A kind of existential "what if"...

[Kedsy]

During last night's game, LaPhonso Ellis rhetorically asked, "Where would this team be without Jabari Parker." And it got me thinking. Of course, the same question could be asked about Rodney Hood. The team has been structured around these two, to such an extent that pretty much every set, scheme, and stratagem assumes these two guys will be on the court and working at full strength. As we've seen several times this season, when one or both of them get into foul trouble the team sputters.

So here's my question: what if both guys had never been on the team? The resulting 9-man squad would be much, much, MUCH less talented, the roster wouldn't look anywhere close to as impressive. Clearly, the team would be a lot worse.

But would the team's performance have been any different?

Before you answer, consider that we'd still have seven top 35 recruits on the roster (according to RSCI), by far the most in the ACC (by comparison, UNC has three, and one of the three isn't in the rotation; Syracuse has three, but one of them is out for the year from an injury and only played 13 games; and Virginia doesn't have any).

So, imagine a still very talented team, a team that during almost every possession sets multiple screens for Andre and Rasheed. With Amile and Marshall rolling to the basket after every screen but nobody really guarding them because they're scrambling to cover Andre, Rasheed, and Quinn.

On offense, despite not having Jabari's and Rodney's 35 ppg, I could easily see Andre and Rasheed scoring pretty close to that if they were the focal point of the offense playing 30+ mpg. I could see Amile and Marshall combining for twice as many points as the 8 ppg they currently contribute if they played 25+ mpg each. I could see Semi and Josh scoring a few baskets more than the one to none they manage now. The offense might not be top 2, but it would still probably be top 15, maybe even top 10.

On defense, we might even be better than we are now. Jabari has improved over the course of the season, but he's still one of our worst defensive players. Rodney has also gotten better, but defense isn't his strongest suit either. With Andre playing SF, we'd probably be susceptible to big, strong, quick SFs, but probably no more than we are now to big, strong, offensive-minded centers. Matt Jones, a really good defender, would be getting a lot more minutes. I certainly wouldn't expect that team to play any worse defense than we've played this year.

So, does that roster lose any games that we didn't lose anyway? Maybe the home Syracuse game, maybe the Virginia game, but maybe not. And if that roster wasn't so prone to losing concentration as this team (a malady that may or may not be related to having two new players as our stars and most essential guys), it's possible we actually win a couple games like last night's that the current team lost, so it would probably all balance out. We'd still probably be in the top four of the ACC; we'd still probably be in the hunt for a #2 seed. And instead of people talking about this being one of Coach K's worst coaching jobs, they might be touting it as one of his best.

Anyway, doesn't matter at all, but to me it illustrates something cool about college basketball -- the razor thin line separating the "best" teams from all the others. Perhaps the reason teams like this year's UNC team can perform so much better than their talent level would suggest, the reason anything can happen in the NCAA tournament.

Or not. It was just something I was thinking about.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So here's my question: what if both guys had never been on the team?

MP3 would be declaring for the NBA Draft. :)

Seriously, it is interesting. And not just because of the "thin line" you reference, but also a team chemistry standpoint. To be fair, Hood and Parker don't seem to be dominating personalities or anything, but what sort of leadership role would Sheed, Amile, Cook, and 'Dre possibly have?

I'm not much of a "what if"-er, but it is interesting to contemplate.

I'm very glad it's an academic exercise though. Those two players make this team so much more dynamic and fun to watch. Perhaps we might get to watch them next year too?

In the meantime, let's go beat UNC

[MarkD83]

You have to ask what would happen to every team in the ACC without their top two players.

UNC No Paige or McAdoo
Syracuse No Fair or Ennis

You also have to ask what recruits would have filled the spots vacated by Parker and Hood.

So...I always have trouble with these types of what ifs because there are far too many permuations to do the anaylsis properly.

[Billy Dat]

And instead of people talking about this being one of Coach K's worst coaching jobs, they might be touting it as one of his best.

People, on this board and elsewhere, would be saying what they were saying from 2007 until we won the title again, that K's inability to land lottery pick talent keeps us from being a real title contender.

[Wander]

I told myself I wouldn't bring this up again, but this is similar to your assertion that Duke without all of its five starters was better than UNC. Which I hope you recognize in hindsight was silly.

Anyway, I do agree the line between the top teams and the very good teams is pretty thin, and we'd probably still be a pretty good team. But make no mistake - we'd be significantly worse. It's impossible to prove specific games that would result in a different W/L outcome, but I'd also mention the near perfect defensive performance Rodney Hood put on Pitt's best player.

[superdave]

I think the record would be in the same ballpark. Coach K is great at pulling together a roster and making the most of it. The big difference is the current roster can get hot and go on a tear through the NCAA tournament. The roster without Jabari and Rodney does not quite have that same explosiveness.

I also think we'd be a worse rebounding team. Jabari is 1st in the ACC in boards. I do not know that Marshall/Josh/Amile could replace that.

Defensively we would maybe be a few stops better each game, although a few rebounds worse per game. So maybe that winds up being a wash. Offensively there would be less upside and we would miss Jabari's points in the paint. I do not think we are unbalanced on offense now, even with two focal points.

I am glad we do not have to find this out though. I like this team and I remain hopeful they will go on a run the next month.

