Leadership, not "Who Will Play C", is the real question for 2013-14 season

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Plenty discussion across multiple threads about who will play at the 5 spot, what our abilities are, what our deficiencies and vulnerabilities will be, etc. I think it's a moot point - the Center situation is what it is and it ain't all that bad. I think the really significant question will be... Who is going to lead this team on and off the court? Losing our three seniors hurts not just in the points column but clearly also in the leadership column. We're going to be a relatively young team without clear senior leadership. Who's going to step up? Quinn? TT? Dawkins? It's not obvious to me and may be one of the defining issues for this team IMO. This was a constant question in 2011-12. Hopefully it is naturally resolved with a couple guys stepping up and owning the responsibility starting this summer.

[OldPhiKap]

Excellent question, without clear answers (to an outsider like me, at least). TT clearly is a leader on the team, and Coach consistently praises him for his leadership. Assuming he may be coming off the bench, though, not sure who else. It would be nice if Quinn were one of those guys, obviously. I have a feeling (with aboslutely nothing to back it up) that Hood may provide some leadership given his age.

[MCFinARL]

It seems clear that Tyler will be an important senior leader, and very likely a captain, on next year's team. It's after that that things get interesting. Josh is obviously a spirit leader, based on observing him during player intros and games, but will not likely be on the court enough to be an important leader there. Andre is in a position to become an all-around leader (at least one of a group) if he has made the changes in focus and attitude he has been working toward, but will not likely start out in a leadership role since he has been away from the team for a year.

Quinn, I think, is the key guy. As the point guard, he is in a natural leadership position on the floor; as the only player who is a junior in terms of eligibility, he is the person beyond the seniors who could most easily assume an "official" leadership role. If he is ready to take that step I foresee good things for the team.

Other players can certainly be leaders, and Rodney Hood might be such a person, though he may have to lead mostly by example (hard work, team first attitude, etc.) given that he has never played a minute in an official game for Duke. I suspect Jabari Parker may be able to demonstrate that kind of leadership as well.

FYI I am also speaking as an outsider.

[ChillinDuke]

Excellent question, without clear answers (to an outsider like me, at least). TT clearly is a leader on the team, and Coach consistently praises him for his leadership. Assuming he may be coming off the bench, though, not sure who else. It would be nice if Quinn were one of those guys, obviously. I have a feeling (with aboslutely nothing to back it up) that Hood may provide some leadership given his age.

I do wonder if, as the year goes on, Jabari takes on a leadership role. With a sound head on his shoulders as evidenced in interviews, if he's as good as advertised it just makes me think maybe he's one of those guys that just has "it".

- Chillin

[jv001]

This is a very good and interesting question. Who will be our leaders next season? We lost 3 good seniors in Mason, Seth and Ryan. It didn't hurt that they were our 3 best players also. Team unity was excellent with those 3 leading the way. I've heard some of the guys say they appreciated the hard work of Mason Plumlee. Of course, Ryan and Seth were hobbled by injuries and couldn't do as much in practice as Mason. But still they gave it all they had and probably played in pain throughout the year. I look for Quinn to try and be one of the leaders, but he must be a more mature player. I'm not going to say any more than that. Last season is in the books, so "next play". If Amile get's enough playing time I think he will bring a lot of energy and that will help but not in a leadership role. Another player that could step up is Rasheed. He has the ability to lead with his play. He's a good defensive player and a good offense player as well. So I look for him to step up. And as many have said, Tyler will be a leader both on the court and off the court. It's going to be an exciting year. GoDuke!

[bluedev_92]

I feel Amile has a part to play here. I love how enthusiastic and passionate he is on the floor & it can be contagious.

[luvdahops]

I know he's a freshman and a potential one and done, but Jabari is a tremendous natural leader. He has shown that leadership ability consistently, whether at Simoen, in international play or HS all-star games. So it wouldn't surprise me if he is at least in the mix, especially if he is our best player.

[dukelifer]

Plenty discussion across multiple threads about who will play at the 5 spot, what our abilities are, what our deficiencies and vulnerabilities will be, etc. I think it's a moot point - the Center situation is what it is and it ain't all that bad. I think the really significant question will be... Who is going to lead this team on and off the court? Losing our three seniors hurts not just in the points column but clearly also in the leadership column. We're going to be a relatively young team without clear senior leadership. Who's going to step up? Quinn? TT? Dawkins? It's not obvious to me and may be one of the defining issues for this team IMO. This was a constant question in 2011-12. Hopefully it is naturally resolved with a couple guys stepping up and owning the responsibility starting this summer.

It needs to be Cook. He needs to develop that to be an elite point guard. I think he has it in him.

[Saratoga2]

I still think who will play center is the key question for the team. Leaders will emerge.

[fuse]

It needs to be Cook. He needs to develop that to be an elite point guard. I think he has it in him.

Seconded. Once again, a big key to the season.

[CDu]

I still think who will play center is the key question for the team. Leaders will emerge.

I agree. We will get leadership. Certainly Thornton will be a leader. So will Cook. The season's biggest question is how well our Cs hold down the middle.

[Listen to Quants]

Seconded. Once again, a big key to the season. Cook certainly needs to run the offense effectively. If that is leadership, then yes, Cook needs to lead. If leadership is being willing and interested in taking the big shots then we-shall-see, but Cook, Parker and others seem good candidates.

I am reminded, however, of an apparently irritated K, asked how the team would deal with the loss of a strong senior leader. Paraphrasing, he was asked, 'who would be the leader now?' He replied that *he* was and always had been the leader of this team. Seems right.

