PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Quotes and Questions re Okafor and Jones



Faison1
11-16-2013, 08:43 AM
It's a USA Today article, but it's still pretty insightful:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/11/15/jahlil-okafor-tyus-jones-duke-recruits-mike-krzyzewski/3592737/

It raises a number of questions for me:

1. Has something changed over the past few years with regards to our recruiting momentum? Is it Capel and Nate on the bench? 5-7 years ago, we seemed to be bumping along.....now it seems we have a lot of positive vibes with the top recruits.

2. What happens next year with Quinn and Tyus? It's sounding more and more like Tyus will need the ball in his hands. How does that get worked out?

3. How exciting is it to have a true back to the basket player with major skills on the team? I can not wait to see this guy operate. It's been years since we've had someone who could consistently create/finish a shot down low in the form of a layup.

MarkD83
11-16-2013, 08:56 AM
It's a USA Today article, but it's still pretty insightful:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/11/15/jahlil-okafor-tyus-jones-duke-recruits-mike-krzyzewski/3592737/

It raises a number of questions for me:

1. Has something changed over the past few years with regards to our recruiting momentum? Is it Capel and Nate on the bench? 5-7 years ago, we seemed to be bumping along.....now it seems we have a lot of positive vibes with the top recruits..

I'll bring up a past issue that may now be a positive. Both Jones and Okafor have been on USA basketball teams. Being on the Olympic team is now a desire of most pro players, so what might have been considered a negative factor for Duke BBall recruiting (Coach K spending time on the Olympic team) may now be a positive.

With that being said today is a day to concentrate on Duke Football.

slower
11-16-2013, 09:29 AM
With that being said today is a day to concentrate on Duke Football.

Your opinion only. Duke football has a LONG way to go before supplanting basketball, at least on this board. Even on an off day for the basketball team, they are my primary interest.

Dukehky
11-16-2013, 09:45 AM
Your opinion only. Duke football has a LONG way to go before supplanting basketball, at least on this board. Even on an off day for the basketball team, they are my primary interest.

I feel like Duke football is like a basketball walk-on getting in the game. It's really exciting and you hope he scores. When he scores you are just super jacked up, and if he doesn't you're kinda sad, but it doesn't blow your day.

That's how I am with Duke football. I'm always watching, and if they win, then I'm excited, and if they lose, then I'm a little sad. As long as the basketball team wins, I'm good.

Faison1
11-16-2013, 09:45 AM
Your opinion only. Duke football has a LONG way to go before supplanting basketball, at least on this board. Even on an off day for the basketball team, they are my primary interest.

I don't want to be snarky, but I'd have to agree with this. Duke just landed IMO one of the more important recruits in years, plus a top notch point guard. That's a pretty big deal.

I'll be watching Duke Football today, as I always do, but it doesn't supplant my excitement for Duke Hoops and Coach K's "Big Get."

jay
11-16-2013, 09:54 AM
This is still Duke "Basketball" Report, right?

Dr. Rosenrosen
11-16-2013, 10:07 AM
C'mon guys. If you don't want to talk about FB, that's your choice. Don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

slower
11-16-2013, 10:12 AM
C'mon guys. If you don't want to talk about FB, that's your choice. Don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

No problem. Just talk about it in another thread. Let's not kid ourselves - we're here mostly for the basketball.

Duke BASKETBALL Report

Faison1
11-16-2013, 10:15 AM
OK, back on topic. I highly recommend reading the USA Today Article. It has some good quotes from our own Adam Rowe. He openly says that missing on these two would have been devastating for the program.

But, I want to hear people's opinions on why our recruiting seems to be on the upswing. I suspect it has to do with changes to our assistant staff.

Also, comparisons' with Duhon and Jason Williams don't fit here. Williams was good at playing the 2. Can Quinn move to that spot? We'll have a bunch of 2's next year.

I think both Tyus and Quinn need the ball in their hands. Is there a plan to address that?

MarkD83
11-16-2013, 10:22 AM
Man. I did not expect that outpouring of emotion!!!

I just wanted folks to realize that this is a key day for the Duke football program. Just one day of attention would not hurt anyone.
If Duke beats Miami and goes on to the ACC championship and wins double digit games for the first time ever and this leads to something greater, it would be nice to say in 5 to 10 years, "Yes, I was cheering for Duke fooball when they beat Miami".

OK that being said. I am really excited about Jones and Okafur coming to Duke. That is two years in a row with the top HS player. When was the last time that happened. I also know that this is teh OAD era, but I still can still dream that Jabari and Rodney stay and now we would have.

1. A classic point guard
2. Off-guards that an shot and pass well
3. "Small forwards" who are 6'8" and can hit the three and drive to the basket
4. "Big forwards" who are 6'8" and can hit the three and drive to the basket
5. A classic back to the basket center

If Winslow commits to Duke we may have to party like its "1999" (without the loss in the last game.)

Faison1
11-16-2013, 10:26 AM
Man. I did not expect that outpouring of emotion!!!

I just wanted folks to realize that this is a key day for the Duke football program. Just one day of attention would not hurt anyone.
If Duke beats Miami and goes on to the ACC championship and wins double digit games for the first time ever and this leads to something greater, it would be nice to say in 5 to 10 years, "Yes, I was cheering for Duke fooball when they beat Miami". or "No, I was talking about how Duke basketball beat FAU".

Can't you do both?

OK.....back no topic.....Jones/Okafor

And, Go Duke Football!!!!! Beat Miami!!! I'm cheering for you, Coach C!

MarkD83
11-16-2013, 10:31 AM
I should not have put the snarky remark about FAU.

OK back on topic.

I am really excited about Jones and Okafur coming to Duke. That is two years in a row with the top HS player. When was the last time that happened. I also know that this is the OAD era, but I still can still dream that Jabari and Rodney stay and now we would have.

1. A classic point guard
2. Off-guards that can shot and pass well
3. "Small forwards" who are 6'8" and can hit the three and drive to the basket
4. "Big forwards" who are 6'8" and can hit the three and drive to the basket
5. A classic back to the basket center

If Winslow commits to Duke we may have to party like its "1999" (without the loss in the last game.)

Troublemaker
11-16-2013, 12:18 PM
1. Has something changed over the past few years with regards to our recruiting momentum? Is it Capel and Nate on the bench? 5-7 years ago, we seemed to be bumping along.....now it seems we have a lot of positive vibes with the top recruits.


It was Coach K being the USA basketball coach that helped change things, and more generally, Duke recognized that it had a growing image problem (through no fault of its own) in the mid-2000s and worked to fix it. Duke's current recruiting momentum is basically just the result of the battle against Duke Hatred finally tipping in our favor after years of gradual improvement --again, thanks to a big assist from USA basketball -- and that battle continues now and into the future.

What is the image problem / battle that Duke has been fighting? It may be uncomfortable for some to talk about, but I've always thought it was pretty obvious nonetheless. Rodney Hood addresses the problem (and, imo, the solution) quite nicely here in the following quote ( from this article http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/07/3344382/after-waiting-a-year-dukes-rodney.html?SPID=81296&DB_OEM_ID=4200 )

“Especially the black community, they feel like Duke is a privileged school and things like that,” Hood said. “Being on campus, I know it’s not like that. The guys on the team are regular guys. The coaching staff are regular people. It’s just a school where they demand excellence, which you don’t find everywhere else.”

Duke Hatred is basically just the result of misconceptions about Coach K, the university, and the players that play for us. We are arrogant, we are privileged, we are the school for whites and Uncle Toms (remember, Jalen Rose used that phrase to describe Duke players, if you think I'm crazy). How do you correct misconceptions? Get people to know you. Luckily for Duke, we were able to start this task with NBA superstars through Coach K's role with USA basketball. Note: Obviously, Coach K didn't take the job to correct misconceptions about himself and Duke --he's just a patriot-- but it has been a really nice side benefit. If you follow USA basketball, you'll quickly lose track of how many times a player has said something like, "Coach K isn't whom I thought he was. He's just a great guy." I'm not sure exactly what they thought Coach K was going in, but what the NBA stars found was a competitive but warm personality, a quick wit, and a great coach. The things we've known for 30+ years.

This was a huge step for Duke and Coach K in the context of the fight against Duke Hatred. If you're a high school basketball player and you see your basketball heroes putting their gold medals around Coach K's neck, showering him with praise in every interview (e.g. Chris Paul - “It’s tough for me to say it [from these] lips, but I love that guy. I love him."), you start to doubt any negative preconceived notions you might have had about the man. Duke and Coach K couldn't change all hearts and minds across America right away. But you change a few here, a few there, and you this for 7+ years now, and eventually the results will show up in recruiting.