[WillJ]

Besides Jabari and Rodney, we have players that are, on average, serviceable ACC players. Not terrible, not great. Without those two, I think we'd be about .500 within the ACC, maybe a little worse.

[The Gordog]

During last night's game, LaPhonso Ellis rhetorically asked, "Where would this team be without Jabari Parker." And it got me thinking. Of course, the same question could be asked about Rodney Hood. The team has been structured around these two, to such an extent that pretty much every set, scheme, and stratagem assumes these two guys will be on the court and working at full strength. As we've seen several times this season, when one or both of them get into foul trouble the team sputters.

So here's my question: what if both guys had never been on the team? The resulting 9-man squad would be much, much, MUCH less talented, the roster wouldn't look anywhere close to as impressive. Clearly, the team would be a lot worse.

But would the team's performance have been any different?

Before you answer, consider that we'd still have seven top 35 recruits on the roster (according to RSCI), by far the most in the ACC (by comparison, UNC has three, and one of the three isn't in the rotation; Syracuse has three, but one of them is out for the year from an injury and only played 13 games; and Virginia doesn't have any).

So, imagine a still very talented team, a team that during almost every possession sets multiple screens for Andre and Rasheed. With Amile and Marshall rolling to the basket after every screen but nobody really guarding them because they're scrambling to cover Andre, Rasheed, and Quinn.

On offense, despite not having Jabari's and Rodney's 35 ppg, I could easily see Andre and Rasheed scoring pretty close to that if they were the focal point of the offense playing 30+ mpg. I could see Amile and Marshall combining for twice as many points as the 8 ppg they currently contribute if they played 25+ mpg each. I could see Semi and Josh scoring a few baskets more than the one to none they manage now. The offense might not be top 2, but it would still probably be top 15, maybe even top 10.

On defense, we might even be better than we are now. Jabari has improved over the course of the season, but he's still one of our worst defensive players. Rodney has also gotten better, but defense isn't his strongest suit either. With Andre playing SF, we'd probably be susceptible to big, strong, quick SFs, but probably no more than we are now to big, strong, offensive-minded centers. Matt Jones, a really good defender, would be getting a lot more minutes. I certainly wouldn't expect that team to play any worse defense than we've played this year.

So, does that roster lose any games that we didn't lose anyway? Maybe the home Syracuse game, maybe the Virginia game, but maybe not. And if that roster wasn't so prone to losing concentration as this team (a malady that may or may not be related to having two new players as our stars and most essential guys), it's possible we actually win a couple games like last night's that the current team lost, so it would probably all balance out. We'd still probably be in the top four of the ACC; we'd still probably be in the hunt for a #2 seed. And instead of people talking about this being one of Coach K's worst coaching jobs, they might be touting it as one of his best.

Anyway, doesn't matter at all, but to me it illustrates something cool about college basketball -- the razor thin line separating the "best" teams from all the others. Perhaps the reason teams like this year's UNC team can perform so much better than their talent level would suggest, the reason anything can happen in the NCAA tournament.

Or not. It was just something I was thinking about.

Amile can not seem to stay on the court due to fouls. The idea that Parker's prescence is what is limiting his minutes and thus his accomplishments is rediculous.

I will say this, we played pretty well when it was Quinn, Andre, Rodney, Marshall and one other player I don't recall - either TT or Jones. I think it was near the end of the first half. We caught up were looking good until the starters came back in.

Also, our recruits get ranked higher because they are ours, even if we do not end up signing them.

[johnb]

If we lose them, do we get to add Kyrie, who'd be a senior, Austin Rivers, who'd be a junior, as well as a smidgen of Alex Murphy and Michael Gbinije? And how about whoever we'd have recruited if we'd known they weren't going to be on campus.

Even without these other guys, I think we'd be fine--just not as good.

[Kedsy]

I told myself I wouldn't bring this up again, but this is similar to your assertion that Duke without all of its five starters was better than UNC. Which I hope you recognize in hindsight was silly.

Josh, Tyler, and Quinn were in the starting lineup at that time. And sorry, make fun of me all you want, but I still believe a team with a rotation of Rasheed, Andre, Amile, Marshall, Matt, Semi, and Alex would be competitive with this year's UNC team in a 10 game series.

[Kedsy]

Amile can not seem to stay on the court due to fouls. The idea that Parker's prescence is what is limiting his minutes and thus his accomplishments is rediculous.

Perhaps you mean "ridiculous"? But I don't think it's either. Last night, Amile had just 3 fouls and played just 15 minutes. Think he wouldn't have played more if Jabari had missed the game?

[CameronBlue]

It will be much more fun to ponder the same scenario next year..... What if Rodney and Jabari had turned pro?

[jv001]

My biggest question, would Quinn still dribble the air out of the ball, force shots, and fail to get the ball to the players you mentioned that would roll to the basket. Without Rodney and Jabari, I think we could beat VT, GT, FSU, NCSU and Wake all in CIS. We beat Miami away, Pitt and BC are questionable.
So I say we would be 7-9 in the ACC regular season. This is based on how we've played man to man defense, how we would rebound without Jabari, not having Rodney at the high post against those zone defenses we would see and our point guard play(to date). Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[jv001]

Amile can not seem to stay on the court due to fouls. The idea that Parker's prescence is what is limiting his minutes and thus his accomplishments is rediculous.