[Bob Green]

It seems clear that Tyler will be an important senior leader, and very likely a captain, on next year's team...Quinn, I think, is the key guy. As the point guard, he is in a natural leadership position on the floor; as the only player who is a junior in terms of eligibility, he is the person beyond the seniors who could most easily assume an "official" leadership role.


It needs to be Cook. He needs to develop that to be an elite point guard. I think he has it in him.

With all the talent on next year's roster, leadership is going to be critical. I agree with the above posters that our point guards Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook need to step up and assert themselves. How about Andre Dawkins? It isn't unreasonable to think the 5th year senior might step right in and take over as the leader.

[mo.st.dukie]

Tyler seems to be a natural leader and willing to do whatever it takes for the team to succeed. It seems like he has already taken the reigns of being the senior leader in the offseason. I'm not too worried about leadership. We will have three seniors yet again, they won't be our best players like this past year but they have all been through the battles of college basketball, one of them was a key role player on a National Championship team. We also have a junior PG who is coming off a really good season as the starting PG, he is also capable of being that leader. Then we have 3 players who are really college juniors but will be listed as sophomores, they have seen a lot in college ball and spent at least one year in the Duke program and learning from upperclassmen.

To me the only weakness this team has is the center position.

[gwlaw99]

I remember thinking who was going to lead once Jon, Kyle, and Nolan were gone. Coach K develops leaders. I have no doubt someone will step up.

[brevity]

I still think who will play center is the key question for the team. Leaders will emerge.


I agree. We will get leadership. Certainly Thornton will be a leader. So will Cook. The season's biggest question is how well our Cs hold down the middle.


I remember thinking who was going to lead once Jon, Kyle, and Nolan were gone. Coach K develops leaders. I have no doubt someone will step up.

This is such a strange thread. It might make sense if we were discussing Kentucky or Kansas, where the giant turnover of personnel creates a legitimate question of leadership and team chemistry.

Duke is blessed with solid upperclassmen on an annual basis. Freshmen and sophomores have, in exceptional circumstances, been asked to play a larger role. Small leadership issues may arise now and then, most certainly behind the scenes, but I can't remember the last time Duke had a leadership problem.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

This is such a strange thread. It might make sense if we were discussing Kentucky or Kansas, where the giant turnover of personnel creates a legitimate question of leadership and team chemistry.

Duke is blessed with solid upperclassmen on an annual basis. Freshmen and sophomores have, in exceptional circumstances, been asked to play a larger role. Small leadership issues may arise now and then, most certainly behind the scenes, but I can't remember the last time Duke had a leadership problem.

Well, 2007 and 2012 come to mind as teams that lacked sufficient on-court leadership.

However, having said that, these are definitely exceptions and not the norm with Duke Basketball. Going into last year, we asked a similar question, Are Seth, Mason, and Ryan ready to be leaders as they seemed not to ooze natural leadership qualities. They did just fine, as it turned out.

For this year's team, Sulaimon and Cook seem the two most likely to step up on-court as they've shown the passion Coach K loves to see, now just even it out with some poise. In the pre-season and locker room, my guess is TT will play a vital role and as the season reaches Feb and March, l look to Jabari to increasingly display his natural instincts as a leader, too.

As mentioned by CDU and others, I believe the biggest question will become, especially come March, how we match-up at the "5" spot, not who our leader is.

[Saratoga2]

I go back a long way and remember Dave Cowens, the center of the Boston Celtics, who played from 1970 to 1980. He was 6'9" and was a very strong player in an era when there were many really tall guys pllaying that position. Dave was an aggressive player who fought hard for the ball. The point of mentioning this is to say that tall is not necessasarily required to play center but the strength and determination are. I still am hoping that Amile can add that strength by next season as he has the rest of what it takes.

[weezie]

Glanced at title and thought the discussion was Captain. I'm sure this has been broached? The captain issue, that it.

[Newton_14]

Glanced at title and thought the discussion was Captain. I'm sure this has been broached? The captain issue, that it.

I think it is a question of who joins Tyler Thornton as Co-Captain if anyone. I am still debating on who I think it will be.

[Acymetric]

I think it is a question of who joins Tyler Thornton as Co-Captain if anyone. I am still debating on who I think it will be.

I think it is fairly likely that Cook will start the season as a captain. On the other hand it wouldn't shock me if he wasn't...as most have said Thornton seems to be a lock and outside that it is mostly conjecture.

[gep]

I think TT starts out as sole captain. Quinn (and/or others) get added as the season progresses, as coach K sees it

[TruBlu]

I think TT starts out as sole captain. Quinn (and/or others) get added as the season progresses, as coach K sees it

From an emotional point of view, I would love to see Dre earn a spot as co-captain. Really pulling for this kid.

[MCFinARL]

I think TT starts out as sole captain. Quinn (and/or others) get added as the season progresses, as coach K sees it

If Coach K has any concerns about how Quinn might function as a captain, I could see this scenario--which he used with Seth in both 2011-12, adding him to Miles and Ryan in October, and 2012-13, adding him to Mason and Ryan in January. I'm not an insider so I don't know the thinking behind this, but perhaps as a motivator it worked well with Seth to set specific goals he was to achieve to be named captain. And I suppose this last year there might have been some concern about how his chronic injury might affect his role. If K feels Quinn is ready, though, he seems like an obvious choice from the get go.


From an emotional point of view, I would love to see Dre earn a spot as co-captain. Really pulling for this kid.

Agree with this 100%. Don't know from a practical point of view, however, whether Dre's year-long absence would remove him from consideration; he may need to focus primarily on re-integrating into the team, and he hasn't practiced or played at all with Sulaimon, Jefferson, or Hood. Possibly this would be another situation where he might be able to earn a spot after time.