I believe Duke Blue Planet has helped immensely as well and is a reflection of how the program understood the image problem it was facing and worked towards correcting it. The DBP videos put our players out there for the public to get to know them. Our players are not arrogant, they're not privileged. They're a bunch of fun-loving, hard-working, regular guys who have immense camraderie with each other. I would be surprised if recruiting letters didn't include a link to DBP. It's been what, 3 or 4 years since DBP has launched, and no other program has anything similar to it as far as I know. Duke has been necessarily way ahead of the game in public relations to combat the Duke Hatred Tsunami that peaked in the mid-2000s, and now we're arguably winning the battle and reaping the recruiting rewards. But it's important to stay vigilant. As I said above, the battle continues.

Faison1
11-16-2013, 01:41 PM
Thanks for your candor, Troublemaker. I'm not sure I totally agree in regards to the "image problem" hypothesis. Duke has always suffered from that, especially in the early to mid-90's, but K seemed to reel in a lot of talent from '98-'04.

I completely agree that the USA Basketball experience has changed and enhanced a lot of perceptions about Coach K and Duke. But we were still swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits, especially big men, from 2005-2012.

As for my original questions, #2 has not been addressed by anyone. We'll have Quinn and Tyus at 1, and Rasheed and Matt Jones at 2. I wonder how that's going to work. Maybe Jim Sumner or Adam Rowe have some insight? Surely the staff talked with Tyus about it.

uh_no
11-16-2013, 01:49 PM
Thanks for your candor, Troublemaker. I'm not sure I totally agree in regards to the "image problem" hypothesis. Duke has always suffered from that, especially in the early to mid-90's, but K seemed to reel in a lot of talent from '98-'04.

I completely agree that the USA Basketball experience has changed and enhanced a lot of perceptions about Coach K and Duke. But we were still swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits, especially big men, from 2005-2012.

As for my original questions, #2 has not been addressed by anyone. We'll have Quinn and Tyus at 1, and Rasheed and Matt Jones at 2. I wonder how that's going to work. Maybe Jim Sumner or Adam Rowe have some insight? Surely the staff talked with Tyus about it.

I think the difference now is that we've opened the door to a lot more players that would not have previously considered Duke, like hood, for instance. Heck we might have been able to land someone like a jalen rose in this day, whether we'd want to or not aside.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-16-2013, 01:57 PM
Thanks for your candor, Troublemaker. I'm not sure I totally agree in regards to the "image problem" hypothesis. Duke has always suffered from that, especially in the early to mid-90's, but K seemed to reel in a lot of talent from '98-'04.

I completely agree that the USA Basketball experience has changed and enhanced a lot of perceptions about Coach K and Duke. But we were still swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits, especially big men, from 2005-2012.

As for my original questions, #2 has not been addressed by anyone. We'll have Quinn and Tyus at 1, and Rasheed and Matt Jones at 2. I wonder how that's going to work. Maybe Jim Sumner or Adam Rowe have some insight? Surely the staff talked with Tyus about it.

I posted this in another thread, but I think Quinn will excel in the SG role next season. Quinn isn't the best multi-tasker, IMO. Often he has games with more assists than points or double-digit scoring while having few assists. I think this inability to score yet still run the offense is why Cook appears to struggle from time to time.

Having Tyus as a pure PG would allow Cook to have a more clearly defined role, that of a penetrating scorer that can hit the open 3. Rasheed would move to the 3-spot or become a sixth man, depending on what Hood decides to do next year.

Kedsy
11-16-2013, 02:31 PM
It's been years since we've had someone who could consistently create/finish a shot down low in the form of a layup.

Yeah, all the way back to... 2013, when Mason Plumlee, playing mostly back-to-the-basket, scored 17.1 ppg and earned 2nd team All America honors.


That is two years in a row with the top HS player.

Well, once Wiggins re-classified, I don't think anybody had Jabari as the top high school player. RSCI had him rated #3. That said, if Jahlil stays in the top three, it will be the fourth year in five that we've had an incoming recruit who was among the top three rated high school players (#2 Kyrie in 2010-11, #2 Austin in 2011-12, #3 Jabari in 2013-14, and #1 Jahlil in 2014-15). Pretty amazing (for any school outside Lexington, KY).


But we were still swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits, especially big men, from 2005-2012.

In the 8 years from 2005 to 2012, according to RSCI, we pulled in four top 5 recruits, nine top 15 recruits (including the previous four), fifteen top 25 recruits (including the previous), and twenty top 35 recruits (including the previous). Of those, the following played C or PF during their time at Duke: #1, #5, #14, #18, #20, #21, #25, #32, in addition to #39, #49, #60, #61, #66, and #81.

While it's true we didn't get everyone we wanted, when you get twenty (20) top 35 recruits (including eight big men) in eight years, it's a bit much to describe our recruiting as "swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits." I mean, how many high profile recruits did you expect to get over that period?

And, due to the time period you chose, that doesn't count the two most recent classes (#3 Jabari, #34 Matt, #32 Semi; #1 Jahlil, #4 Tyus, #34 Grayson, and possibly/hopefully #12 Justise).


As for my original questions, #2 has not been addressed by anyone. We'll have Quinn and Tyus at 1, and Rasheed and Matt Jones at 2. I wonder how that's going to work. Maybe Jim Sumner or Adam Rowe have some insight? Surely the staff talked with Tyus about it.

I don't see why you think this will be a problem. Assuming Jabari and Rodney leave, we'll rotate five guys (Quinn/Tyus/Rasheed/Matt/Justise (if he comes to Duke) or Alex or Semi or Grayson) at the three wing positions and three guys (Jahlil/Amile/Marshall or Semi or Alex) in the two big positions, similar to what we usually do.

BD80
11-16-2013, 03:09 PM
... it will be the fourth year in five that we've had an incoming recruit who was among the top three rated high school players (#2 Kyrie in 2010-11, #2 Austin in 2011-12, #3 Jabari in 2013-14, and #1 Jahlil in 2014-15). Pretty amazing (for any school outside Lexington, KY).

In the 8 years from 2005 to 2012, according to RSCI, we pulled in four top 5 recruits, nine top 15 recruits (including the previous four), fifteen top 25 recruits (including the previous), and twenty top 35 recruits (including the previous). Of those, the following played C or PF during their time at Duke: #1, #5, #14, #18, #20, #21, #25, #32, in addition to #39, #49, #60, #61, #66, and #81.

While it's true we didn't get everyone we wanted, when you get twenty (20) top 35 recruits (including eight big men) in eight years, it's a bit much to describe our recruiting as "swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits." I mean, how many high profile recruits did you expect to get over that period? ...

And this isn't like it is a contest against 1 other school, or a conference, or 50 other schools. This is competing against EVERY other school (D1, D2, D3) AND foreign clubs and the NBDL. It is like saying Tiger Woods "swung and missed" each time he failed to WIN a tournament.

Oh yeah, at least 1/3 and maybe 1/2 of the top 50 recruits each year are not even considered by the staff because they couldn't handle the academics at Duke.

Who, other than calipari, has been landing its top picks at a higher rate? Maybe Self at KU.

The only other schools in the discussion? Florida, UA, Louisville, Memphis, UM, MSU, OSU, IU, Baylor, unc, UCLA ...? Really can't say any of them have come close to Duke's recruiting in the last 5, 10, 20 years.

davekay1971
11-16-2013, 04:35 PM
There's no question that K's Olympic team work has helped Duke's recruiting. For the best of the best high school players, seeing K working with the best of the NBA, the guys that these recruits aspire to be, and seeing the tweets and comments of those players expressing their admiration and appreciation of K, is powerful.

I think there's some hard truth to Troublemaker's post. There's also the standard negative recruiting, the anti-Duke mantras (it's not a big man school, etc). K and his staff have done a great job combating that. The Olympic team work, the media openness, the youtube/DBP videos. And that's one of the many things that makes K great: he identifies a problem and solves it as quickly and efficiently as anyone in the business.

Troublemaker
11-16-2013, 05:34 PM
I'm not sure I totally agree in regards to the "image problem" hypothesis. Duke has always suffered from that

Was the intensity always the same, though? The anti-Duke sentiment became a small phenomenon in the early part of the millennium and much more widely commented on in the media and often in a fashion where it was reveled in. It became part of the lexicon. If you asked a high school basketball player about Duke Hatred in 1995, he would have much, much less of an idea of what you were talking about than if you asked in 2005.

Because recruiting essentially is getting people to like you, if there's some sort of cultural phenomenon out there where people dislike you, that's not a good thing. Moreover, once something becomes a phenomenon, it can gain undeserved credibility for its beliefs because, subconsciously or otherwise, "This many people can't be wrong." I think the hatred gradually began to affect recruiting, never to the point where Duke would be less than a good team, of course. Thankfully, I think Coach K's tenure as USA coach and Duke's efforts with DBP to squash the misconceptions the hatred is based on have gradually elevated recruiting, and the program seems to be purring now.