I will say this, we played pretty well when it was Quinn, Andre, Rodney, Marshall and one other player I don't recall - either TT or Jones. I think it was near the end of the first half. We caught up were looking good until the starters came back in.

Also, our recruits get ranked higher because they are ours, even if we do not end up signing them.

I think it was Matt that was in the lineup at that time. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

Besides Jabari and Rodney, we have players that are, on average, serviceable ACC players. Not terrible, not great.

On what do you base this? Because as I said, our players' recruiting ranking would be by far the best in the ACC. So I assume you're basing it on the eye test. But it's hard to judge via the eye test how good someone is in limited minutes and limited game situations.

How good do you think Marcus Paige would be if he only played 14 minutes a game (like Andre does) and rarely had the ball in his hands? I'd bet no better than the "average, serviceable ACC player."

I think you'd be surprised how good players like Andre and Rasheed would be if they played 30+ mpg and were the focus of the offense. My guess is they'd both be All ACC. Even if nothing but the minutes changed for Andre, if he kept the same per-minute averages, he'd be averaging 19 ppg in 32 minutes.

[dukejunkie]

As long as we are playing the "what if" game, let's try something that theoretically could be possible. Since it seems Duke still hasn't found its optimal lineup, what if they:

A) try Rasheed, Hood, Parker, Jefferson, and MP3 for a little stretch (no pun intended)? The ball handling and defense have been suspect anyway. This would be pretty imposing. Maybe they don't have to pressure so much. Would be even bigger than 2010!

B) try Jabari at the point forward? Point guard play has been an issue (both sides of the ball). The Grant comparisons are always made. Worked for a similar sized guy in Pippen. What the heck, could be fun. I know he's not ready for it but "what if?" We wouldn't complain about him not touching the ball in crunch time...

[jv001]

On what do you base this? Because as I said, our players' recruiting ranking would be by far the best in the ACC. So I assume you're basing it on the eye test. But it's hard to judge via the eye test how good someone is in limited minutes and limited game situations.

How good do you think Marcus Paige would be if he only played 14 minutes a game (like Andre does) and rarely had the ball in his hands? I'd bet no better than the "average, serviceable ACC player."

I think you'd be surprised how good players like Andre and Rasheed would be if they played 30+ mpg and were the focus of the offense. My guess is they'd both be All ACC. Even if nothing but the minutes changed for Andre, if he kept the same per-minute averages, he'd be averaging 19 ppg in 32 minutes.

I think Andre could really help this squad if he played more minutes and I think MPIII should play as many minutes as foul trouble will allow. I also believe that Semi could have helped if he had been used more instead of Josh earlier in the year. But what do I know? Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

My biggest question, would Quinn still dribble the air out of the ball, force shots, and fail to get the ball to the players you mentioned that would roll to the basket.

I think the answer would be our offense would be completely different. The current offense is sort of an NBA design, and Quinn's job is more or less to put the ball into play eventually get it to Jabari or Rodney.

With the less talented roster I've hypothesized, it would be a lot more similar to our 2010 offense. We'd have to set screen after screen for Andre and Rasheed. If the screen was successful, Quinn would pass to one of them. Andre would shoot (and make and shoot and make and, oh my). Rasheed could shoot or drive to the basket without worrying about Rodney and/or Jabari being in the way. If the two wings weren't open, that would probably mean either Marshall or Amile would be wide open near the basket. Even if Quinn only threw it to them occasionally, he'd still rack up the assists. And if those avenues were all covered, then Quinn would probably have an open three for himself or an open lane to the basket. It would likely be a very effective offense.

[jv001]

As long as we are playing the "what if" game, let's try something that theoretically could be possible. Since it seems Duke still hasn't found its optimal lineup, what if they:

A) try Rasheed, Hood, Parker, Jefferson, and MP3 for a little stretch (no pun intended)? The ball handling and defense have been suspect anyway. This would be pretty imposing. Maybe they don't have to pressure so much. Would be even bigger than 2010!

B) try Jabari at the point forward? Point guard play has been an issue (both sides of the ball). The Grant comparisons are always made. Worked for a similar sized guy in Pippen. What the heck, could be fun. I know he's not ready for it but "what if?" We wouldn't complain about him not touching the ball in crunch time...

"B") I've thought of this myself. We indeed used Grant for that very thing. It would take some pressure off Rasheed to drive the ball. We see Rodney used in this manner, but he hardly ever passes from that position. But the same might be said of Jabari if he was used in that manner. He's not exactly ringing up the assists. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[jv001]

I think the answer would be our offense would be completely different. The current offense is sort of an NBA design, and Quinn's job is more or less to put the ball into play eventually get it to Jabari or Rodney.

With the less talented roster I've hypothesized, it would be a lot more similar to our 2010 offense. We'd have to set screen after screen for Andre and Rasheed. If the screen was successful, Quinn would pass to one of them. Andre would shoot (and make and shoot and make and, oh my). Rasheed could shoot or drive to the basket without worrying about Rodney and/or Jabari being in the way. If the two wings weren't open, that would probably mean either Marshall or Amile would be wide open near the basket. Even if Quinn only threw it to them occasionally, he'd still rack up the assists. And if those avenues were all covered, then Quinn would probably have an open three for himself or an open lane to the basket. It would likely be a very effective offense.