[dball]

Interesting comments from Tyler on Duke Blue Planet

http://blog.dukeblueplanet.com/2013/05/tys-senior-summer/

[jv001]

Interesting comments from Tyler on Duke Blue Planet

http://blog.dukeblueplanet.com/2013/05/tys-senior-summer/

Sounds like Captain material to me. GoDuke!

[rsvman]

From an emotional point of view, I would love to see Dre earn a spot as co-captain. Really pulling for this kid.

Amen, bro.

Tried to spork you but apparently I've agreed with you too many times. I really hope/think that Dawkins is going to pleasantly surprise a lot of people this next season.

[Lennies]

Am I the only one who read the title of this thread as "Who Will not Play C", is the real question for 2013-14 season? The funny part is that I still get the same answer, Quinn!

[OldPhiKap]

Sounds like Captain material to me. GoDuke!

Sounds like next assistant coach material to me. AgreeGoDuke!

[Ichabod Drain]

I think TT starts out as sole captain. Quinn (and/or others) get added as the season progresses, as coach K sees it

Unless Hairston earns the starting spot at the 5, Cook will in all likelihood be the most senior starter (Hood is the same class but in only his second year at Duke and first year playing for Duke). I'm trying to remember if we've had a starting lineup that didn't include a captain in recent memory. Anyone have an idea?

[BlueDevilBrowns]

I think it's important to keep in mind that the captaincy designation isn't a "Lifetime Acheivement Award" such as "So-and-So deserves it because he's a Senior". Being a team leader is a heavy responsibility, not a reward for being a nice guy. It's extra work, because not only are you having to motivate yourself, your also having to keep others motivated and focused at the same time. Additionally, the Captain(s) is the go-between from Coaches to Players on many occasions, so this requires effective communication skills. There's a plethora of other requirements associated with being a Captain that not everyone is cut out for, no matter what level of experience/age/graduating class.

To me, it doesn't matter if you are a Senior or a Freshman, if you take on that Mantle of Leadership and guys follow your lead, you're ready to handle that weight.

Again, it shouldn't be "I really admire Player "X" so I hope Coach K makes him a Captain".

I'm not saying that's specifically what anyone on this board has said but I think sometimes people lose sight of the fact of what being a Captain really means. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I rarely do this but felt the need to go back to an old thread I started back in May when everyone was debating our "troubles" at the center position. I posited that our bigger challenge would be leadership and where it would come from. Some agreed and others flat out dismissed the question as a non-issue pointing to Cook and Thornton in particular as guys who would step forward to fill the gap left by the departure of Ryan, Seth and Mason.

In light of all the "conversation" about our defensive woes and K's acknowledgment of poor communication and lackadaisical approach to at least the Vermont game, I would again put forward the idea that leadership remains then biggest open question. Without it, and without the accountability that respected team leaders can enforce, I suspect it will be hard for the team to achieve sustained improvement on the defensive end.

But I actually see all this as a moment for one or two guys to step forward and lead the team. It's the perfect platform to do so. I hope it materializes.

[Kedsy]

But I actually see all this as a moment for one or two guys to step forward and lead the team. It's the perfect platform to do so. I hope it materializes.

I think it has to be Rodney and Jabari who step up as leaders. Of course, they both have to really learn and apply the defense first (especially Jabari), but I think they can rise to the occasion.

[UrinalCake]

Agreed; Jabari is an incredibly humble guy and Hood is very quiet on the court, but it is clear at this point that this is their team and we will go only as far as they can take us. They both need to become vocal leaders on the court, despite being newcomers. I love Tyler and Hairston but if we're relying on them to be our leaders then unfortunately that puts a ceiling on how good this team can be. Quinn doesn't seem to have that coach-on-the-court mentality that we need from a PG, which I think is why Tyler is getting so many minutes.

[duke96]

Does anyone really think we don't need both a credible answer at the 5 position and real leadership? (And, I would submit, not just leadership from one of our team members, but from one of our more talented, disciplined players.) No modern era Duke team has won a championship without both. For the moment, we still have real questions about both (but plenty of time to come up with some answers).

[Rich]

I rarely do this but felt the need to go back to an old thread I started back in May when everyone was debating our "troubles" at the center position. I posited that our bigger challenge would be leadership and where it would come from. Some agreed and others flat out dismissed the question as a non-issue pointing to Cook and Thornton in particular as guys who would step forward to fill the gap left by the departure of Ryan, Seth and Mason.

In light of all the "conversation" about our defensive woes and K's acknowledgment of poor communication and lackadaisical approach to at least the Vermont game, I would again put forward the idea that leadership remains then biggest open question. Without it, and without the accountability that respected team leaders can enforce, I suspect it will be hard for the team to achieve sustained improvement on the defensive end.

But I actually see all this as a moment for one or two guys to step forward and lead the team. It's the perfect platform to do so. I hope it materializes.

I'm going to disagree somewhat. Every team needs leaders, but the issue with this year's team (right now) is that they don't know the system, which largely means the defensive schemes. We've seen time and time again that for a Coach K team to be successful the upperclassmen teach the lowerclassmen. The upperclassmen on this year's team were never starters, have always been role players, and in my view can't help teach the system to the yonger kids the way a 2 or 3 year starter could. Coach K's system does not favor a one-and-done style. It favors longevity or at least a mix of senior starters with the newer guys, which we don't have. I believe our defense will get better because guys like Parker and Hood are smart and have good basketball minds, but I just don't know when they'll figure it out.

[Kedsy]

Does anyone really think we don't need both a credible answer at the 5 position and real leadership? (And, I would submit, not just leadership from one of our team members, but from one of our more talented, disciplined players.) No modern era Duke team has won a championship without both. For the moment, we still have real questions about both (but plenty of time to come up with some answers).

