %), but he shot 70.4 % over the last five games:

UNC 2/2 100 %
MD 2/2 100 %
SJU 5/8 62.5 %
Clem 2/5 40 %
GT 8/10 80 %
Total 19/27 70.4 %

During the GT game, the commentators stated that Johnny Dawkins worked with DeMarcus Nelson during practice on his free throw shooting. Obviously, the staff & DeMarcus recognized he had to do better and worked on the issue. I find it significant that he improved his performance at the end of the year.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

imagepro
03-08-2007, 08:03 AM
I have the game on tape.

13:46 Media Time Out, Marty comes in
13:11 Marty missed shot
12:34 Dead ball, Marty comes out (DeMarcus comes back in)

1:12 off the clock

It looks like Marty was in to give DeMarcus an extended rest, bridging the media time out.

Fish- you told me, when I was explaining in another thread how to rest guys, to "not talk about the crap of bridging timeouts" and to give real reasoning how to offer rest.

And you're now saying that Coach K does it? Hmmmm, maybe I'm not so stupid after all, huh??????

I missed you Fish... I'm so glad to be back! I still wish you could make the State HS Title game Saturday night. Hope all goes well........

RepoMan
03-08-2007, 08:15 AM
if he wants it badly enough, he'll work on the areas that still need improvement.

That's the million dollar question. Does he want it bad enough?

I hope he does, and I hope we get a chance to see it first-hand next season.

Fish80
03-08-2007, 08:19 AM
Yee-ha! We can dive back in the archives to get the real quote, but I did not say what you said I did. I wanted you to give me specific examples of when Marty should have played more, not general or vague references like "bridging time outs".

Perhaps coach K reads the board and got the idea from you? (Hint: sarcasm.)

On this particular substitution pattern in question, assertions were made that Marty was put in for 20 seconds and then yanked for missing a shot. The facts dispute that assertion. Marty was put in for 1:12 after a media time out to give DeMarcus an extended rest, consistent with your proposal for substitutions.

IMO he was not "yanked" after missing a shot. But please do tell me how I'm wrong. :)

jimsumner
03-08-2007, 10:00 AM
"He is the most unique and potentially best all-around player in the conference if not the country."

You're correct. Potentially. But he ended this season firmly on the All-ACC second team and won't sniff any of the All-America teams. This suggests to some of us that the young man has some work to do.

In fairness to Josh, it should be noted that his off-season back surgery precluded him doing that kind of work last summer. This summer? Up to him. On several levels.

dukie8
03-08-2007, 06:19 PM
Yee-ha! We can dive back in the archives to get the real quote, but I did not say what you said I did. I wanted you to give me specific examples of when Marty should have played more, not general or vague references like "bridging time outs".

Perhaps coach K reads the board and got the idea from you? (Hint: sarcasm.)

On this particular substitution pattern in question, assertions were made that Marty was put in for 20 seconds and then yanked for missing a shot. The facts dispute that assertion. Marty was put in for 1:12 after a media time out to give DeMarcus an extended rest, consistent with your proposal for substitutions.

IMO he was not "yanked" after missing a shot. But please do tell me how I'm wrong. :)

not exactly. the facts are that marty went in, got rejected on a drive that he took 35 second after going in and then was pulled for the rest of the half at the next dead ball, which was 37 second after that. unless k was going to call a timeout to pull him, that was the shortest amount of time he could have played (particularly when you consider that unc had the ball for much of the last 37 seconds). as jumbo stated earlier, k's plan may have been to have put him and pulled him right after the next tv timeout but we don't know that. we do know that he went in, made a bad play and then was yanked at the next possible time to make a substitution (and never went in again until the very end of the game after paulus fouled out).

BCGroup
03-08-2007, 07:06 PM
While K has certainly earned the right to run the program however he sees fit, the inconsistencies between what he says and how he performs justify my inability to continue to support his decisions.

I have just read the back and forth in this thread, and I have to say that I respect Jumbo for his restraint. As has been stated multiple times in multiple ways, Coach K makes decisions based on a variety of factors, one of which is not the opinions of respondents on internet bulletin boards. Thank goodness, because that would be a reason to stop supporting him.