I could see that being effective. If Quinn was one of the very last options to shoot this might work. But the questions remains what about when we see a zone defense? I think Semi would be the closest thing to a high post zone buster. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[#1Duke]

"Where would this team be without Jabari Parker?"

As far as record and standings go, probably right about where they are now. Seriously. Rasheed Sulaimon and Andre Dawkins would be scoring more along with others. Marshall Plumlee would be playing more and be better than he is now and be a much bigger force inside balancing our offense..... or we could have another good big in place of Parker ..... I'm saying if Parker was not recruited or did not come to Duke.
I'm not a fan of "one and dones" and like to see a team that plays together for more than a year take the court. I think the mindset of the "one and dones" and the frenzy to show the NBA scouts what you have, can be a detriment to any team.

I don't like all the hype surrounding any one player. I think that in all reality, it affects the team in a negative way.

No one player makes a team no matter how good he is. If a strong supporting cast is not in place, a team will flounder.

It's an interesting relationship with the one and dones. They base their decisions on which school they choose on who is already there playing their position and what the coach promises them.... there primary concern is to shine and get that NBA contract. If ( hopefully) that mindset translates to wins for the team, everyone is happy..... maybe even the player who got slighted when the "new guy" showed up.

Bottom line, this team would be "different" without Parker but that does not mean they could not or would not be every bit as successful as they are now.

[Kedsy]

I could see that being effective. If Quinn was one of the very last options to shoot this might work. But the questions remains what about when we see a zone defense? I think Semi would be the closest thing to a high post zone buster. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

Either Rasheed or Andre could catch the ball in the high post and do something good with it. Or we could employ Amile the way we did in the first Syracuse game. Amile didn't shoot very much from that position but the offense was extremely effective when he caught it in the high post that game.

[WillJ]

On what do you base this? Because as I said, our players' recruiting ranking would be by far the best in the ACC. So I assume you're basing it on the eye test. But it's hard to judge via the eye test how good someone is in limited minutes and limited game situations.

How good do you think Marcus Paige would be if he only played 14 minutes a game (like Andre does) and rarely had the ball in his hands? I'd bet no better than the "average, serviceable ACC player."

I think you'd be surprised how good players like Andre and Rasheed would be if they played 30+ mpg and were the focus of the offense. My guess is they'd both be All ACC. Even if nothing but the minutes changed for Andre, if he kept the same per-minute averages, he'd be averaging 19 ppg in 32 minutes.


Those are good points/questions. I am certainly basing my view on the eye test - Quinn and Tyler have played a lot of minutes and have played, relative to other ACC guards, at roughly an average level, IMO. Rasheed has gotten sporadic minutes with sporadic success, and surely he and/or Andre would surely score more if they got more minutes. But remember, Coack K is not an idiot. If he thought that he could elevate our guard play to a better-than-ACC-average level just by playing two players - say Quinn and Andre - the majority of the minutes, then he would have done so. That he has not done so suggests to me that he is not satisfied with the play of any of our guards. Based on what I've seen, I can see why he feels that way. Again, they're not generally bad, but our guard play this year has not been good, either.

[Wander]

Josh, Tyler, and Quinn were in the starting lineup at that time. And sorry, make fun of me all you want, but I still believe a team with a rotation of Rasheed, Andre, Amile, Marshall, Matt, Semi, and Alex would be competitive with this year's UNC team in a 10 game series.

FFS, dude. UNC is 13-4 in the conference. Duke is 12-5. And you still think Duke would be better - not "competitive with," as you're now amending it to, but "better" - than UNC if you took away our two best players, plus two other rotation players, plus one back-up? I'm afraid to even ask what you think the average margin of victory would look like against Wake Forest in a 10 game series if we lost all five of our starters.

[jv001]

Those are good points/questions. I am certainly basing my view on the eye test - Quinn and Tyler have played a lot of minutes and have played, relative to other ACC guards, at roughly an average level, IMO. Rasheed has gotten sporadic minutes with sporadic success, and surely he and/or Andre would surely score more if they got more minutes. But remember, Coack K is not an idiot. If he thought that he could elevate our guard play to a better-than-ACC-average level just by playing two players - say Quinn and Andre - the majority of the minutes, then he would have done so. That he has not done so suggests to me that he is not satisfied with the play of any of our guards. Based on what I've seen, I can see why he feels that way. Again, they're not generally bad, but our guard play this year has not been good, either.

I know you used Quinn and Andre as your example, but I would say that Rasheed with Andre would be the better match. This based on earlier games where Rasheed gave the ball to Andre in a good shooting position. I think Andre needs some of Quinn and Tyler's minutes. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

But remember, Coack K is not an idiot. If he thought that he could elevate our guard play to a better-than-ACC-average level just by playing two players - say Quinn and Andre - the majority of the minutes, then he would have done so.

He hasn't done so because he has Jabari and Rodney. In the beginning of the year he said something along the lines of playing time would be dictated by how well each player could mesh with Jabari and Rodney and play the role he wanted them to play. And that made (and still makes) a lot of sense. But all three of Andre, Rasheed, and Quinn would have vastly different roles if Jabari and Rodney weren't on the roster. Instead of having to complement our two stars, they'd *be* the stars and the focal point of the offense. All the difference in the world.