What do you mean by "credible answer at the 5 position"? Depending on your answer I might really think we don't need it.

Also, Duke has won a total of four national championships, and two were with essentially the same team. That's quite a small sample to make sweeping generalizations about what we need, don't you think?

[duke96]

What do you mean by "credible answer at the 5 position"? Depending on your answer I might really think we don't need it.

Also, Duke has won a total of four national championships, and two were with essentially the same team. That's quite a small sample to make sweeping generalizations about what we need, don't you think?

Um, how about someone listed as a C or PF/C. Or someone who is 6'9" (and beefy) or taller (and not necessarily beefy). How would you propose to define it to argue otherwise?

I find your second question somewhat puzzling in the context of a thread devoted to whether we need one versus the other, but in any case no I don't think that's too small of a sample size in the context of having watched 25+ years of duke basketball and noted that our most successful teams share this quality (which they do).

Should you require more "n", I think you will find the same standard generally applies to all of our final four teams, at least in the last 25 years.

[Kedsy]

Um, how about someone listed as a C or PF/C. Or someone who is 6'9" (and beefy) or taller (and not necessarily beefy). How would you propose to define it to argue otherwise?

I find your second question somewhat puzzling in the context of a thread devoted to whether we need one versus the other, but in any case no I don't think that's too small of a sample size in the context of having watched 25+ years of duke basketball and noted that our most successful teams share this quality (which they do).

Should you require more "n", I think you will find the same standard generally applies to all of our final four teams, at least in the last 25 years.

Well it certainly does not apply to all our Final Four teams. The 1986 team played Jay Bilas (listed at 6'8) at center and the 1989 team played Robert Brickey (listed at 6'5) at center. Even Elton Brand (6'8) was shorter than 6'9, so technically he wouldn't meet your criteria either.

But putting that aside, what would having someone "listed as a C or PF/C" give us that would mean the difference between having a championship caliber team and not? Post defense? So far, at least, post defense hasn't been our problem, or at least our post defense has been much more effective than our perimeter defense. Defensive rebounding? Well, so far our team's defensive rebounding percentage is 67.3%, about the same as 2010 (67.5%), better than 1999 (65.1%), and significantly better than 2001 (63.9%) and 2004 (62.9%). I don't have numbers from before 1997, but my guess is it compares favorably with most of our other good teams, too. Due to Coach K's defensive system, Duke has never been a great defensive rebounding team. Offensive presence in the post? We have the #1 offense in the country; no matter how much you twist it, the offensive contributions of a big center can't possibly be considered a legitimate issue for us this season.

So unless you can come up with a legitimate reason why a 6'9 (beefy) or 6'10+ (not necessarily beefy) center is a requirement for post-season success, I'm going to disagree that it is.

[roywhite]

I think it has to be Rodney and Jabari who step up as leaders. Of course, they both have to really learn and apply the defense first (especially Jabari), but I think they can rise to the occasion.

Yeah; that seems right; they are certainly the best players offensively and can become very good defenders.

After 6 games, Jabari leads the team in scoring, rebounding, blocks, and steals. That's a pretty amazing start.

[CDu]

Well it certainly does not apply to all our Final Four teams. The 1986 team played Jay Bilas (listed at 6'8) at center and the 1989 team played Robert Brickey (listed at 6'5) at center. Even Elton Brand (6'8) was shorter than 6'9, so technically he wouldn't meet your criteria either.

That's an awfully nitpicky response to the statement that "generally" holds (you made the switch to "all'). And it's even more nitpicky to try to exclude Brand. I know you were playing a semantics game, but surely one would qualify Brand as a true college center. And surely one would NOT qualify any of our current guys as college centers save for Plumlee (who doesn't play). And not only that, but the 1999 team had a SECOND big center backing up Brand, and a THIRD big center if needed. We never were without a true college center on that team.

And for reference the 1989 most certainly did not start Brickey at C. They started Abdelnaby/Laettner, with Ferry at PF. Perhaps you meant 1988? Even then, we had Ferry starting at C with Brickey/Smith at PF. So both of those teams met the criteria of having a more-than-capable presence at C.


But putting that aside, what would having someone "listed as a C or PF/C" give us that would mean the difference between having a championship caliber team and not? Post defense? So far, at least, post defense hasn't been our problem, or at least our post defense has been much more effective than our perimeter defense. Defensive rebounding? Well, so far our team's defensive rebounding percentage is 67.3%, about the same as 2010 (67.5%), better than 1999 (65.1%), and significantly better than 2001 (63.9%) and 2004 (62.9%). I don't have numbers from before 1997, but my guess is it compares favorably with most of our other good teams, too. Due to Coach K's defensive system, Duke has never been a great defensive rebounding team. Offensive presence in the post? We have the #1 offense in the country; no matter how much you twist it, the offensive contributions of a big center can't possibly be considered a legitimate issue for us this season.

So unless you can come up with a legitimate reason why a 6'9 (beefy) or 6'10+ (not necessarily beefy) center is a requirement for post-season success, I'm going to disagree that it is.

So far post defense has not been our problem. That's because we've played all of one team with actual size, and in that game we got absolutely killed on the glass. So I don't think you've got a strong case that lacking a big center won't severely hurt our post-season chances. Because the previous poster was absolutely correct: in every Final Four season but 1986, we've had a big guy manning the middle. It's certainly been a consistent theme, and it's certainly not the case this year.

Does that mean we can't make it to the Final Four? No. But I think it makes the sledding MUCH tougher, because when we start facing teams with size, that size limitation is likely to bite us.

