On Coaching

[pfrduke]

I want to preface this post with three points, and everything I say after should be read with these three points in mind (also, apologies in advance for the length):



As fans, I think coaching is the hardest thing for us to assess. Our proxy for it is what the players do on the court, but it's not always a guarantee that the players do what the coaches want them to do. Telling the difference between an error in strategy (the coaching aspect) and an error in execution (the player aspect) is difficult, and I certainly don't profess to be able to do that with any degree of confidence.
We can't watch practice, so we can't see what the team works on in non-game situations or how players play in practice. Not being able to watch practice also is one of the contributing aspects to point 1 - we can't see how the coaches coach the players, what they tell them to work on, etc.
In no way am I suggesting personnel changes among the coaching staff, and certainly not at the top.


All of that being said, I think some of the things that happened to the team this year raise questions about the coaching strategy for the season. In no particular order.

Defense:



Everyone knows this was our worst defensive season in a long time (2012 was also not great, but not this bad). On the whole, however, our profile was not dissimilar to how we usually play defense, with two exceptions - 2pt FG% and fouling. They're related, but let's take them in reverse order.
Fouling:

Coming into the season, there was an officiating change that emphasized two things - contact on the perimeter and a shift in block/charge. Both of those things have been a staple of Duke's defense for a long time.
We play aggressive defense on the perimeter, extending beyond the three point line, hedging high rather than laterally, trying to deny passing lanes, etc. That style creates contact on the perimeter, and we got called for it more this year than in years past.
Similarly, the strategy for defending at the rim, with limited exceptions for designated shot blockers (Williams, McRoberts, Plumlees), has been to contest shots by trying to draw charges rather than by playing vertically. Here, too, we got called for more fouls than in years past.
In my observation, we never adjusted for this at a strategic level. We would adjust within games, on a player-by-player basis, as players got into foul trouble (which mostly led to individuals playing a little more tentatively), but we trotted out the same defensive approach, game after game, even when it didn't work. This, I think (again, subject to all the caveats above) is a coaching issue - we did not seem to make an adjustment in approach that took into account how the game was being called.


2pt FG%:

Opponents shot over 50% from 2 against Duke this season. I don't think that's ever happened against a K coached Duke team.
There were, in my mind, three things that contributed to this (below in no particular order)
Fouling:

We got in foul trouble too often, which led to people playing too soft, which led to easy scores.


Rotation:

Our team struggled all year with team defense. The rotations didn't come quickly enough, players (especially Parker, but not limited to him) struggled guarding screen situations, and communication was not a strength. Again, we did not change philosophy, even when we continued to struggle with the approach.


Size:

Duke had zero shot-blocking presence inside. Since Shelden graduated, we've never been a particularly strong shot-blocking team, but we were especially bad this year, checking in at 260th in the country. It was the single worst thing we did on defense, relative to the rest of the NCAA.
We had a 7 footer who spent the majority of the season glued to the bench (Marshall played about 7 mpg). I don't believe that Marshall Plumlee was an instant cure-all, and there are trade-offs that come with playing him (he's an offensive liability, he can't execute switches, etc.), but there's a lot to be said for having someone 7 feet tall anchoring the middle of the defense. Under most circumstances, it makes it harder for teams to score at the rim, which was a weakness for this team all season.




Offense:



Generally speaking, offense was a strength. We scored more points per possession than any Duke team in the past 12 years (albeit in a nationwide environment that was more favorable to offenses) and had lots of talented offensive weapons. That said, we seemed vulnerable to terrible droughts at terrible times, and in close games seemed particularly incapable of getting good shots when it mattered. From a coaching perspective, I think there are a couple things at play.

Shot selection:

We had a tendency to settle for shots, particularly early in the shot clock. This was a two-fold issue.
One, people just took some bad shots. Jabari, in particular, was guilty of this (but he was far from the only offender) - he settled for jump shots that came a little out of the offensive flow, were contested and/or came off of one-on-one play, etc. But all of our top 5 offensive players (Parker, Hood, Sulaimon, Cook, Dawkins) had possessions where they decided that they were going to shoot the ball, no matter what.
Two, this team had a hard time distinguishing between a "good" shot and a smart shot. One of the downsides of having so many offensive weapons (as we do) is that there are a lot of good shots on the court, at least from the perspective of a particular player. For example, objectively speaking, Hood or Sulaimon shooting a wide open 15-foot jumper is a good shot. But it's not necessarily the best shot we can get in a possession and far too often the team seemed to take the first "good" shot that presented itself, rather than work the ball to try to find an even better shot.
These two approaches cost us down the stretch of games. In situations where we still had plenty of time (even when trailing late), too often guys tried to take the first good shot they could find rather than work a bit to create a great shot. Yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and there's danger in waiting too long for a perfect shot, but I think there's a happy medium in there that we could have approached with more frequency.
Whether or not this is a coaching issue or an execution issue is, again, subject to interpretation.