However, another perfectly fine explanation for differences in recruiting results over time is just randomness, of course. I am very often on the side of using randomness to explain things. In this particular case, though, I do believe there was something cultural going on in the past decade (that doesn't necessarily exclude randomness as a factor).

Orange&BlackSheep
11-16-2013, 05:49 PM
and saying that I thought this team would be less hated since it does not feature any white players so prominently which seems to be the thing that sets off the rest of the country into anti-Dukedom (something I don't relish saying, not asserting is 100% true, but is a dynamic based in some fact I think). His retort was that for him Duke became less hateable recently because Duke has been much less successful in the past ten years than they had been. That is his perception at least.

O&B Sheep

Richard Berg
11-16-2013, 06:01 PM
Was the intensity always the same, though? The anti-Duke sentiment became a small phenomenon in the early part of the millennium and much more widely commented on in the media and often in a fashion where it was reveled in. It became part of the lexicon. If you asked a high school basketball player about Duke Hatred in 1995, he would have much, much less of an idea of what you were talking about than if you asked in 2005.

Because recruiting essentially is getting people to like you, if there's some sort of cultural phenomenon out there where people dislike you, that's not a good thing. Moreover, once something becomes a phenomenon, it can gain undeserved credibility for its beliefs because, subconsciously or otherwise, "This many people can't be wrong." I think the hatred gradually began to affect recruiting, never to the point where Duke would be less than a good team, of course. Thankfully, I think Coach K's tenure as USA coach and Duke's efforts with DBP to squash the misconceptions the hatred is based on have gradually elevated recruiting, and the program seems to be purring now.

However, another perfectly fine explanation for differences in recruiting results over time is just randomness, of course. I am very often on the side of using randomness to explain things. In this particular case, though, I do believe there was something cultural going on in the past decade (that doesn't necessarily exclude randomness as a factor).
I think you're on to something. There's a difference between water-cooler chit-chat in 1993 and the way ideas can spread nowadays over Twitter, a half-dozen 24/7 sports networks, etc.

g-money
11-16-2013, 06:23 PM
It was Coach K being the USA basketball coach that helped change things, and more generally, Duke recognized that it had a growing image problem (through no fault of its own) in the mid-2000s and worked to fix it. Duke's current recruiting momentum is basically just the result of the battle against Duke Hatred finally tipping in our favor after years of gradual improvement --again, thanks to a big assist from USA basketball -- and that battle continues now and into the future.

What is the image problem / battle that Duke has been fighting? It may be uncomfortable for some to talk about, but I've always thought it was pretty obvious nonetheless. Rodney Hood addresses the problem (and, imo, the solution) quite nicely here in the following quote ( from this article http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/07/3344382/after-waiting-a-year-dukes-rodney.html?SPID=81296&DB_OEM_ID=4200 )

“Especially the black community, they feel like Duke is a privileged school and things like that,” Hood said. “Being on campus, I know it’s not like that. The guys on the team are regular guys. The coaching staff are regular people. It’s just a school where they demand excellence, which you don’t find everywhere else.”

Duke Hatred is basically just the result of misconceptions about Coach K, the university, and the players that play for us. We are arrogant, we are privileged, we are the school for whites and Uncle Toms (remember, Jalen Rose used that phrase to describe Duke players, if you think I'm crazy). How do you correct misconceptions? Get people to know you. Luckily for Duke, we were able to start this task with NBA superstars through Coach K's role with USA basketball. Note: Obviously, Coach K didn't take the job to correct misconceptions about himself and Duke --he's just a patriot-- but it has been a really nice side benefit. If you follow USA basketball, you'll quickly lose track of how many times a player has said something like, "Coach K isn't whom I thought he was. He's just a great guy." I'm not sure exactly what they thought Coach K was going in, but what the NBA stars found was a competitive but warm personality, a quick wit, and a great coach. The things we've known for 30+ years.


Great post. One other factor which may have hurt Duke recruiting in the mid-2000s was the lacrosse hoax, which while not directly related to the basketball team, certainly hurt people's perceptions of race relations at the University. That was a real shame.

_Gary
11-16-2013, 06:32 PM
Was the intensity always the same, though? The anti-Duke sentiment became a small phenomenon in the early part of the millennium and much more widely commented on in the media and often in a fashion where it was reveled in. It became part of the lexicon. If you asked a high school basketball player about Duke Hatred in 1995, he would have much, much less of an idea of what you were talking about than if you asked in 2005.

I couldn't agree more with all the points you've made. I honestly don't believe it was random or just a spot of "bad luck" during the time period you are referencing. The only thing I'll add (and folks that have been at DBR for any length of time will know what's coming) is that I honestly do believe the Packer/ESPN component of "Duke gets all the calls" was a factor in all this. Whether we like to admit it or not the media can and does influence popular opinion more than many want to think. And I'll forever believe that, whether conspiratorial or not, that the constant whining from commentators that we always got the benefit of the whistles did help fuel the hate during the decade of the 2000's.

BobbyFan
11-16-2013, 07:18 PM
and saying that I thought this team would be less hated since it does not feature any white players so prominently which seems to be the thing that sets off the rest of the country into anti-Dukedom (something I don't relish saying, not asserting is 100% true, but is a dynamic based in some fact I think). His retort was that for him Duke became less hateable recently because Duke has been much less successful in the past ten years than they had been. That is his perception at least.

O&B Sheep

I was just reading this article from Mark Titus on Grantland:


Hating Duke has always been one of those little things in life that puts a smile on my face for reasons I don't fully understand, kind of like how "Taco Bell" and "Netflix" always trend on Twitter around 2 a.m. But in what experts are calling the biggest upset in college basketball history, this year's Duke team starts zero white guys, they're incredibly fun to watch, and — this can't be right — they are easy to cheer for? And if that wasn't enough, Mike Krzyzewski is starting quotes with the phrase "As an American"? What's going on in Durham? Where are the unathletic white guys who take charges and slap the floor? Where are the punchable faces? As an American, I demand to know what happened to the Duke I grew up hating.

His begins his next sentence with "In all seriousness", but there is clearly an honest undertone to what he is saying.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9974855/mark-titus-acc-preview-duke-hard-hate-year

Dukehky
11-16-2013, 07:22 PM
and saying that I thought this team would be less hated since it does not feature any white players so prominently which seems to be the thing that sets off the rest of the country into anti-Dukedom (something I don't relish saying, not asserting is 100% true, but is a dynamic based in some fact I think). His retort was that for him Duke became less hateable recently because Duke has been much less successful in the past ten years than they had been. That is his perception at least.

O&B Sheep

Duke not being hatable is based primarily on the fact that we don't have any prominent white players. Everyone always hates our white starters. Jay Williams, Grant Hill, Elton Brand; everybody loved. The vast majority of people who weren't Duke fans hated Ferry, Hurley, Laettner(okay, that one for a reason), Collins, Wojo, Redick (that one for a reason too), Paulus, all the Plumlees, Scheyer

It's not based on lack of success. Who is going to say they hate Duke because they have good white guys. It's the same for other teams too eg Hansbrough.

This year there are no white players even sniffing the starting line-up and Murph and Marsh barely get any playing time. Plus Jabari is like the most likeable kid in the history of the world.

johnb
11-16-2013, 07:30 PM
Was the intensity always the same, though? The anti-Duke sentiment became a small phenomenon in the early part of the millennium and much more widely commented on in the media and often in a fashion where it was reveled in. It became part of the lexicon. If you asked a high school basketball player about Duke Hatred in 1995, he would have much, much less of an idea of what you were talking about than if you asked in 2005....



The internet allowed duke hating to be more widely disseminated, but don't underestimate the anti-duke sentiment engendered by the 91 and 92 teams; they won 2 championships and boasted two guys on the all-time hated list (Hurley and Laettner). if you want to pick our worst season since the 1970's--1995--I guess people wouldn't have hated us so much, but I guarantee they enjoyed beating us.

Others have clarified it more clearly, but our recruiting has been at the elite level for 25 years but has picked up its tempo in the past 10.

finally, my guess is that we can target no more than a dozen of the top 50 players, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

jv001
11-16-2013, 07:45 PM
No problem. Just talk about it in another thread. Let's not kid ourselves - we're here mostly for the basketball.

Duke BASKETBALL Report

FOOTBALL SCHOOL, lol. GoDuke!