[Kedsy]

That's an awfully nitpicky response to the statement that "generally" holds (you made the switch to "all'). And it's even more nitpicky to try to exclude Brand. I know you were playing a semantics game, but surely one would qualify Brand as a true college center. And surely one would NOT qualify any of our current guys as college centers save for Plumlee (who doesn't play). And not only that, but the 1999 team had a SECOND big center backing up Brand, and a THIRD big center if needed. We never were without a true college center on that team.

And for reference the 1989 most certainly did not start Brickey at C. They started Abdelnaby/Laettner, with Ferry at PF. Perhaps you meant 1988? Even then, we had Ferry starting at C with Brickey/Smith at PF. So both of those teams met the criteria of having a more-than-capable presence at C.

Yes, sorry, I meant 1988. But I'm going to disagree with you and say Ferry did not play C that season. Brickey/Smith did.

Also, the OPs statement was that his rule "generally applies to all of our final four teams," so I did not make up the "all." And I didn't exclude Brand; I pointed out that Brand didn't meet his criteria, in an attempt to obliquely point out that "6'9 and beefy or taller than 6'9 and not necessarily beefy" seemed deliberately chosen to exclude the guys currently playing center for us: a 6'9, non-beefy guy, a 6'8 reasonably beefy guy, and a 6'7 beefy guy.


So far post defense has not been our problem. That's because we've played all of one team with actual size, and in that game we got absolutely killed on the glass. So I don't think you've got a strong case that lacking a big center won't severely hurt our post-season chances. Because the previous poster was absolutely correct: in every Final Four season but 1986, we've had a big guy manning the middle. It's certainly been a consistent theme, and it's certainly not the case this year.

Does that mean we can't make it to the Final Four? No. But I think it makes the sledding MUCH tougher, because when we start facing teams with size, that size limitation is likely to bite us.

Well, you and I have been going back and forth on this one for months, and I still disagree with you. If our perimeter defense hadn't broken down in the second half we'd have beaten Kansas handily. It had little (if any) to do with their size advantage.

And saying almost all of our Final Four teams (whether it's 10/11 or 9/11) had a big center still doesn't prove anything in my mind. Eleven is still too small a sample to make any definitive conclusions, and the fact is we almost always have a big center, Final Four or not, including 1995 and 2007 and 2012. How many years haven't we had a big center since 1986? I count 1986, 1987, maybe 1988 (I say yes; you say no), maybe 1997 (after Newton stopped starting), 2008, maybe 2009 (Lance and Z each started about half the games), and this year. That's between 3 and 6 before this season, and one or two of those teams made the Final Four.

Coach K has made 11 Final Fours in the 28 years since (and including) 1986, or 39%. Two out of six is 33% (as is one out of three, if you take all the "maybes" out), really not much different. So I just don't see such a consistent theme.

[CDu]

Yes, sorry, I meant 1988. But I'm going to disagree with you and say Ferry did not play C that season. Brickey/Smith did.

GoDuke.com lists Ferry as a C/F. DukeUpdate lists Ferry as a C. So while you may disagree, logic and all points of reference suggest you are wrong. Without having actual game film, it will be hard to prove. But I'm quite confident that Ferry spent the most time guarding the opposing team's C.

In any case, he was certainly a big body inside defensively. 6'10", 230lb in an era before weight training (guys were generally a lot lighter back then) was pretty darn big. I'd say you're REALLY stretching on this one, Kedsy.


Also, the OPs statement was that his rule "generally applies to all of our final four teams," so I did not make up the "all." And I didn't exclude Brand; I pointed out that Brand didn't meet his criteria, in an attempt to obliquely point out that "6'9 and beefy or taller than 6'9 and not necessarily beefy" seemed deliberately chosen to exclude the guys currently playing center for us: a 6'9, non-beefy guy, a 6'8 reasonably beefy guy, and a 6'7 beefy guy.

You have chosen to emphasize the "all", I chose to emphasize the "generally." Makes a big difference.

And Parker and Hairson are not "beefy." In this era, they aren't skinny, but they aren't beefy. Brand was over 260 lbs at 6'8". Boozer was over 270 at 6'9". That's beefy. Parker and Hairston are, at best, average on the "beefy" scale. And both are undersized height-wise for the C spot. Jefferson is woefully undersized.


Well, you and I have been going back and forth on this one for months, and I still disagree with you. If our perimeter defense hadn't broken down in the second half we'd have beaten Kansas handily. It had little (if any) to do with their size advantage.

And saying almost all of our Final Four teams (whether it's 10/11 or 9/11) had a big center still doesn't prove anything in my mind. Eleven is still too small a sample to make any definitive conclusions, and the fact is we almost always have a big center, Final Four or not, including 1995 and 2007 and 2012. How many years haven't we had a big center since 1986? I count 1986, 1987, maybe 1988 (I say yes; you say no), maybe 1997 (after Newton stopped starting), 2008, maybe 2009 (Lance and Z each started about half the games), and this year. That's between 3 and 6 before this season, and one or two of those teams made the Final Four.

Coach K has made 11 Final Fours in the 28 years since (and including) 1986, or 39%. Two out of six is 33% (as is one out of three, if you take all the "maybes" out), really not much different. So I just don't see such a consistent theme.

Your argument here hinges on your questionable assumption that Ferry was not the C (or even a qualifying big body) in 1987-1988. I firmly submit that he was the C. Adjust the lists accordingly and you have the following breakdown:

With big C: 10 final fours in 24 years (41.7%)
without big C: 1 in 4 (25%)

That's a substantive difference in my opinion. It gets worse if you assume that Bilas (6'8", 225 in an era prior to weight training) was big enough at C. If you toss the extra 20-25 lbs of muscle that the typical big has these days, you get 6'8" 245-250. Much closer than the 235 that Parker pulls down.

In that scenario, it's 11 in 25 with a true C and 0 in 3 without.