Offensive independence:

K's motion offense gives a lot of freedom to the guys on the court. We don't run a ton of set plays, but instead put people in motion and try to get them in positions to create mismatches and scoring opportunities.
The downside of that is that we don't have a single go-to play to run when we need to get a good shot. It's up to the guys on the court to come up with something.
This is related, a bit, to shot selection above - in crunch time, as soon as someone thought they had a decent/good shot, they took it. There wasn't the discipline that comes from having set plays to ensure that guys got the best (or close to the best) shot that they could in key possessions.


3s:

This is related to the above as well, but we were the most reliant on 3s of any Duke team in the past 9 years.
On a season-based view, this is a great strategy. Across many possessions, it's the most likely to generate the most points (particularly when you have shooters as good as we do). But in a single possession scenario, it's less likely to succeed (taking 3s is a great strategy when you succeed, as we did, 2 out of every 5 tries, but it means that any single possession is more likely to fail to produce points than to produce points). We missed 3s down the stretch in a lot of our games (today, for example, we went 0-6 from deep from the 6:58 mark until Quinn's shot at the buzzer).



At a macro level, it's almost impossible to fault our offense for shortcomings this season. But on a micro level, our end-game struggles in losses were equally attributable to offensive failings as defensive failings. And some of that, I think, is a strategy issue - our approach on offense was not necessarily designed to produce the best possible shot in scenarios where we needed to produce the best possible shot.


Rotation:

The rotation point has two aspects to it: line changes and point guard.
Line changes:

At the urging of the assistants, we adopted a line change approach for a handful of games. It was a more NBA-level approach (somewhat - NBA teams don't often do line changes) in that it gave people clearly defined roles for extended periods of time. We had some success with it, but it always felt like K was holding his nose when he implemented it and that he couldn't wait to get back to a more normal (for him) rotation. We thus went away from it quickly. It's not clear whether that was a wise decision.


Point guard:

I don't think Coach K could tell you today who his lead point guard is. At the very least, the rotation didn't offer any obvious answer to that question. We trotted out 3 - Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton. Each has their strengths and shortcomings, and I'm not sure that any of them was necessarily a better choice than any of the others. But we never made a choice.
Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton have different styles at the point guard role. Shifting among the three as we did meant that the team constantly had to adjust to a different style initiating the offense. I would vastly have preferred that we put our eggs in one of their baskets and let them dictate the offense for the team. Continuity creates competence; variability creates uncertainty.



To a certain degree, these are all nitpicks. We had a pretty strong season, and (on the aggregate) an exceptional season on the offensive side of the ball. But it seemed like this team failed to reach its potential, and to the extent the coaching approach contributed to holding the team back, I hope that we spend the offseason giving a hard look to strategy and coaching choices and think about how we can improve things for the next season.

[Henderson]

I was thinking similar thoughts today. Needed to be said. Thanks. I won't quibble with minor points of disagreement.

[Duke95]

Frankly, I don't see any way possible for a coach to achieve his own potential in a season when he suffers something like losing his brother.
In any case, this is a very young team. The seniors are support players. The best players on the team were a freshman and 2 sophs.

[OldPhiKap]

A few things made coaching a challenge:

1. One pg with good defense but not much offense; one pg with streaky o and d.

2. One center with experience but was a role player; one center who is playing healthy for the first time; one guy in the middle who is cunning but overmatched.

3. One shooting guard who was streaky but weak on d; one sg who was up and down.

4. Two best players never played for Duke on the court before this season.

5. Coach Collins gone.

6. No star senior. Or, really junior (although one could develop into a senior monster).


Lots of pieces, Never came together. It happens.