NYBri
11-16-2013, 07:51 PM
It was Coach K being the USA basketball coach that helped change things, and more generally, Duke recognized that it had a growing image problem (through no fault of its own) in the mid-2000s and worked to fix it. Duke's current recruiting momentum is basically just the result of the battle against Duke Hatred finally tipping in our favor after years of gradual improvement --again, thanks to a big assist from USA basketball -- and that battle continues now and into the future.

What is the image problem / battle that Duke has been fighting? It may be uncomfortable for some to talk about, but I've always thought it was pretty obvious nonetheless. Rodney Hood addresses the problem (and, imo, the solution) quite nicely here in the following quote ( from this article http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/07/3344382/after-waiting-a-year-dukes-rodney.html?SPID=81296&DB_OEM_ID=4200 )

“Especially the black community, they feel like Duke is a privileged school and things like that,” Hood said. “Being on campus, I know it’s not like that. The guys on the team are regular guys. The coaching staff are regular people. It’s just a school where they demand excellence, which you don’t find everywhere else.”

Duke Hatred is basically just the result of misconceptions about Coach K, the university, and the players that play for us. We are arrogant, we are privileged, we are the school for whites and Uncle Toms (remember, Jalen Rose used that phrase to describe Duke players, if you think I'm crazy). How do you correct misconceptions? Get people to know you. Luckily for Duke, we were able to start this task with NBA superstars through Coach K's role with USA basketball. Note: Obviously, Coach K didn't take the job to correct misconceptions about himself and Duke --he's just a patriot-- but it has been a really nice side benefit. If you follow USA basketball, you'll quickly lose track of how many times a player has said something like, "Coach K isn't whom I thought he was. He's just a great guy." I'm not sure exactly what they thought Coach K was going in, but what the NBA stars found was a competitive but warm personality, a quick wit, and a great coach. The things we've known for 30+ years.

This was a huge step for Duke and Coach K in the context of the fight against Duke Hatred. If you're a high school basketball player and you see your basketball heroes putting their gold medals around Coach K's neck, showering him with praise in every interview (e.g. Chris Paul - “It’s tough for me to say it [from these] lips, but I love that guy. I love him."), you start to doubt any negative preconceived notions you might have had about the man. Duke and Coach K couldn't change all hearts and minds across America right away. But you change a few here, a few there, and you this for 7+ years now, and eventually the results will show up in recruiting.

I believe Duke Blue Planet has helped immensely as well and is a reflection of how the program understood the image problem it was facing and worked towards correcting it. The DBP videos put our players out there for the public to get to know them. Our players are not arrogant, they're not privileged. They're a bunch of fun-loving, hard-working, regular guys who have immense camraderie with each other. I would be surprised if recruiting letters didn't include a link to DBP. It's been what, 3 or 4 years since DBP has launched, and no other program has anything similar to it as far as I know. Duke has been necessarily way ahead of the game in public relations to combat the Duke Hatred Tsunami that peaked in the mid-2000s, and now we're arguably winning the battle and reaping the recruiting rewards. But it's important to stay vigilant. As I said above, the battle continues.

This is spot on. The fact that K and the likes of Kevin Durant and The King won gold speaks to recruits.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-16-2013, 08:02 PM
Back in 2007, the DBR Front Page posted an essay written by the DBR staff(if I remember correctly) that truly got to the heart of Duke Hatred.

If you'll recall, reports at the time surfaced that when Duke was upset by VCU in the NCAAT, the media room at the game erupted in cheers, not from VCU homers, but from so-called "non-biased" members of the local and national media.

It was a great article to read. Don't know if anyone still has it , but if so, maybe they could re-post it.

Richard Berg
11-16-2013, 08:15 PM
Isn't "[Team A] hates [Team B]'s little white point guard" in the HPR?

gurufrisbee
11-16-2013, 08:16 PM
If Wiggins/Randle/Gordon look to have a stranglehold on the #1 overall pick in the next NBA draft and Duke looks like a title contender, is there any chance Parker stays for his sophmore season?

jipops
11-16-2013, 08:32 PM
If Wiggins/Randle/Gordon look to have a stranglehold on the #1 overall pick in the next NBA draft and Duke looks like a title contender, is there any chance Parker stays for his sophmore season?

Like one in a million. But it is still a chance. I'm not betting on it. Go ahead and consider this to be the one season we see him in a Duke uni and enjoy it.

Kedsy
11-16-2013, 08:40 PM
If you'll recall, reports at the time surfaced that when Duke was upset by VCU in the NCAAT, the media room at the game erupted in cheers, not from VCU homers, but from so-called "non-biased" members of the local and national media.

I was in and out of the press room at this year's 1st two rounds in Philadelphia. I don't recall the room actually erupting in cheers, but a good many of the "non-biased" media were rooting hard for Florida Gulf Coast (including me). Does anybody in a million years think it was Georgetown hate?

I'm not saying Duke hate isn't real -- it is, I've seen it plenty of times up here in Philadelphia, and I don't entirely understand it. But people cheering when a huge underdog beats a Goliath in an exciting game isn't proper evidence of it.

BlueDevilBrowns
11-16-2013, 08:51 PM
I was in and out of the press room at this year's 1st two rounds in Philadelphia. I don't recall the room actually erupting in cheers, but a good many of the "non-biased" media were rooting hard for Florida Gulf Coast (including me). Does anybody in a million years think it was Georgetown hate?

I'm not saying Duke hate isn't real -- it is, I've seen it plenty of times up here in Philadelphia, and I don't entirely understand it. But people cheering when a huge underdog beats a Goliath in an exciting game isn't proper evidence of it.

Again, the incident was several years ago so I don't remember all the details, not to mention I wasn't there to personally witness it.

But I do find it odd that local writers and columnists that are supposed to be covering the local team, in this case Duke, would actively and so openly root against it's success. Further, it prompted the writers of this site to strongly react to it so I would say it was somewhat out of line.

Also, Duke was a 6 seed and VCU was an 11 seed so it wasn't exactly David vs. Goliath.

Troublemaker
11-16-2013, 09:48 PM
if you want to pick our worst season since the 1970's--1995--I guess people wouldn't have hated us so much

Replace 1995 with 1994 in my comparison then. Clearly I just wanted to choose any old year pre-2000s for my comparison. And I think you and others are right about the Internet and other new forms of media contributing to the rise of anti-Duke sentiment.



Others have clarified it more clearly, but our recruiting has been at the elite level for 25 years but has picked up its tempo in the past 10.


Well, I don't doubt that once early-entry hit Duke in 1999, our rate of signing players had to pick up overall just to cover turnover. But, did Duke's recruiting decline and then recover somewhere in there, and what was the cause if not random variation across time?



finally, my guess is that we can target no more than a dozen of the top 50 players, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

Definitely agree that Duke recruits from a smaller pool than most programs. I think that pool had been shrunken further for awhile.

Kedsy
11-16-2013, 10:12 PM
Also, Duke was a 6 seed and VCU was an 11 seed so it wasn't exactly David vs. Goliath.

Any time a mid-major beats a blue-blood in the NCAAT, it's David v. Goliath. Doesn't really matter what they're seeded.

And just because the writers of this site had a strong reaction doesn't make it evidence of Duke hate. Frankly, I think we've all seen so much Duke hate that we've become oversensitive to it, even otherwise reasonable people.

Having said all that, if Troublemaker (and others) are right and the hate is dissipating, then I'm all for it.

JPtheGame
11-16-2013, 11:08 PM
Like one in a million. But it is still a chance. I'm not betting on it. Go ahead and consider this to be the one season we see him in a Duke uni and enjoy it.

Maybe we will need a "will he stay or will he go" thread but I completely disagree with the odds. I think we are making the mistake of looking at talent and draftability as the only relevant factors. This kid is different in many ways.
Find a quote where jabari or jabari's family talk about him being one and done. There are several where they speak about the possibility of staying multiple years.

Faison1
11-17-2013, 09:53 AM
Yeah, all the way back to... 2013, when Mason Plumlee, playing mostly back-to-the-basket, scored 17.1 ppg and earned 2nd team All America honors.

I knew someone would bring up Mason. Mason was not a classic back to the basket type player. He also struggled to create his own shot. He became better at it by his senior year, but his best move was a 3-5 foot semi-jump hook. My impression of Mason was that he had amazing athletic ability, he was good at catching lobs and putbacks, but he needed to dunk them because he seemed to miss a lot of layups.



In the 8 years from 2005 to 2012, according to RSCI, we pulled in four top 5 recruits, nine top 15 recruits (including the previous four), fifteen top 25 recruits (including the previous), and twenty top 35 recruits (including the previous). Of those, the following played C or PF during their time at Duke: #1, #5, #14, #18, #20, #21, #25, #32, in addition to #39, #49, #60, #61, #66, and #81.