Either way, things generally look a good bit better when you have a real big man.

[Indoor66]

You guys can find more damn nits to pick than any group I have ever seen. Have a nice argument about almost nothing.

[Kedsy]

Your argument here hinges on your questionable assumption that Ferry was not the C (or even a qualifying big body) in 1987-1988. I firmly submit that he was the C. Adjust the lists accordingly and you have the following breakdown:

With big C: 10 final fours in 24 years (41.7%)
without big C: 1 in 4 (25%)

That's a substantive difference in my opinion.

I'm not sure how any difference could be substantive when one side of the equation has a denominator of 4. If you take 41.7% of 4, you get 1.67, so the two sides missed out on being identical by less than one Final Four. If we make the Final Four this year (which you may think is a big if, but I think we have a pretty good chance), then 2 in 5 is 40% and it's exactly the same.

Also, if you don't count 1988 as a small-center year, you probably shouldn't count 1987, either, since Ferry started on that team, too. I'm not entirely sure if you did count it, but if you did then the small side goes to 1 in 3, even closer to 40% (because now the big side is 10 of 25).

In addition, I'm not sure I understand your argument that Bilas could be described as a "true center," based on his being 6'8, 235, but Jabari can't, though he's listed at exactly the same height and weight. Whether or not weightlifting was prevalent in 1986.

Anyway, my point is, contrary to the OP's assertion, having a big center is not a requirement for post-season success.

[lotusland]

Is there a cinder block standard for beefiness to reference?

[Fish80]

We need the old lady from the Wendy's commercial to settle this one.

"Where's the beef?"

[MChambers]

I hesitate to "weigh" in on this, without the benefit of cinder blocks, but my memory is that Smith and Brickey were listed as centers, but played that position on offense, while Ferry played wing on offense and guarded the other team's biggest player.

Sorry, Kedsy. I agree with your basic thrust, however.

[kAzE]

Given that we have too much depth to use in our relatively short rotation, I propose that we merge our assets have Plumlee and Ojeleye perform the fusion dance prior to big games:

http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Fusion_Dance

That way, we get Plumlee's size with Ojeleye's strength and athleticism. Everyone welcome our new starting center: Marmi Plojeleye! Seems reasonable to me.

[Kedsy]

I hesitate to "weigh" in on this, without the benefit of cinder blocks, but my memory is that Smith and Brickey were listed as centers, but played that position on offense, while Ferry played wing on offense and guarded the other team's biggest player.

Sorry, Kedsy. I agree with your basic thrust, however.

OK, let's assume you and CDu are right and 1987 and 1988 don't count. And CDu says maybe 1986 doesn't count because Jay Bilas was bigger compared to the average 1986 center than Jabari and Amile are to the modern beast. And in 1997, Greg Newton started 22 games at C (though admittedly not at the end), and in 2009, Brian Zoubek started more games (17) at C than anybody else on the roster. So maybe those years don't count, either.

So the only season we started a center as small as Jabari and Amile was in 2008. And we got knocked out in the 2nd round. Is that supposed to prove something? If we had a big center in 31 of the past 32 seasons, how can anyone think that because we had a big center in all the Final Fours (assuming you count Bilas) means we have to have a big center to make the Final Four? In reality, all the history tells us is we have no precedent. We don't know if we need a big center because we've only been without one once before and not only is that the pinnacle of small sample sizes, that team wasn't nearly as talented as this one. So did they get knocked out early because they lacked size or because they weren't talented enough to overcome a tough opponent? Or was it just a random event that happened once?

This whole conversation started because someone said, "Does anyone really think we don't need both a credible answer at the 5 position and real leadership? (...) No modern era Duke team has won a championship without both." Well, I don't think it, and I'd point out that every Duke team since 1983 to miss the tournament or get knocked out in the round of 64 has also had a big center, and that has just as much validity and predictive power as the observation about nobody winning championships without one.

(And, yes, I saw the part where you said you agree with my main point, so this isn't really directed at you, MChambers.)

[NSDukeFan]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

[CDu]

OK, let's assume you and CDu are right and 1987 and 1988 don't count. And CDu says maybe 1986 doesn't count because Jay Bilas was bigger compared to the average 1986 center than Jabari and Amile are to the modern beast. And in 1997, Greg Newton started 22 games at C (though admittedly not at the end), and in 2009, Brian Zoubek started more games (17) at C than anybody else on the roster. So maybe those years don't count, either.

So the only season we started a center as small as Jabari and Amile was in 2008. And we got knocked out in the 2nd round. Is that supposed to prove something? If we had a big center in 31 of the past 32 seasons, how can anyone think that because we had a big center in all the Final Fours (assuming you count Bilas) means we have to have a big center to make the Final Four? In reality, all the history tells us is we have no precedent. We don't know if we need a big center because we've only been without one once before and not only is that the pinnacle of small sample sizes, that team wasn't nearly as talented as this one. So did they get knocked out early because they lacked size or because they weren't talented enough to overcome a tough opponent? Or was it just a random event that happened once?

This whole conversation started because someone said, "Does anyone really think we don't need both a credible answer at the 5 position and real leadership? (...) No modern era Duke team has won a championship without both." Well, I don't think it, and I'd point out that every Duke team since 1983 to miss the tournament or get knocked out in the round of 64 has also had a big center, and that has just as much validity and predictive power as the observation about nobody winning championships without one.

(And, yes, I saw the part where you said you agree with my main point, so this isn't really directed at you, MChambers.)

We are talking tourney success here, right? So the Newton year and 2007 and 2008 definitely still count as in the tourney we were going small. And if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, count 1986 too.

10 os 24 with a big, 1 of 4 without.