[jipops]

I want to preface this post with three points, and everything I say after should be read with these three points in mind (also, apologies in advance for the length):



As fans, I think coaching is the hardest thing for us to assess. Our proxy for it is what the players do on the court, but it's not always a guarantee that the players do what the coaches want them to do. Telling the difference between an error in strategy (the coaching aspect) and an error in execution (the player aspect) is difficult, and I certainly don't profess to be able to do that with any degree of confidence.
We can't watch practice, so we can't see what the team works on in non-game situations or how players play in practice. Not being able to watch practice also is one of the contributing aspects to point 1 - we can't see how the coaches coach the players, what they tell them to work on, etc.
In no way am I suggesting personnel changes among the coaching staff, and certainly not at the top.


All of that being said, I think some of the things that happened to the team this year raise questions about the coaching strategy for the season. In no particular order.

Defense:



Everyone knows this was our worst defensive season in a long time (2012 was also not great, but not this bad). On the whole, however, our profile was not dissimilar to how we usually play defense, with two exceptions - 2pt FG% and fouling. They're related, but let's take them in reverse order.
Fouling:

Coming into the season, there was an officiating change that emphasized two things - contact on the perimeter and a shift in block/charge. Both of those things have been a staple of Duke's defense for a long time.
We play aggressive defense on the perimeter, extending beyond the three point line, hedging high rather than laterally, trying to deny passing lanes, etc. That style creates contact on the perimeter, and we got called for it more this year than in years past.
Similarly, the strategy for defending at the rim, with limited exceptions for designated shot blockers (Williams, McRoberts, Plumlees), has been to contest shots by trying to draw charges rather than by playing vertically. Here, too, we got called for more fouls than in years past.
In my observation, we never adjusted for this at a strategic level. We would adjust within games, on a player-by-player basis, as players got into foul trouble (which mostly led to individuals playing a little more tentatively), but we trotted out the same defensive approach, game after game, even when it didn't work. This, I think (again, subject to all the caveats above) is a coaching issue - we did not seem to make an adjustment in approach that took into account how the game was being called.


2pt FG%:

Opponents shot over 50% from 2 against Duke this season. I don't think that's ever happened against a K coached Duke team.
There were, in my mind, three things that contributed to this (below in no particular order)
Fouling:

We got in foul trouble too often, which led to people playing too soft, which led to easy scores.


Rotation:

Our team struggled all year with team defense. The rotations didn't come quickly enough, players (especially Parker, but not limited to him) struggled guarding screen situations, and communication was not a strength. Again, we did not change philosophy, even when we continued to struggle with the approach.


Size:

Duke had zero shot-blocking presence inside. Since Shelden graduated, we've never been a particularly strong shot-blocking team, but we were especially bad this year, checking in at 260th in the country. It was the single worst thing we did on defense, relative to the rest of the NCAA.
We had a 7 footer who spent the majority of the season glued to the bench (Marshall played about 7 mpg). I don't believe that Marshall Plumlee was an instant cure-all, and there are trade-offs that come with playing him (he's an offensive liability, he can't execute switches, etc.), but there's a lot to be said for having someone 7 feet tall anchoring the middle of the defense. Under most circumstances, it makes it harder for teams to score at the rim, which was a weakness for this team all season.




Offense:



Generally speaking, offense was a strength. We scored more points per possession than any Duke team in the past 12 years (albeit in a nationwide environment that was more favorable to offenses) and had lots of talented offensive weapons. That said, we seemed vulnerable to terrible droughts at terrible times, and in close games seemed particularly incapable of getting good shots when it mattered. From a coaching perspective, I think there are a couple things at play.

Shot selection:

We had a tendency to settle for shots, particularly early in the shot clock. This was a two-fold issue.
One, people just took some bad shots. Jabari, in particular, was guilty of this (but he was far from the only offender) - he settled for jump shots that came a little out of the offensive flow, were contested and/or came off of one-on-one play, etc. But all of our top 5 offensive players (Parker, Hood, Sulaimon, Cook, Dawkins) had possessions where they decided that they were going to shoot the ball, no matter what.
Two, this team had a hard time distinguishing between a "good" shot and a smart shot. One of the downsides of having so many offensive weapons (as we do) is that there are a lot of good shots on the court, at least from the perspective of a particular player. For example, objectively speaking, Hood or Sulaimon shooting a wide open 15-foot jumper is a good shot. But it's not necessarily the best shot we can get in a possession and far too often the team seemed to take the first "good" shot that presented itself, rather than work the ball to try to find an even better shot.
These two approaches cost us down the stretch of games. In situations where we still had plenty of time (even when trailing late), too often guys tried to take the first good shot they could find rather than work a bit to create a great shot. Yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and there's danger in waiting too long for a perfect shot, but I think there's a happy medium in there that we could have approached with more frequency.
Whether or not this is a coaching issue or an execution issue is, again, subject to interpretation.