[ChillinDuke]

On what do you base this? Because as I said, our players' recruiting ranking would be by far the best in the ACC. So I assume you're basing it on the eye test. But it's hard to judge via the eye test how good someone is in limited minutes and limited game situations.

How good do you think Marcus Paige would be if he only played 14 minutes a game (like Andre does) and rarely had the ball in his hands? I'd bet no better than the "average, serviceable ACC player."

I think you'd be surprised how good players like Andre and Rasheed would be if they played 30+ mpg and were the focus of the offense. My guess is they'd both be All ACC. Even if nothing but the minutes changed for Andre, if he kept the same per-minute averages, he'd be averaging 19 ppg in 32 minutes.

Yes, I think you're right. Someone has to score; someone has to have the ball in their hands. Players like Andre and Rasheed would be the poster boys, I reckon. Or Quinn. Maybe Amile.

I think I agree with you that we'd probably net out around the same record sans Parker and Hood. Maybe lose one or two more, but still make the NCAAs. A lineup of Quinn, Rasheed, Andre, Amile, Marshall (knowing what we do now as opposed to preseason) is pretty solid.

And yes, if the hypothetical lineup I just mentioned netted the same record as we currently have, I think I would consider this an average to above average coaching year for K.

- Chillin

[Kedsy]

FFS, dude. UNC is 13-4 in the conference. Duke is 12-5. And you still think Duke would be better - not "competitive with," as you're now amending it to, but "better" - than UNC if you took away our two best players, plus two other rotation players, plus one back-up? I'm afraid to even ask what you think the average margin of victory would look like against Wake Forest in a 10 game series if we lost all five of our starters.

First of all, UNC has won its last three games by a combined total of 7 points against three teams near the bottom of the conference. Their win/loss record is not necessarily indicative of how good (or not) they are. Actually, I'm fairly confident in saying they're not as good as their record.

Also, you wanted me to admit that I was being silly by saying our non-starters (at that time) were better than UNC. So (while I actually still do think we'd have been better) I'm willing to admit maybe I'm wrong about that and downgraded to "competitive with" and now you're ridiculing me for that?

Personally, I don't believe "scoreboard" is particularly reliable as an argument. UNC is currently #23 in Pomeroy. You don't think a team with Andre, Rasheed, Amile, Marshall, Matt, Semi, and Alex as its main rotation would be a top 25 Pomeroy team? I do. And, to bring it back to my original premise in this thread, I strongly believe a team with a rotation of Andre, Rasheed, Quinn, Tyler, Amile, Marshall, Matt, Semi, and Josh would be a top 15 or even top 10 Pomeroy team. That team would be way less talented than our current team, but similar to what Carolina's been doing with a team far less talented than our current Duke team, I think our performance would be about the same.

[jv001]

I think if Duke did not have Rodney and Jabari, this team would be more like Notre Dame than say, UNC and Syracuse. I'm personally glad that we have both. They are fine young men and represent Duke with class. One player(Rodney) was so well thought of that he was elected one of the captains. I liked what he had to say last night in his post game presser. I liked how Jabari tried to take charge last night with an attitude that I haven't see from him. From Wojo's presser, it seems the team needed this. Josh and Tyler play their hearts out, but don't seem to be the type of leaders needed for this squad. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[WillJ]

He hasn't done so because he has Jabari and Rodney. In the beginning of the year he said something along the lines of playing time would be dictated by how well each player could mesh with Jabari and Rodney and play the role he wanted them to play. And that made (and still makes) a lot of sense. But all three of Andre, Rasheed, and Quinn would have vastly different roles if Jabari and Rodney weren't on the roster. Instead of having to complement our two stars, they'd *be* the stars and the focal point of the offense. All the difference in the world.

Ah, I see you're point. Yes, our guards might have been more effective on a team with different personnel. Context is everything - or at least a big part of everything:). That said, meshing with your teammates in such a way as to be effective yourself is part of being a good basketball player. Given the hand they've been dealt, I think our guards have been, well, about average.

[lotusland]

Well it is impossible to answer a hypothetical question like this one but it does make me wonder what would have happened after 2009 if Wall had decided to go to UK instead of Duke, EWill decided to transfer and G declared early for the draft. I mean even if Dawkins came a year early we still would have only had 3 guards. No way a team that limited could advance far in the tournament.:D

But seriously the 2014 team does not have Kyle, Nolan and Jon so it would really struggle to score and would be even more perimeter oriented offensively without Parker and Hood. It is possible that Silent G would not have transferred if Parker had not committed but I doubt that was much of a factor and Hood transferred in after SG left. Most likely Murphy would have stayed and got some PT. This years team would be even more dependent on 3 point shooting and much less talented but next year's team (assuming Parker and Hood both declare) would be better because of the additional experience gained by Semi, MP3 and Murphy (and maybe Silent G).

[CDu]

Fun topic. I'll play along. I think we'd be a little worse without Hood and Parker. Very different, but a little worse.

Our lineup would look like this: Cook, Thornton, Sulaimon, Dawkins, Jones, Murphy, Ojeleye, Jefferson, Hairston, Plumlee.

We'd have started the season with a lineup of Cook, Thornton, Sulaimon, Jefferson, and Hairston, with Dawkins, Jones, Murphy/Ojeleye, and Plumlee weaving into the rotation. That lineup would have gotten killed by Kansas and Arizona, and who knows what happens against Michigan and UCLA?