[Newton_14]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

Bingo. We have a winner. This isn't about size, at all. Our defense is not getting torched because of our big men or lack thereof. This is on our guards and wings, and to a lesser degree, our bigs. I was at both the ECU and Vermont games, and I left the building both nights befuddled that the opponents guards had out played our guards. Especially in the ECU game. ECU had 3 guards that played all around better games than any of our guards did. Then the PG from Vermont (Number 12) completely controlled the game. On offense he did what he wanted, when he wanted, getting to every spot on the floor he wanted to get to, and time and time again setting up the two forwards for easy scores.

The Drury game was similar. It starts with our guards getting broken down off the dribble, then, due to lack of communication, and poor rotations with help and recover, the defense totally breaks down. End result is the opponent gets an easy look at the rim or a wide open mid-range jumpshot or 3 point attempt. I still feel it is a copout to blame the new rules. That is a small part of it, but the bigger issue is lack of discipline, lack or moving their feet, and lack of positioning. Add in the fact that guys are hesitant to attempt to take a charge, and they end up not know what to do once they rotate over to help.

The other part is inexperience in Duke's system, and a bunch of new faces trying to learn how to play defense together as a 5 man cohesive unit. K is not going zone, so get it out of your heads. He may do it one or two possessions per half just to change things up, but he is going to play man exclusively. The good news is, because the bulk of the issues are inexperience and learning to play with new teammates, the problems are fixable, and they are fixable this year. They can figure this out. It may take until mid-January, but so what. Most of us agreed that this team would be the opposite of recent teams in that rather than starting out playing their best ball early, they would struggle early (likely losing 2, 3, 4 games, but then get a lot stronger down the stretch. Which is what we want right? Peak at the optimum time vs peaking too early then fading. You can't have it both ways.

They will get a lot of practice time after this Friday to work on Duke vs the next opponent. The guards and wings have to figure out a way to not only improve, but to start forciing turnovers. Due to the make up of the team, we expectied them to force a lot of turnovers. So far that has not happened, but it certainly can.

They have no where to go but up. Agree that this team most resembles the 08 team in terms of size, but this team has much more offensive firepower than 08 did, and I believe their ceiling on defense is higher than the 08 team. They can get to the place they need to be, but it is going to take a lot of hard work, starting with respecting the opponent and playing every possession of every game as hard as they can play.

It is fixable. They can play much better on defense than they are playing right now. They are just going to have to buckle down in the short term and weather the storm until they get enough practice time to address and correct the issues.

[kAzE]

Blaming the new rules is a total cop out. Everybody else is playing with the same rules and 176 teams are playing better defense than we are.

[oldnavy]

Blaming the new rules is a total cop out. Everybody else is playing with the same rules and 176 teams are playing better defense than we are.

Agree. I also will point out that other primary MTM teams have gone to zone on us at least twice, ECU and Vermont. Vermont's coach admitted that he didn't want to go zone, but the scouting report (ECU game) dictated that he do it.

Roy Williams who I have lambasted over the past decade for being absolutely terrible in-game coach for not making adjustments to his scheme even went zone against Louisville. He said in the post game: "I think not just going big but the zone was important for us. As I said in the press conference the other day, we’ve already worked on zone more this year than most years I’ve ever coached. I just think that right now with our limited assets for perimeter players we’re going to have to go big and play in a zone and it’ll help us some.”

Russ Smith: "I think they made a good change in the second half," Jones said. "They clogged the lane and played that high zone so me and Russ couldn't penetrate. That's something we have to learn. I don't think we passed the ball as well was we have all year."

It pains me to say this, but Roy made a very nice in-game adjustment that ultimately led to a huge upset over a top 3 team.

To continue to beat the dead horse, I have to ask, why not try zone a couple of times when the MTM is in total fail mode????

[Kedsy]

To continue to beat the dead horse, I have to ask, why not try zone a couple of times when the MTM is in total fail mode????

Because you have to practice zone to play it, and our limited practice time might be better spent making our bread and butter defense at least adequate.

[Lar77]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.

Bravo. Coach K has said it; others have said it. It's not about effort or size or new rules. It's about focus and playing together. It's a new group and they are adjusting, and so we lapse into a lot of one-on-one (or one-on-five) mindset (not selfishness, which is different). This is a coaching issue and it takes time to work through.

[bob blue devil]

Really don't want to interject myself into the Logic Smackdown going on here...

Maybe size isn't an issue for Jabari, Rodney and Amile defending inside, but instincts/experience are? Let's face it,our guards overplay and will get beat (even more so with the rule changes). Having help defense that is effective is crucial to our success.

[freshmanjs]

Agree. I also will point out that other primary MTM teams have gone to zone on us at least twice, ECU and Vermont. Vermont's coach admitted that he didn't want to go zone, but the scouting report (ECU game) dictated that he do it.

Roy Williams who I have lambasted over the past decade for being absolutely terrible in-game coach for not making adjustments to his scheme even went zone against Louisville. He said in the post game: "I think not just going big but the zone was important for us. As I said in the press conference the other day, we’ve already worked on zone more this year than most years I’ve ever coached. I just think that right now with our limited assets for perimeter players we’re going to have to go big and play in a zone and it’ll help us some.”

Russ Smith: "I think they made a good change in the second half," Jones said. "They clogged the lane and played that high zone so me and Russ couldn't penetrate. That's something we have to learn. I don't think we passed the ball as well was we have all year."

It pains me to say this, but Roy made a very nice in-game adjustment that ultimately led to a huge upset over a top 3 team.