While it's true we didn't get everyone we wanted, when you get twenty (20) top 35 recruits (including eight big men) in eight years, it's a bit much to describe our recruiting as "swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits." I mean, how many high profile recruits did you expect to get over that period?

Since this topic has been debated many times in many threads, we can agree to disagree on the subject. I chose 2005 because that seemed to be the start of a period where our frontcourt recruiting changed from landing players like Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer and Shelden Williams, to landing Josh McRoberts, Bryan Zoubek, and the Plumlees. I am very fond of all those players, and will always hold them highly in regards to their contributions to Duke, but they were not in the same class as the previous 3 players I mentioned.

During the same time period, we took big swings and misses on Brandon Wright, Patrick Patterson, (less so on Kevin Love), Greg Monroe, Harrison Barnes, Mitch McGary, and Tony Parker.

If you look at Brand, Boozer, and Williams, all of those guys were ready to contribute in a major way from day one. From 2005 to 2012, of all our frontcourt recruits, only McRoberts and Singler were ready to start as freshman. The other top recruits who started as freshman were guards: Gerald Henderson, Elliott Williams, Kyrie Irving, Austin Rivers, Rasheed Sulaimon.


And, due to the time period you chose, that doesn't count the two most recent classes (#3 Jabari, #34 Matt, #32 Semi; #1 Jahlil, #4 Tyus, #34 Grayson, and possibly/hopefully #12 Justise).

In my original question, I am asking why our recruiting has picked up the last couple of years.

miramar
11-17-2013, 10:35 AM
In the 8 years from 2005 to 2012, according to RSCI, we pulled in four top 5 recruits, nine top 15 recruits (including the previous four), fifteen top 25 recruits (including the previous), and twenty top 35 recruits (including the previous). Of those, the following played C or PF during their time at Duke: #1, #5, #14, #18, #20, #21, #25, #32, in addition to #39, #49, #60, #61, #66, and #81.

While it's true we didn't get everyone we wanted, when you get twenty (20) top 35 recruits (including eight big men) in eight years, it's a bit much to describe our recruiting as "swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits." I mean, how many high profile recruits did you expect to get over that period?

Kedsy is of course right, but for a while it seemed that for Coach K it was damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If he missed out on Harrison Barnes, it meant that he could no longer recruit as well as ol' Roy. The worst example of this was the preseason magazine from a few years back with an article quoting an unnamed "expert" who said that Duke would never compete with Carolina as long as Coach K was around, with an illustration of Williams as Muhammad Ali gloating over Coach K as Sonny Liston. All the close calls with the big-time recruits that Faison1 mentions just seemed to make the situation worse.

But if Coach K did land the big-time recruits and they didn't pan out (as can't miss prospects probably do half of the time) then it meant that Coach K couldn't develop big men. I'm sure we all remember my least favorite recruit of all time, Tony Parker. OK, it was really Baron Davis, but close enough.

It's amazing what two straight first round picks will do to your reputation among big men. Needless to say, Jabari and Okafor could make that four straight, so we probably won't hear that again.

At the same time, there is no question that the makeup of this team is radically different from the ones we have seen of late. When Gottlieb called Duke alarmingly unathletic, everybody knew what he was talking about.

Finally, I would add to Faison1's comments on the class of 2005, something I know about since my youngest daughter entered Duke that year. They had a supposedly monster class all around, with three McDonald's All Americans (McRoberts, Paulus, and Boateng) and two four-star recruits in Pocius and Boykin. Duke had been to the Final Four two years before, and with these freshmen and JJ and Shelden back for their senior year, more Final Fours seemed a mere formality. Instead, Boateng and Boykin left, Marty never did much at Duke, and McRoberts and Paulus never developed as expected.

The end result was that the incoming class of 2005 was the first graduating class under Coach K's tenure that never saw Duke beat Carolina in Cameron, not to mention that it had to go through the lacrosse hoax and Coach G leaving for Texas. No wonder they used to say oh-nine, oh-no, but the spell was broken when they left since Duke won it all the following year.

Fortunately, my daughter still had the time of her life inside and outside the classroom, so it all worked out.

Faison1
11-17-2013, 10:37 AM
Was the intensity always the same, though? The anti-Duke sentiment became a small phenomenon in the early part of the millennium and much more widely commented on in the media and often in a fashion where it was reveled in. It became part of the lexicon. If you asked a high school basketball player about Duke Hatred in 1995, he would have much, much less of an idea of what you were talking about than if you asked in 2005.

Because recruiting essentially is getting people to like you, if there's some sort of cultural phenomenon out there where people dislike you, that's not a good thing. Moreover, once something becomes a phenomenon, it can gain undeserved credibility for its beliefs because, subconsciously or otherwise, "This many people can't be wrong." I think the hatred gradually began to affect recruiting, never to the point where Duke would be less than a good team, of course. Thankfully, I think Coach K's tenure as USA coach and Duke's efforts with DBP to squash the misconceptions the hatred is based on have gradually elevated recruiting, and the program seems to be purring now.

However, another perfectly fine explanation for differences in recruiting results over time is just randomness, of course. I am very often on the side of using randomness to explain things. In this particular case, though, I do believe there was something cultural going on in the past decade (that doesn't necessarily exclude randomness as a factor).

What year was it when Michael Jordan came out with his quote, "I love to hate them"?

That had to make Coach K cringe a bit.

Saratoga2
11-17-2013, 11:45 AM
Thanks for your candor, Troublemaker. I'm not sure I totally agree in regards to the "image problem" hypothesis. Duke has always suffered from that, especially in the early to mid-90's, but K seemed to reel in a lot of talent from '98-'04.

I completely agree that the USA Basketball experience has changed and enhanced a lot of perceptions about Coach K and Duke. But we were still swinging and missing on a lot of big name recruits, especially big men, from 2005-2012.

As for my original questions, #2 has not been addressed by anyone. We'll have Quinn and Tyus at 1, and Rasheed and Matt Jones at 2. I wonder how that's going to work. Maybe Jim Sumner or Adam Rowe have some insight? Surely the staff talked with Tyus about it.

We will have 3 shooting guards, not two.

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 11:56 AM
I knew someone would bring up Mason. Mason was not a classic back to the basket type player. He also struggled to create his own shot. He became better at it by his senior year, but his best move was a 3-5 foot semi-jump hook. My impression of Mason was that he had amazing athletic ability, he was good at catching lobs and putbacks, but he needed to dunk them because he seemed to miss a lot of layups.

Mason was a center, he was an All American, he led the team in scoring, almost all his points came from inside, and he shot 60% from the field (higher than Shelden Williams ever did in his Duke career). So he couldn't have missed too many layups.

Whether or not you were impressed with Mason, to say, "It's been years since we've had someone who could consistently create/finish a shot down low in the form of a layup," simply isn't accurate.


Since this topic has been debated many times in many threads, we can agree to disagree on the subject. I chose 2005 because that seemed to be the start of a period where our frontcourt recruiting changed from landing players like Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer and Shelden Williams, to landing Josh McRoberts, Bryan Zoubek, and the Plumlees. I am very fond of all those players, and will always hold them highly in regards to their contributions to Duke, but they were not in the same class as the previous 3 players I mentioned.

During the same time period, we took big swings and misses on Brandon Wright, Patrick Patterson, (less so on Kevin Love), Greg Monroe, Harrison Barnes, Mitch McGary, and Tony Parker.

First of all, if you're going to count Barnes, Wright, and Patterson as "bigs," then you have to count Kyle Singler, who was as good as any of them. If you're going to include a guy who roamed the perimeter like Monroe, you have to count Ryan Kelly. If you're going to count guys rated in the 20s, like Parker (#24) and McGary (#26), then why discount our scoring Lance Thomas (#20), Brian Zoubek (#25), Kelly (#14), Miles Plumlee (#18), and Amile Jefferson (#21). My recollection on Kevin Love is we cooled on him, not the other way around.

And for what it's worth, Josh McRoberts was more highly rated coming out of high school than any of Brand, Boozer, and S Williams. Whether or not he turned out as well can't possibly be attributed to recruiting success.

Finally, Carlos Boozer had only one season at Duke where he got as high as 7 rpg. He made one All ACC team (1st team in 2002) and made third-team All America (also in 2002). Mason Plumlee topped eight rebounds three times, averaged a double-double his senior year, made two All ACC teams (1st team in 2013 and 3rd team in 2012) and made second-team All America last season. Mason was absolutely "in the same class" as Carlos.


If you look at Brand, Boozer, and Williams, all of those guys were ready to contribute in a major way from day one.