By mid-season, Plumlee would likely have overtaken Hairston in the starting lineup, because we'd otherwise be REALLY small (and because Hairston simply isn't an ACC-caliber starter).

So our rotation would be Cook (30 mpg), Thornton (25 mpg), Sulaimon (30 mpg), Dawkins (25 mpg), and Jones (10 mpg) on the perimeter. That's a solid, but small, perimeter team. We'd also be extremely streaky and have very few real matchup advantages. It would, in short, look a lot like our perimeter teams of the last few years.

Our frontcourt would be Plumlee (20 mpg), Jefferson (25 mpg), Hairston (20) mpg, and Murphy/Ojeleye (15 mpg). That is a five-man rotation that would give us very little offense (maybe 20 ppg?) and shaky (at best) defense.

So we'd be undersized on the perimeter and would have very little if any interior presence. And three of our five big men would be questionable rebounders. And we'd lack a lot of high-end ACC talent. Yes, Hairston, Murphy, Jones, and Ojeleye were top-50 recruits. Nothing that any of them have done has suggested that they are ready for major contributions at the high-ACC level. I think Jones will get there eventually. I don't know that Murphy or Ojeleye will. And Hairston clearly has not gotten there.

It's a team that would scrap and claw and compete, but it would be a team that would be somewhere between 9-8 and 11-6 in conference. I think we would have lost the UVa and Syracuse games and very possibly the Pitt game, but maybe we don't all three of Notre Dame, Wake, and Clemson. And out of conference, we'd have lost at least the two games we lost along with possibly one or two more (Michigan, UCLA).

So I'd say we'd be somewhere between 18-12 (9-8) and 22-8 (11-6) heading into the UNC game. And I think we'd lose that game, making us somewhere between 18-13 (9-9) and 22-9 (11-7). In other words, I think we'd be at worst a bubble team and at best a 6-8 seed without Parker and Hood.

[lotusland]

Well it is impossible to answer a hypothetical question like this one but it does make me wonder what would have happened after 2009 if Wall had decided to go to UK instead of Duke, EWill decided to transfer and G declared early for the draft. I mean even if Dawkins came a year early we still would have only had 3 guards. No way a team that limited could advance far in the tournament.:D

But seriously the 2014 team does not have Kyle, Nolan and Jon so it would really struggle to score and would be even more perimeter oriented offensively without Parker and Hood. It is possible that Silent G would not have transferred if Parker had not committed but I doubt that was much of a factor and Hood transferred in after SG left. Most likely Murphy would have stayed and got some PT. This years team would be even more dependent on 3 point shooting and much less talented but next year's team (assuming Parker and Hood both declare) would be better because of the additional experience gained by Semi, MP3 and Murphy (and maybe Silent G).

I'll correct myself - Silent G transferred before either Parker committed or Hood transferred in so he's not here either way.

[Wander]

First of all, UNC has won its last three games by a combined total of 7 points against three teams near the bottom of the conference. Their win/loss record is not necessarily indicative of how good (or not) they are. Actually, I'm fairly confident in saying they're not as good as their record.

Also, you wanted me to admit that I was being silly by saying our non-starters (at that time) were better than UNC. So (while I actually still do think we'd have been better) I'm willing to admit maybe I'm wrong about that and downgraded to "competitive with" and now you're ridiculing me for that?

Personally, I don't believe "scoreboard" is particularly reliable as an argument. UNC is currently #23 in Pomeroy. You don't think a team with Andre, Rasheed, Amile, Marshall, Matt, Semi, and Alex as its main rotation would be a top 25 Pomeroy team? I do. And, to bring it back to my original premise in this thread, I strongly believe a team with a rotation of Andre, Rasheed, Quinn, Tyler, Amile, Marshall, Matt, Semi, and Josh would be a top 15 or even top 10 Pomeroy team. That team would be way less talented than our current team, but similar to what Carolina's been doing with a team far less talented than our current Duke team, I think our performance would be about the same.

I'm totally open to believing that UNC is not as good as their record. I think we're better than UNC despite the current conference standings. The only reason I brought up the UNC comment is that you're again underrating both other teams' players and our starters (in this case, just Parker and Hood). We're #8 in Pomeroy at the moment, so when you say that you strongly believe we'd be a top 15 and even a top 10 team without Parker and Hood, that's effectively the same thing as saying "I strongly believe Parker and Hood don't make our team much better, and it's possible that Parker and Hood don't make our team any better at all." I know you wouldn't phrase it like that, but it's an equivalent statement.

[Kedsy]

I'm totally open to believing that UNC is not as good as their record. I think we're better than UNC despite the current conference standings. The only reason I brought up the UNC comment is that you're again underrating both other teams' players and our starters (in this case, just Parker and Hood). We're #8 in Pomeroy at the moment, so when you say that you strongly believe we'd be a top 15 and even a top 10 team without Parker and Hood, that's effectively the same thing as saying "I strongly believe Parker and Hood don't make our team much better, and it's possible that Parker and Hood don't make our team any better at all." I know you wouldn't phrase it like that, but it's an equivalent statement.