Offensive independence:

K's motion offense gives a lot of freedom to the guys on the court. We don't run a ton of set plays, but instead put people in motion and try to get them in positions to create mismatches and scoring opportunities.
The downside of that is that we don't have a single go-to play to run when we need to get a good shot. It's up to the guys on the court to come up with something.
This is related, a bit, to shot selection above - in crunch time, as soon as someone thought they had a decent/good shot, they took it. There wasn't the discipline that comes from having set plays to ensure that guys got the best (or close to the best) shot that they could in key possessions.


3s:

This is related to the above as well, but we were the most reliant on 3s of any Duke team in the past 9 years.
On a season-based view, this is a great strategy. Across many possessions, it's the most likely to generate the most points (particularly when you have shooters as good as we do). But in a single possession scenario, it's less likely to succeed (taking 3s is a great strategy when you succeed, as we did, 2 out of every 5 tries, but it means that any single possession is more likely to fail to produce points than to produce points). We missed 3s down the stretch in a lot of our games (today, for example, we went 0-6 from deep from the 6:58 mark until Quinn's shot at the buzzer).



At a macro level, it's almost impossible to fault our offense for shortcomings this season. But on a micro level, our end-game struggles in losses were equally attributable to offensive failings as defensive failings. And some of that, I think, is a strategy issue - our approach on offense was not necessarily designed to produce the best possible shot in scenarios where we needed to produce the best possible shot.


Rotation:

The rotation point has two aspects to it: line changes and point guard.
Line changes:

At the urging of the assistants, we adopted a line change approach for a handful of games. It was a more NBA-level approach (somewhat - NBA teams don't often do line changes) in that it gave people clearly defined roles for extended periods of time. We had some success with it, but it always felt like K was holding his nose when he implemented it and that he couldn't wait to get back to a more normal (for him) rotation. We thus went away from it quickly. It's not clear whether that was a wise decision.


Point guard:

I don't think Coach K could tell you today who his lead point guard is. At the very least, the rotation didn't offer any obvious answer to that question. We trotted out 3 - Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton. Each has their strengths and shortcomings, and I'm not sure that any of them was necessarily a better choice than any of the others. But we never made a choice.
Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton have different styles at the point guard role. Shifting among the three as we did meant that the team constantly had to adjust to a different style initiating the offense. I would vastly have preferred that we put our eggs in one of their baskets and let them dictate the offense for the team. Continuity creates competence; variability creates uncertainty.



To a certain degree, these are all nitpicks. We had a pretty strong season, and (on the aggregate) an exceptional season on the offensive side of the ball. But it seemed like this team failed to reach its potential, and to the extent the coaching approach contributed to holding the team back, I hope that we spend the offseason giving a hard look to strategy and coaching choices and think about how we can improve things for the next season.

This is the best synopsis I've seen of this team. Bravo.

I agree on the point about pg especially. The fact that we could never settle on a lead guard was indicative of a lot of issues.

[_Gary]

Excellent post all the way around. I pretty much agree with all your points. But it's the last point, concerning our three PGs, that I feel has been the most overlooked and yet crucial element to this year's team. The problem, in simple terms, is that none of the 3 guys you mentioned were able to demonstrate that they could consistently break down a defense and either drive or dish for easy buckets. Yet other teams seemed to be able to do this over and over against Duke this season. It seemed like a glaring weakness to me. And I think the biggest problem is that none of the guys really have the physical tools to do this. Quickness and absolute command of the dribble in a face up position is key. Our guards seemed much more apt to dribble around the perimeter than to attack the basket. Rasheed had some success with this in the half court, but not at all times. Quinn would do it at times on breaks, but almost never in the half court. And Tyler almost never showed this skill. I love all three these guys, but this was a shortcoming that really hurt us in almost every loss this season. I'm hopeful Tyus will help us in this area next season.

[Vincetaylor]

Our coaching stinks. That's just the sad reality.