To continue to beat the dead horse, I have to ask, why not try zone a couple of times when the MTM is in total fail mode????

we don't have limited perimeter assets or the real option to go big (while still having our best players on the floor). so, we are in pretty much the opposite situation as UNC and Roy's logic wouldn't apply to this Duke team.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

I think the thread should be renamed Communication, not who will play C is the biggest question for 2013-2014 season. Mind you, leadership, in getting the team and it's stars to better communicate defensively, is certainly related.
Agree. That's what I was trying to get at by "re-opening" this thread. Amazing to me how quickly the center/size debate took over again.

I think many agree that our offense is pretty good but our defense is sketchy at best right now. Solving our defensive woes will not come from some magical appearance of a big man (unless Marshall perhaps surprises everyone). So, it will come down to great team defense. And I would argue this is particularly true of our perimeter defense. Which will of course require outstanding communication on a continuous basis. And I will argue one last time that great communication cannot/will not be sustained without a couple guys leading by example and holding their teammates accountable at all times.

[CDu]

Agree. That's what I was trying to get at by "re-opening" this thread. Amazing to me how quickly the center/size debate took over again.

I think many agree that our offense is pretty good but our defense is sketchy at best right now. Solving our defensive woes will not come from some magical appearance of a big man (unless Marshall perhaps surprises everyone). So, it will come down to great team defense. And I would argue this is particularly true of our perimeter defense. Which will of course require outstanding communication on a continuous basis. And I will argue one last time that great communication cannot/will not be sustained without a couple guys leading by example and holding their teammates accountable at all times.

I agree that our defense isn't suddenly going to get an infusion of a true big man this year. So any solution is going to involve something else.

I also agree that better communication and commitment to team defense will also be critical to improved defense.

I'd also suggest that the extended perimeter pressure may also need to be relaxed if we're going to limit dribble penetration, as I'm not sure that communication alone will allow us to play high-pressure on-ball defense AND prevent dribble penetration. That's one facet of the new emphasis on calling fouls that are being committed.

So while leadership and communication need to improve, I do think that a slight tweak in our man-to-man strategy may also be necessary (i.e., sagging back a bit once we get into the half-court).

[wk2109]

I agree with everyone who says that K is unlikely to change the team's defensive philosophy too much and that the biggest hope for improved defensive efficiency is better communication and the guys being where they're supposed to be. This will happen through repetition/practice. The 2010 team had the hedging/rotations down to a T -- not coincidentally, the core of that team was juniors and seniors. Hopefully this year's young guys have a steep learning curve.

One question I have about containing dribble penetration is during practice, outside of the starting five, who exactly is going the simulate the type of penetrating guards that Duke is going to face? From what I've seen in games and public practices, Tyler and Andre definitely aren't the type of guy to break you down off the dribble. Matt has shown a little ability, but not to the point where I'd consider him a real penetration threat. It's hard to prepare for something that you can't simulate during practice. I think Quinn or Rasheed could serve as a reasonable facsimile, but ideally you'd want the starting five to practice defense together.

[Saratoga2]

Duke is not a well oiled machine defensively. We don't have a floor leader who has the quickness, savy and toughness to ma

[Indoor66]

This is a young team. Three seniors, one junior, only one of whom starts. The rest are freshmen and sophs who did not play last year. There is an adjustment period - learning each other, learning to communicate, LEARNING to learn.

[NSDukeFan]

...

It starts with our guards getting broken down off the dribble, then, due to lack of communication, and poor rotations with help and recover, the defense totally breaks down. End result is the opponent gets an easy look at the rim or a wide open mid-range jumpshot or 3 point attempt. I still feel it is a copout to blame the new rules. That is a small part of it, but the bigger issue is lack of discipline, lack or moving their feet, and lack of positioning. Add in the fact that guys are hesitant to attempt to take a charge, and they end up not know what to do once they rotate over to help.

The other part is inexperience in Duke's system, and a bunch of new faces trying to learn how to play defense together as a 5 man cohesive unit. K is not going zone, so get it out of your heads. He may do it one or two possessions per half just to change things up, but he is going to play man exclusively. The good news is, because the bulk of the issues are inexperience and learning to play with new teammates, the problems are fixable, and they are fixable this year. They can figure this out. It may take until mid-January, but so what. Most of us agreed that this team would be the opposite of recent teams in that rather than starting out playing their best ball early, they would struggle early (likely losing 2, 3, 4 games, but then get a lot stronger down the stretch. Which is what we want right? Peak at the optimum time vs peaking too early then fading. You can't have it both ways.

... They can get to the place they need to be, but it is going to take a lot of hard work, starting with respecting the opponent and playing every possession of every game as hard as they can play.

It is fixable. They can play much better on defense than they are playing right now. They are just going to have to buckle down in the short term and weather the storm until they get enough practice time to address and correct the issues.
I also expect that with experience the D will improve greatly and that the individual talent level is good enough. The other point that I took from coach K's quotes post-last game was that there was a lack of intensity. I believe that every team has a some games each year where they are just not as ready to perform as they should be and the players may still be trying and hustling, but at this level, if you are not really ready to play, you can get exploited by an inferior opponent such as Vermont. If the team isn't completely focused, they won't communicate as well as they should. Fortunately, over coach K's tenure, Duke underperforms much less than most teams.

Because you have to practice zone to play it, and our limited practice time might be better spent making our bread and butter defense at least adequate.
I would agree that I would much rather the team fine tune the defense they will be using most often, rather than have this inexperienced team take time away from that to practice zone defense.

Bravo. Coach K has said it; others have said it. It's not about effort or size or new rules. It's about focus and playing together. It's a new group and they are adjusting, and so we lapse into a lot of one-on-one (or one-on-five) mindset (not selfishness, which is different). This is a coaching issue and it takes time to work through.
This team has played a couple games like five fingers. Hopefully, by the end of the year it will be a strong fist.