I'm not sure it is equivalent, which is why I started this thread. The team is obviously better with two great players like Jabari and Rodney. Way better. But because minutes are limited and our other players are good, too, and because frankly the current team hasn't performed as well as you'd expect based on the talent we have, I think the team I've described without Jabari and Rodney would have performed about the same in wins and losses (and almost as good in the computer systems) as our current team has.

Put another way, Jabari's and Rodney's contributions are almost entirely on offense. But we have an enormous amount of untapped offensive potential in Andre and Rasheed, and to a lesser extent some of our other players. If Coach K had an entire off-season to work up a plan to tap that offensive potential, I believe he could concoct an offensive scheme that would be nearly as effective as that our current team employs. And on defense, I don't think Jabari (and to a lesser extent Rodney) contribute(s) all that much. I'd expect the team without them to be equal or even better on defense.

Also, we're #8 in Pomeroy now but we were #3 two days ago. I don't think it's outrageous to say that instead of swinging from 3 to 8, the the team I'm hypothesizing would have a good chance to swing between #10 and #15 instead.

[lotusland]

On what do you base this? Because as I said, our players' recruiting ranking would be by far the best in the ACC. So I assume you're basing it on the eye test. But it's hard to judge via the eye test how good someone is in limited minutes and limited game situations.

How good do you think Marcus Paige would be if he only played 14 minutes a game (like Andre does) and rarely had the ball in his hands? I'd bet no better than the "average, serviceable ACC player."

I think you'd be surprised how good players like Andre and Rasheed would be if they played 30+ mpg and were the focus of the offense. My guess is they'd both be All ACC. Even if nothing but the minutes changed for Andre, if he kept the same per-minute averages, he'd be averaging 19 ppg in 32 minutes.

I agree completely with your points here but it seems contrary to your previously posts regarding Murphy's potential development had Hood and Murphy not come to Duke. Somehow more mpg is beneficial to Paige Andre and Rasheed but not Murphy. Likewise you argued that Hood and Parker would not have affected Ryan Kelly's progress had they joined Duke his Sophomore year. I agree with you points above but I can't reconcile it with your posts about Ryan and Murphy.

[Kedsy]

I agree completely with your points here but it seems contrary to your previously posts regarding Murphy's potential development had Hood and Murphy not come to Duke. Somehow more mpg is beneficial to Paige Andre and Rasheed but not Murphy. Likewise you argued that Hood and Parker would not have affected Ryan Kelly's progress had they joined Duke his Sophomore year. I agree with you points above but I can't reconcile it with your posts about Ryan and Murphy.

You're misconstruing my point. I said it's hard to judge via the eye test, meaning for us, the fans.

I'm saying Paige would be the same player, but we wouldn't know it. With 14 minutes a game and/or the ball not in his hands, he wouldn't look like the All ACC player he looks like now. Similarly, it's my opinion that if Andre and Rasheed were given 30+ minutes and made the focal point of our offense, they would look like All ACC players, even though they don't look like it now.

Honestly I don't see how this discussion and my previous comments about Alex and Ryan are related at all. Totally different subjects.

[ncexnyc]

They say necessity is the mother of invention, so I'm quite sure having a whole off season to prepare, Coach K could have put together a capable team that would have been very good.
If you look at the heels they lost their best player and after a rocky start they've come along quite nicely. How much better could they be, if they had gotten rid of PJ from the get go?

[hudlow]

I believe the team would have a clear cut leader by now.

hud

[GGLC]

I believe the team would have a clear cut leader by now.

hud

This is unfairly denigratory to Jabari and Rodney.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Without JP and RH, I believe in the following:

1) Our ceiling would be much lower
2) Our offensive efficiency would be lower
3) We'd be worse at 3pt shooting
4) We wouldn't score much in the paint
5) We wouldn't be even a mediocre defensive rebounding team
6) We'd be undersized in nearly every game, if not all

On the other hand, I also believe the following:

7) Our D would be soooooo much better. Right now, JP is a liability on D and RH isn't much better
8) Rasheed Sulaimon would be a star
9) MP3 and AJ would have the highest number of offensive rebounds in the country
10) We'd communicate 10x more effectively

Bottomline, while our ranking may be the same, our O would be worse, or D would be better, but our ceiling would be significantly lower.

[hudlow]

This is unfairly denigratory to Jabari and Rodney.


Don't think so, I believe the team is having a hard time identifying a leader with the rotations and their reliance on both Jabari and Rodney.

I'm not sure that either wants to be the leader, but that's OK, some players just want to play ball.

hud

[Kedsy]

Bottomline, while our ranking may be the same, our O would be worse, or D would be better, but our ceiling would be significantly lower.

I agree with this. The reason we can even have this discussion is that the team isn't operating anywhere near its ceiling. Hopefully we can get closer to that ceiling starting tomorrow.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I agree with this. The reason we can even have this discussion is that the team isn't operating anywhere near its ceiling. Hopefully we can get closer to that ceiling starting tomorrow.

I hope so. I'm not too worried about our scoring droughts. These things happen (maybe not 17-0 runs or 6 minute scoring droughts, but bad shooting nights will happen), but I really want to see our D get better. I want to see D commitment from Jabari and Hood. I want to see us play smart defense, and that doesn't mean two players contesting a difficult shot so that the opposing team gets an easy O rebound for an easy two. I want to see better communication, and that doesn't mean we have to have a leader. And I want to see passion. I haven't written on DBR since before the loss, but one of the only positives is that Sulaimon was the hungriest player out there. He may not have played particularly well, but at least he looked like he cared. Jabari also had some fire, but not as much. I want to see fire from every player.