[Moderator note: Please see post #13 in this thread as to why we did not delete the post.]

[Atlanta Duke]

Great post to start the thread

As a layperson with no expertise my guess has been the emphasis on calling fouls on tight perimeter play and calling the block rather than the charge impacted two pillars of how Duke has played defense for decades - not having a true center as a starter obviously did not help

K has said that since he joined USA Basketball it has allowed him to get new ideas on basketball - for those in the know, do the international rules track the current college rules on defense or is K going to be coaching a game this summer that will take him away from how basketball now is being called on the college level?

[jipops]

Our coaching stinks. That's just the sad reality.

Good to see you put as much effort in your post as the OP did.

[NashvilleDevil]

Our coaching stinks. That's just the sad reality.

This is ridiculous. I hope this was said in jest. If not maybe sit the next couple plays out.

[CDu]

Great post, first of all. Well said and well organized. I agree completely.

I think this was the coaching staff's worst season in a long time. That being said, I am fully willing to give a pass on that given the rules changes, the midseason tragedy, the coaching turnover, the roster turnover, etc.

I think the staff is struggling with merging a complicated defense with an ever-changing roster and with the best talents leaving after just one year. It is no secret that Coach K's best teams have generally been VERY experienced teams (notable exceptions like 1999 exist but are rare). But top talent doesn't stick around long enough to become experienced. So in a way, I wonder if getting one-and-dones has somewhat worked against our success in that it has thrown a wrench into the team continuity and cohesiveness.

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that we avoid one-and-done caliber players altogether. We still need talent. But I think a lot of thought needs to go into how to make it work. Whether that be dumbing down the defense, running more set plays, etc, I don't know. I just wonder if Coach K's system can work with a revolving door of one-year guys.

[_Gary]

All teams in the college game are generally only going to go as far as their PG takes them, and this is especially true with Coach K teams. I'm really wondering, looking back on our PGs since the Jason Williams/Chris Duhon days, if a part of our issues during many seasons hasn't been directly related to the PG position. It just seems to me the one thing that is a constant is that when we have truly quick, penetrating PGs we play well but when we don't have that player we struggle. The one exception was 2010 when we had a fantastic blend of a senior Jon and junior Nolan. They worked very well together and Nolan had enough slashing skills to allow for the penetration necessary at times when an offense gets stale in the half court set. But so often, it seems like I see us NOT getting into the lane for easy baskets or dishes for easy baskets. It almost seems like a rarity more times than not. Surely we won't have a Kyrie Irving, or Bobby Hurley every year. But I just wonder if we haven't suffered from a lack of quickness and the ability to penetrate at that key position more times than not in the last 7 or 8 years.

Thoughts?

[BluBones]

Our coaching stinks. That's just the sad reality.

I came here to moderate this post. I thought about deleting it. Ultimately I decided the strongest punishment you could receive is to let your words remain for all to see.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I thought the coaching was up and down. The highlight was the adjustment to the platoon system; that brought life back into a team with a grim outlook. And then, we slipped back into our old ways and never readjusted.
Duke teams in the past, the great and the not so great, have always made defense their priority, something to be proud of. This team, for whatever reason, out of the box was weak on the defensive end. On our sideline, we have K, Wojo, James, and Scheyer. The man and his pupils that in their history won championships, both conference and national, because of great defensive efforts. What is it about this team, with all that great coaching experience on the sideline, that they as a coaching staff could not make the defensive play a pride and a priority once again; what was is it about this team that they could not teach it?

[NYBri]

Coaching can have bad games and off years, just like players. This year was not our best, but 4 national championships and more wins than any other coach in history will deserve much slack and even more faith that we will learn and be better for our failures.

On to next year and another 20+ win year, top 10 finish, NCAAT, and big wins over the best the nation has to offer.

[OldPhiKap]

Our coaching stinks. That's just the sad reality.


I came here to moderate this post. I thought about deleting it. Ultimately I decided the strongest punishment you could receive is to let your words remain for all to see.

To be fair, when he trolls at least he is obvious. He has also written off next season already on another thread.

To be positive, it is impressive how non-meltdown the board is tonight. Kudos to those with perspective.

[Scorp4me]

This was an excellent post and hard to disagree with any of it. I would add what Cdu said "I think this was the coaching staff's worst season in a long time. That being said, I am fully willing to give a pass on that given the rules changes, the midseason tragedy, the coaching turnover, the roster turnover, etc." as a number 4. caveat. It was really a hard year for everyone when you consider that. We lost a tough game, but accomplished alot as well.