While Shelden Williams did start his first game, he didn't start 10 of his first 20. During a three-game stretch in late January/early February in his freshman year, he played a total of 17 minutes (less than 6 mpg). In his first 20 games, he averaged 6.7 ppg and 4.3 rpg (and for the season averaged 8.2/5.9). He wasn't nearly as ready to "contribute in a major way from day one" as you seem to remember.

Finally, you appear to be comparing eight years of recruiting (2005 to 2012) against three guys. While it's true we successfully recruited three good centers from 1997 to 2002, our overall recruiting since 2005 has been very strong, probably stronger than the golden age you remember.

According to RSCI, during the 2005 to 2012 time period, Duke had four top three classes (two ranked #2 and two ranked #3) and four others ranked in the top 11 (one each, #8, #9, #10, #11). In the eight year period from 1997 to 2004, we had three #1 classes ('97, '99, '02) and nothing else in the top 15 (in fact, no other class in that period was ranked at all by RSCI except the '04 class, ranked #17).

I'd argue four top three classes in the later period at least even out the three #1 classes, and the remaining four top 11 classes are far superior to the remaining unranked classes in the earlier period. I don't believe the recruiting lag you perceive ever existed.

SoCalDukeFan
11-17-2013, 12:11 PM
I think both Tyus and Quinn need the ball in their hands. Is there a plan to address that?

I would think that the coaches are recruiting hard for the future during the season. They probably have a pretty good idea as to who is back next year and some idea as to roles. However I hope that the serious thinking is about this year and how to make this year's team better.

In my opinion is a mistake to think that having two quality point guards is one too many. Lets say Quinn is the starter and Tyus the reserve. Tyus will still get plenty of minutes. Sometimes both will play. He will also be there in case of injury or foul trouble for Quinn. He can also look forward to 3 years of being Duke's point guard.

I think the way this year's team uses Tyler and Quinn gives us an idea.

I would much rather have two quality point guards than none.

SoCal

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 12:20 PM
In my opinion is a mistake to think that having two quality point guards is one too many. Lets say Quinn is the starter and Tyus the reserve. Tyus will still get plenty of minutes. Sometimes both will play. He will also be there in case of injury or foul trouble for Quinn. He can also look forward to 3 years of being Duke's point guard.

In today's world, top five recruits aren't backups and they don't stay four years. Tyus will play plenty his freshman year and he'll most likely start.

I suspect the biggest ramification of having two small PGs is another entire season of DBR fans lamenting our small lineup.

Olympic Fan
11-17-2013, 12:51 PM
I continue to be amazed by the number of Duke fans who get hung up on positions. How long have you followed Duke basketball?

Krzyzewski has never been afraid to put odd combinations on the floor to get his best lineup ... and that includes two point guards.

6-2 Johnny Dawkins played point guard his first season at Duke (averaging 4.8 assists a game). They next year, he was joined in the backcourt by 6-1 Tommy Amaker, a great defender and an even better distributor. They didn't have trouble playing together and took Duke to a No. 1 ranking and K's first Final Four.

In the late 1990s, Kentucky fans couldn't believe that top 10 point guard recruit Chris Duhon would consider Duke because the Devils already had a great point guard in Jason Williams. But Duhon did pick Duke and moved into the starting lineup late and helped Duke win its third national championship. The two 6-2 point guards teamed all the next season and led Duke to the No. 1 national ranking.

Just last year, Duke started a backcourt of Quinn Cook and Seth Curry -- with Rasheed Sulaimon starting as a third guard. That team was pretty good (it was great until Ryan got hurt).

K will play two point guards at a time (as he often does with Tyl;er and Quinn) -- no big whoopee.

Now, if it bothers you that K won't stick to a conventional lineup, then maybe you ought to think about rooting for UNC. Dean Smith invented the 1-2-3-4-5 system and became such a slave to it that he often hurt his team (go back and look at his instance that Donald Williams become a point guard in 1992) ... Bill Guthridge turned down Jason Williams (who was a Carolina fan at the time) because he already had Ron Curry at the point and he didn't think Jason could play wing guard at 6-2. Roy Williams helped screw up last year's team by insisting on playing a conventional lineup early -- which meant two big men stiffs on the floor while PJ Hairston came off the bench. When he went to a small lineup with McAdoo in the middle and four guards in February, the Heels got a lot better.

K is not a slave to positions. And Duke fans shouldn't be either.

As for the original premise of this thread, I'm sorry, but I don't see the ups and downs in recruiting over the years that others do.

K had the clearcut No. 1 classes in 1997 (Brand, Battier and company), in 1999 (Jason Williams, Boozer and company, in 2002 (Redick, Williams and company) and in 2005 (McRoberts, Paulus and company) -- back when Duke hatred was at a peak and before K was the Olympic coach. Since 2005, he's consistency brought in top 10 players -- at a rate only surpassed by Calipari over the last few years at Kentucky. In that period when Duke couldn't recruit big men, he's "only" landed two pure centers who became first-round NBA draft picks, plus a third guy who anchored a national championship team in the middle. That's some drought ...

I agree that Duke's recruiting has been plagued by the myth that Duke can't develop centers -- a myth too often perpetrated on this board. When you talk about developing centers, why does no one mention Miles Plumlee -- the nation's No. 82 consensus recruit, who developed into a first-round draft pick and now starts in the NBA. I'd say that was a pretty good job by Wojo.

The thing linking both ideas (playing two point guards, recruiting big men) is that K is the most flexible coach in college basketball. He's won national championship with one great point guard (Hurley in 1991-92), two point guards (Williams and Duhon in 2001) and with a wing guard playing point (Scheyer in 2010). He's been to the final four with a non scoring center (Bilas), a 6-5 jumping jack at center (Brickey) with a traditional center (Abdelnaby, Parks and Zoubek), with an inside-outside big man (Laettner), with bullish power forward types (Brand, Boozer and Shelden Williams).

Please, stop getting hung up on positions ... just look for talent instead.

Duvall
11-17-2013, 01:02 PM
In today's world, top five recruits aren't backups and they don't stay four years. Tyus will play plenty his freshman year and he'll most likely start.

I suspect the biggest ramification of having two small PGs is another entire season of DBR fans lamenting our small lineup.

...even though that "small" lineup could go 6-8, 6-9, 6-11 along the frontline.

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 01:03 PM
They didn't have trouble playing together and took Duke to a No. 1 ranking and its first Final Four.

Great post. I completely agree with all of it except one minor point. I'm sure in the above sentence you meant to say "Coach K's first Final Four," because otherwise it would be very inaccurate. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 01:08 PM
...even though that "small" lineup could go 6-8, 6-9, 6-11 along the frontline.

Well, it could, but assuming Rodney and Jabari leave, we're likely to go with Quinn, Tyus, and Rasheed for fairly long stretches, and that lineup would be 6'0, 6'1, 6'3, 6'9, 6'11. Matt should probably see a good amount of time also, possibly at WF, and he's 6'4. Of course, if Justise Winslow comes to Duke, then we'll also have long stretches with a 6'6, 6'9, 6'11 front line.

Let me make clear I don't have a problem with any of that, except having to read post after post lamenting our playing three small guards.

MCFinARL
11-17-2013, 02:02 PM
In today's world, top five recruits aren't backups and they don't stay four years. Tyus will play plenty his freshman year and he'll most likely start.

I suspect the biggest ramification of having two small PGs is another entire season of DBR fans lamenting our small lineup.

Yes--we could probably write a lot of these posts right now to save time next year. ;)

davekay1971
11-17-2013, 02:10 PM
Now, if it bothers you that K won't stick to a conventional lineup, then maybe you ought to think about rooting for UNC. Dean Smith invented the 1-2-3-4-5 system.

Dean Smith invented the 1-2-3-4-5 system?! I had no idea.

I will never use that system to refer to player positions again.

FWIW, I have always held the view that Duke is better for K NOT trying to force his pegs into that kind of system's holes. The man understands that we need to have SOME size on the floor for defense, rebounding, and interior scoring, but he's not going to throw a traditional "5" out there (Marshall) who may not be as ready to play low post as someone with the body type of a "4".

Now, if only our "4" could stay on the floor...Amile, I'm talking to you.

timmy c
11-17-2013, 02:31 PM
Dean Smith invented the 1-2-3-4-5 system?! I had no idea.

I will never use that system to refer to player positions again.

FWIW, I have always held the view that Duke is better for K NOT trying to force his pegs into that kind of system's holes. The man understands that we need to have SOME size on the floor for defense, rebounding, and interior scoring, but he's not going to throw a traditional "5" out there (Marshall) who may not be as ready to play low post as someone with the body type of a "4".

Now, if only our "4" could stay on the floor...Amile, I'm talking to you.

Did you just promise to never refer to a player using the 1-5 moniker and than immediately refer to Amile as a 4?