[Wander]

This is unfairly denigratory to Jabari and Rodney.

Most of responses here are, at least implicitly.

Let me start by asking why anyone thinks our defense would improve without Jabari and Rodney. I know Jabari in particular is not exactly an excellent defender, but who are you replacing these minutes with? Andre Dawkins? Matt Jones? Marshall Plumlee? Maybe Matt Jones is a better defender than Jabari overall, but we're talking about defending opposing forwards and centers. And probably the more important issue: rebounding. We are a bad defensive rebounding team right now. And you're taking away our best defensive rebounder, and our third or fourth best defensive rebounder. There are going to be a lot of easy putbacks. To say nothing of potential foul trouble issues with Jefferson and Plumlee. I'm pretty confident our defensive efficiency would be worse, not better, by just removing these two guys.

[CDu]

I agree with this. The reason we can even have this discussion is that the team isn't operating anywhere near its ceiling. Hopefully we can get closer to that ceiling starting tomorrow.

Agreed. This team obviously has another gear it can reach. The question is whether we will ever reach it. We are running out of time, and I feel like we have played a bit worse in this phase than the last.

I think the key will be PG play. Right now we are not getting it, and as a result we are going through prolonged droughts. I think we need Cook to return to form for us to have a real chance at a deep run. Parker is back, our C combo looks solid, and we have a bunch of shooters. But we seem disorganized on offense. Hopefully Cook shakes off whatever has been troubling him as a playmaker and gets back on track. If not, I think we'll be a Sweet-16-ish team. Not that that is bad; just that it is well short of our ceiling.

[jv001]

Most of responses here are, at least implicitly.

Let me start by asking why anyone thinks our defense would improve without Jabari and Rodney. I know Jabari in particular is not exactly an excellent defender, but who are you replacing these minutes with? Andre Dawkins? Matt Jones? Marshall Plumlee? Maybe Matt Jones is a better defender than Jabari overall, but we're talking about defending opposing forwards and centers. And probably the more important issue: rebounding. We are a bad defensive rebounding team right now. And you're taking away our best defensive rebounder, and our third or fourth best defensive rebounder. There are going to be a lot of easy putbacks. To say nothing of potential foul trouble issues with Jefferson and Plumlee. I'm pretty confident our defensive efficiency would be worse, not better, by just removing these two guys.

I agree. We have been begging for good athletic wings 6'8-6'9" for a while now. Now do we say, we don't want these guys because we can't jell because they are too talented. We are a fickle bunch :cool: Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

I agree. We have been begging for good athletic wings 6'8-6'9" for a while now. Now do we say, we don't want these guys because we can't jell because they are too talented. We are a fickle bunch :cool: Beat UNC and GoDuke!

I don't think anybody's saying we don't want them. That certainly wasn't my intent when I started the thread. It was really more of an exploration of talent vs. results and diminishing returns as the talent level goes up.

Putting it in terms of the team's ceiling, as we've been discussing recently, if you could quantify the ceiling, consider one team with a ceiling of 100 and another with a ceiling of 70. If the first team only gets to 50% of its ceiling while the second team reaches 70% of its ceiling, then the two teams should have very similar results. What if, for whatever reason, it's easier to get a higher percentage if the ceiling is lower? It might help explain why there seems to be so much parity in college basketball even though most of the top, top recruits go to the same handful of schools.

Obviously, in real life there's no simple arithmetic problem to measure this stuff, but there still might be something to it.

[jv001]

I don't think anybody's saying we don't want them. That certainly wasn't my intent when I started the thread. It was really more of an exploration of talent vs. results and diminishing returns as the talent level goes up.

Putting it in terms of the team's ceiling, as we've been discussing recently, if you could quantify the ceiling, consider one team with a ceiling of 100 and another with a ceiling of 70. If the first team only gets to 50% of its ceiling while the second team reaches 70% of its ceiling, then the two teams should have very similar results. What if, for whatever reason, it's easier to get a higher percentage if the ceiling is lower? It might help explain why there seems to be so much parity in college basketball even though most of the top, top recruits go to the same handful of schools.

Obviously, in real life there's no simple arithmetic problem to measure this stuff, but there still might be something to it.

Oh, I was in no way being critical of your post. I understand what you were discussing. It's sort of like Kyrie coming back from his injury just in time for the NCAAT. He was inserted into our starting lineup and Nolan was taken off the point. We can always wonder or discuss if that was best for Duke. I for one wanted him back. It just didn't work out but it wasn't Kyrie's fault. Beat UNC and GoDuke!

[rsvman]

This doesn't even have to be a hypothetical.

In fact, I think we'd be better off if it weren't.

If Coach K were to go back to the line changes (platoon system, or whatever you want to call it) we could see exactly what would have happened. This has the added advantage of giving Jabari and Rodney some rest and allows them to have less time to accumulate fouls, all of which are advantageous to us.

Given what I saw in the UVa game and in a couple of games thereafter, I'd have to say that without Jabari and Rodney we'd be pretty good. Right now what I REALLY want is to be able to watch that Jabari-Rodney-less team play a few minutes off and on against Carolina tomorrow night.