Faison1
11-17-2013, 05:49 PM
Mason was a center, he was an All American, he led the team in scoring, almost all his points came from inside, and he shot 60% from the field (higher than Shelden Williams ever did in his Duke career). So he couldn't have missed too many layups.

Whether or not you were impressed with Mason, to say, "It's been years since we've had someone who could consistently create/finish a shot down low in the form of a layup," simply isn't accurate.

Actually, Seth Curry averaged 17.5 PPG for the season, while Mason averaged 17.1.

I never said I wasn't impressed with Mason. I was very impressed with his ability to work himself into being a solid player. He had a great senior season. But when he was recruited, he was considered more of an outside-in, facing the basket type player. Same with Ryan Kelly.


Finally, Carlos Boozer had only one season at Duke where he got as high as 7 rpg. He made one All ACC team (1st team in 2002) and made third-team All America (also in 2002). Mason Plumlee topped eight rebounds three times, averaged a double-double his senior year, made two All ACC teams (1st team in 2013 and 3rd team in 2012) and made second-team All America last season. Mason was absolutely "in the same class" as Carlos.

Mason's freshman year, he averaged 14.1 mins/game, 3.7 PPG and 3.1 RPG (started 1 game)
Carlos's freshman year, he averaged 23.7 mins/game, 13 PPG and 6.3 RPG (started 30 games)
Shelden's freshman year, he averaged 19.2 mins/game, 8.2 PPG and 5.9 RPG (started 23 games)


While Shelden Williams did start his first game, he didn't start 10 of his first 20. During a three-game stretch in late January/early February in his freshman year, he played a total of 17 minutes (less than 6 mpg). In his first 20 games, he averaged 6.7 ppg and 4.3 rpg (and for the season averaged 8.2/5.9). He wasn't nearly as ready to "contribute in a major way from day one" as you seem to remember.

Here's an article about Shelden's breakout game in January '03 against Chris Bosh where he scored 18 points and collected 13 rebounds:

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2003/01/27/freshman-shelden-williams-has-breakout-game

I remember him being pretty good as a frosh. He was #5 on the team in minutes played. That's a pretty big contribution. However, of the three players I mentioned, Elton, Carlos, and Shelden, I will agree that Shelden took a little longer to develop than the others. Having said that, Mason's sophomore year is probably a little more comparable to Shelden's freshman year.

If I was starting a team, and I had the choice of Freshman Elton, Carlos, Shelden, and Mason, I would take them in that order, with Mason being a distant fourth.


Finally, you appear to be comparing eight years of recruiting (2005 to 2012) against three guys. While it's true we successfully recruited three good centers from 1997 to 2002, our overall recruiting since 2005 has been very strong, probably stronger than the golden age you remember.

According to RSCI, during the 2005 to 2012 time period, Duke had four top three classes (two ranked #2 and two ranked #3) and four others ranked in the top 11 (one each, #8, #9, #10, #11). In the eight year period from 1997 to 2004, we had three #1 classes ('97, '99, '02) and nothing else in the top 15 (in fact, no other class in that period was ranked at all by RSCI except the '04 class, ranked #17).

I'd argue four top three classes in the later period at least even out the three #1 classes, and the remaining four top 11 classes are far superior to the remaining unranked classes in the earlier period. I don't believe the recruiting lag you perceive ever existed.

Let's approach this from a different way. I'll take the teams from 1999, 2001, and 2004, and you take the teams from 2006, 2010, 2011, and 2012. I'm pretty confident I'll end up with a much larger percentage of wins. During the "Golden Age" you referenced (players recruited from 1997-2004), we retired 4 numbers, had 4 National Players of the Year, 4 ACC Players of the year (5 if you count JJ twice), 2 National Defensive Players of the year (3 for Shane, 2 for Shelden).

From the classes 2005-2012, Nolan won ACC Player of the Year. In 2008 and 2011, Kyle and Austin won ACC Rookies of the year, respectively.

So, yes, I'd say there's a pretty big difference in the type of player we were getting from 1997-2004 vs. 2005-2012.

Don't get me wrong....I've loved all the guys we had from 2005 through 2012....Scheyer, Singler, Nolan, Hendy. But if these guys are just as good as the previous players, how come their numbers aren't retired?

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 06:51 PM
Actually, Seth Curry averaged 17.5 PPG for the season, while Mason averaged 17.1.

Actually, if you want to get into minutiae, Mason scored 615 points and Seth scored 612, hence Mason was our leading scorer.


I never said I wasn't impressed with Mason. I was very impressed with his ability to work himself into being a solid player. He had a great senior season. But when he was recruited, he was considered more of an outside-in, facing the basket type player. Same with Ryan Kelly.

So was Greg Monroe, but that didn't keep him off your swing-and-a-miss list.


Having said that, Mason's sophomore year is probably a little more comparable to Shelden's freshman year.

I agree. But I was responding to your claim that Shelden was ready to "contribute in a major way from day one," and I don't think he was.


If I was starting a team, and I had the choice of Freshman Elton, Carlos, Shelden, and Mason, I would take them in that order, with Mason being a distant fourth.

Perhaps, but (a) that doesn't mean it was so when they were high school juniors or seniors (which is when recruiting takes place); and (b) Mason may be fourth on the list but you said he wasn't even "in the same class," and I disagree.


Let's approach this from a different way. I'll take the teams from 1999, 2001, and 2004, and you take the teams from 2006, 2010, 2011, and 2012. I'm pretty confident I'll end up with a much larger percentage of wins. During the "Golden Age" you referenced (players recruited from 1997-2004), we retired 4 numbers, had 4 National Players of the Year, 4 ACC Players of the year (5 if you count JJ twice), 2 National Defensive Players of the year (3 for Shane, 2 for Shelden).

From the classes 2005-2012, Nolan won ACC Player of the Year. In 2008 and 2011, Kyle and Austin won ACC Rookies of the year, respectively.

So, yes, I'd say there's a pretty big difference in the type of player we were getting from 1997-2004 vs. 2005-2012.

Well, now it seems to me you're shifting the playing field. I grant you that Duke's teams from 1998 to 2005 were better overall than Duke's teams from 2006 to 2013. But that doesn't mean the recruiting was better. It means the recruits panned out better. For example, Mike Dunleavy was RSCI #26, worse than Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek, and Amile Jefferson, and he ended up taken third in the NBA draft. JJ Redick and Greg Paulus were rated pretty much the same (JJ = #11; Greg = #13) as recruits, but obviously it didn't end up that way. And the only #1 recruit we got in either time period was Josh McRoberts, but obviously he didn't turn out as good as several of the lower rated recruits we got in the earlier period.

Your original premise was that 5 to 7 years ago we weren't recruiting well and that changed in the last couple years. I still see no evidence that this premise is true.

jimsumner
11-17-2013, 07:22 PM
Carlos V. Mason as freshmen.

It might be useful to keep in mind that Boozer was on a team replacing Brand, Burgess and Domzalski. His competition for PT at the 5 was Matt Christensen and classmate Casey Sanders.

Mason Plumlee largely played the 4 as a freshman on a team that included returning front-court players Kyle Singler, Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek and Miles Plumlee.

So, a bit apples and oranges here.

There is one curious parallel, however. Boozer broke a foot before his freshman season and Plumlee broke a wrist before his freshman season.

Tough way to start.

And FWIW, I have no problem using Dean Smith's nomenclature as a positional short hand. I kind of like Smith.

Faison1
11-17-2013, 07:43 PM
Well, now it seems to me you're shifting the playing field. I grant you that Duke's teams from 1998 to 2005 were better overall than Duke's teams from 2006 to 2013. But that doesn't mean the recruiting was better. It means the recruits panned out better. For example, Mike Dunleavy was RSCI #26, worse than Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek, and Amile Jefferson, and he ended up taken third in the NBA draft. JJ Redick and Greg Paulus were rated pretty much the same (JJ = #11; Greg = #13) as recruits, but obviously it didn't end up that way. And the only #1 recruit we got in either time period was Josh McRoberts, but obviously he didn't turn out as good as several of the lower rated recruits we got in the earlier period.

Your original premise was that 5 to 7 years ago we weren't recruiting well and that changed in the last couple years. I still see no evidence that this premise is true.

OK. Let's agree on one thing: K has always been a great recruiter. Always has been, always will be.

Here is where we disagree:

For some reason that is unexplainable, there have been extended time periods where recruits have performed at "extremely high" levels meriting individual national recognition, and other extended time periods where recruits have performed only at "high" levels, playing very well but not quite well enough to merit individual national recognition.

1985-1993 Recruits performed at extremely high levels

1994-1997 Recruits performed at high level

1998-2004 Recruits performed at extremely high levels

2005-2012 Recruits performed at high level

I think we are entering a period where recruits will perform at "extremely high" levels, and that it has to do with the type of recruits we are bringing in.

Judging by your argument, there is no change in Duke's recruiting and that it's merely luck that determines whether we have an extended period of "extremely high" or just "high" performance levels.

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 08:04 PM
OK. Let's agree on one thing: K has always been a great recruiter. Always has been, always will be.

Here is where we disagree:

For some reason that is unexplainable, there have been extended time periods where recruits have performed at "extremely high" levels meriting individual national recognition, and other extended time periods where recruits have performed only at "high" levels, playing very well but not quite well enough to merit individual national recognition.

1985-1993 Recruits performed at extremely high levels

1994-1997 Recruits performed at high level

1998-2004 Recruits performed at extremely high levels

2005-2012 Recruits performed at high level

I think we are entering a period where recruits will perform at "extremely high" levels, and that it has to do with the type of recruits we are bringing in.

Judging by your argument, there is no change in Duke's recruiting and that it's merely luck that determines whether we have an extended period of "extremely high" or just "high" performance levels.

You think the only factor in how our team performs is whether the recruiting was good or bad? I think there are many, many factors.

My own personal theory (that I've posted here a couple times before), is that these things go in cycles. More specifically, since Coach K got his first big recruiting class, we've had a three-year down cycle (starting with a down year and then a two-year "recovery period") followed by a nine-year up cycle. I won't go into the details here, but here's how I'd line things up:

1983 to 1985: down cycle
1986 to 1994: up cycle
1995 to 1997: down cycle
1998 to 2006: up cycle
2007 to 2009: down cycle
2010 to 2018: up cycle (though obviously this assumes events in the future)

So, according to my theory, we're right in the middle of an up cycle, and I certainly wouldn't say things only started looking up last recruiting season.

Also, in the 2007 to 2009 "down cycle," our team performance was actually much better than the previous two down cycles, which might suggest that our recruiting during that time was actually better than it was in the past, and not worse as you suggest.

But ultimately where we disagree is that you appear to be saying (and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comments) that when our team performs better it's solely because our recruiting was better. I believe recruiting obviously plays a part, but it's not the only reason why Duke's performance was better one season vs. another.

Faison1
11-17-2013, 08:55 PM
But ultimately where we disagree is that you appear to be saying (and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comments) that when our team performs better it's solely because our recruiting was better. I believe recruiting obviously plays a part, but it's not the only reason why Duke's performance was better one season vs. another.

Not disagreeing with your "cycles" argument, but using my "high" vs. "extremely high" time periods, this is what I am basing my argument on:

1985-1993 Duke had Johnny Dawkins, Danny Ferry, and Christian Laettner win NPOY, with Grant Hill winning an ACC POY

1999-2005 Duke had Brand, Battier, Williams, and Redick win NPOY, with Carawell winning ACC POY, and S. Williams winning NDPOY

In between those times, there is very little individual national recognition. Also, during those (relatively) down times, with the exception of the 2010 Title, the team does not meet the lofty standards K has set for the school and its (sometimes irrational) fans.

Is that coincidence? I am arguing that, yes, it has to do with the type of recruit we bring in.

jimsumner
11-17-2013, 09:05 PM
Not disagreeing with your "cycles" argument, but using my "high" vs. "extremely high" time periods, this is what I am basing my argument on:

1985-1993 Duke had Johnny Dawkins, Danny Ferry, and Christian Laettner win NPOY, with Grant Hill winning an ACC POY

1999-2005 Duke had Brand, Battier, Williams, and Redick win NPOY, with Carawell winning ACC POY, and S. Williams winning NDPOY

In between those times, there is very little individual national recognition. Also, during those (relatively) down times, with the exception of the 2010 Title, the team does not meet the lofty standards K has set for the school and its (sometimes irrational) fans.

Is that coincidence? I am arguing that, yes, it has to do with the type of recruit we bring in.

Grant was ACC POY in 1994, a year when Duke went to the national title game. Wouldn't that be one of the high-performance years?

79-77
11-17-2013, 09:05 PM
You think the only factor in how our team performs is whether the recruiting was good or bad? I think there are many, many factors.

My own personal theory (that I've posted here a couple times before), is that these things go in cycles. More specifically, since Coach K got his first big recruiting class, we've had a three-year down cycle (starting with a down year and then a two-year "recovery period") followed by a nine-year up cycle. I won't go into the details here, but here's how I'd line things up:

1983 to 1985: down cycle
1986 to 1994: up cycle
1995 to 1997: down cycle
1998 to 2006: up cycle
2007 to 2009: down cycle
2010 to 2018: up cycle (though obviously this assumes events in the future)

So, according to my theory, we're right in the middle of an up cycle, and I certainly wouldn't say things only started looking up last recruiting season.

Also, in the 2007 to 2009 "down cycle," our team performance was actually much better than the previous two down cycles, which might suggest that our recruiting during that time was actually better than it was in the past, and not worse as you suggest.

But ultimately where we disagree is that you appear to be saying (and I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your comments) that when our team performs better it's solely because our recruiting was better. I believe recruiting obviously plays a part, but it's not the only reason why Duke's performance was better one season vs. another.

Sorry if you've already posted this as part of the theory, but what is the (theoretical) cause of the up/down cycles?

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 09:16 PM
Sorry if you've already posted this as part of the theory, but what is the (theoretical) cause of the up/down cycles?

Well, obviously I noted the pattern first and then created the theory, but in theory once we have a down year for whatever reason (in 1983 it was because Bill Foster left the cupboard bare and essentially all we had were freshmen, in 1995 it was due to Coach K's injury, and in 2007 again it was because we had the youngest Duke team since 1983), it takes a couple years before the team "learns how to win," and the institutional memory can carry us forward. Why a nine year up cycle? I have no idea really, but perhaps that does have to do with recruiting. I imagine Coach K plans his recruiting based on what veterans he expects to have available. But after doing this for a certain period of time, at some point the roster gets too full to recruit for a year or two, and when the players who would have been recruited during those crowded years would have been juniors and seniors, the thing falls in upon itself and the dreaded down year occurs.

Or not. Really I just noticed the pattern and conjectured from there.

Kedsy
11-17-2013, 09:23 PM
Not disagreeing with your "cycles" argument, but using my "high" vs. "extremely high" time periods, this is what I am basing my argument on:

1985-1993 Duke had Johnny Dawkins, Danny Ferry, and Christian Laettner win NPOY, with Grant Hill winning an ACC POY

1999-2005 Duke had Brand, Battier, Williams, and Redick win NPOY, with Carawell winning ACC POY, and S. Williams winning NDPOY

In between those times, there is very little individual national recognition. Also, during those (relatively) down times, with the exception of the 2010 Title, the team does not meet the lofty standards K has set for the school and its (sometimes irrational) fans.

Is that coincidence? I am arguing that, yes, it has to do with the type of recruit we bring in.

Again, I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The recruits in your "extremely high" period weren't ranked any higher than the ones in the "high" periods. If the #11 recruit in 2002 becomes national player of the year but the #10 recruit in 2006 doesn't come close and the #13 recruit in 2005 loses his place in the rotation late in his senior year, in what way was our recruiting better when we took the #11 recruit? Some players develop better than others. But there's no way to know which ones will and which ones won't when you're recruiting them.

Becoming NPOY as a senior in college is not the same as being a good recruit as a senior in high school.

Faison1
11-17-2013, 09:57 PM
Grant was ACC POY in 1994, a year when Duke went to the national title game. Wouldn't that be one of the high-performance years?

I admit that it gets confusing when trying to blend recruiting classes with actual basketball seasons.

After Grant's national title run in 1994, there was a three year period where Duke either didn't make the tournament, or was bounced earlier than what the public expected. The 1997-1998 season was closer to return of form where Duke almost beat eventual national champs Kentucky in the Elite-8.

Duvall
11-17-2013, 10:21 PM
I admit that it gets confusing when trying to blend recruiting classes with actual basketball seasons.

After Grant's national title run in 1994, there was a three year period where Duke either didn't make the tournament, or was bounced earlier than what the public expected. The 1997-1998 season was closer to return of form where Duke almost beat eventual national champs Kentucky in the Elite-8.

Sure, but again Duke was still landing highly-rated players during that stretch - Collins, Newton, Beard, Wojciechowski, Price. They just didn't turn out to be as good as the highly-rated players from before and after.

ricks68
11-17-2013, 11:16 PM
Your opinion only. Duke football has a LONG way to go before supplanting basketball, at least on this board. Even on an off day for the basketball team, they are my primary interest.

I can tell you from personal experience, that even with our past football successes during the 60's, bball was #1.

ricks