I'd also say that we seemed to be at our strongest when we went to the platoon system. It wasn't just the numbers, but the postitions it put those numbers in. But as you said K seemed to do it only because he had to and got away from it as quickly as possible. Never understood that change and was disappointed that it wasn't exploited more.

[OZ]

Our best player was a freshman; our next best player was a red-shirt transfer soph; after, that it was anyone's guess from game to game.

Other than Parker and Hood there was little if any consistency from any of the other players.

We had almost no inside-around the rim presence on offense or defense.

We did not have a true consistent point guard. In the past, this position has been an extension of the Coach; this year, it was basically inconsistent and provided little if any leadership.

There was little evidence of the kind of communication necessary to play the kind of defense Duke attempted to play. And it seemed a bit peculiar, that a freshman would be the one stepping forward as the leader (on the floor) of what often appeared to be a leaderless group.

We finished 26 - 9... and were ranked in the top ten at the end of the regular season. My guess is Coach K would not see that has bleak as some of us seem to think. Perhaps, at least some of the reaction might be the result of higher than warranted expectations on our part.

For some reason, this seemed like a difficult group to coach. I mean by that, Coach K seemed to have more difficulty than usual getting his players to embody on the court what he was trying to convey to them during practice.

Having said all this, could it be that Coach K got from this "particular" group about all he could squeeze out of them? Reality might suggest that this was perhaps not only one of Coach K's toughest coaching assignments, but also one of his best?

[WakeDevil]

I came here to moderate this post. I thought about deleting it. Ultimately I decided the strongest punishment you could receive is to let your words remain for all to see.

A coach who refuses to adjust his defense to reflect his personnel has engaged in bad coaching. It's called the Sinatra Doctrine.

[OldPhiKap]

Our best player was a freshman; our next best player was a red-shirt transfer soph; after, that it was anyone's guess from game to game.

Other than Parker and Hood there was little if any consistency from any of the other players.

We had almost no inside-around the rim presence on offense or defense.

We did not have a true consistent point guard. In the past, this position has been an extension of the Coach; this year, it was basically inconsistent and provided little if any leadership.

There was little evidence of the kind of communication necessary to play the kind of defense Duke attempted to play. And it seemed a bit peculiar, that a freshman would be the one stepping forward as the leader (on the floor) of what often appeared to be a leaderless group.

We finished 26 - 9... and were ranked in the top ten at the end of the regular season. My guess is Coach K would not see that has bleak as some of us seem to think. Perhaps, at least some of the reaction might be the result of higher than warranted expectations on our part.

For some reason, this seemed like a difficult group to coach. I mean by that, Coach K seemed to have more difficulty than usual getting his players to embody on the court what he was trying to convey to them during practice.

Having said all this, could it be that Coach K got from this "particular" group about all he could squeeze out of them? Reality might suggest that this was perhaps not only one of Coach K's toughest coaching assignments, but also one of his best?

Damn fine post, stated perfectly.


A coach who refuses to adjust his defense to reflect his personnel has engaged in bad coaching. It's called the Sinatra Doctrine.

What defense worked? We presses, we played 3/4 court, we played man, we played more zone than I have seen K ever play. If you cannot pressure the point and keep guards in front of you, no defensive scheme works.

[dyedwab]

For some reason, this seemed like a difficult group to coach. I mean by that, Coach K seemed to have more difficulty than usual getting his players to embody on the court what he was trying to convey to them during practice.

Having said all this, could it be that Coach K got from this "particular" group about all he could squeeze out of them? Reality might suggest that this was perhaps not only one of Coach K's toughest coaching assignments, but also one of his best?

I pointed this out in another thread. but since 1986, only 6 Duke teams have lost 9 or more games...That is a remarkable stretch. But no matter, that means that this wasn't close to one of Coach K's best coaching jobs.

[Atlanta Duke]

Interesting to go back and read the N&O preseason article from last November on how K saw this team developing

The athleticism will remind spectators of two of Krzyzewski’s best Duke teams: the 1998-99 squad that went 37-2 and the 2000-01 national champions....

Still, there’s a noteworthy difference between the ’01 and the 2013-14 Blue Devils (besides the fact that one has a banner in Cameron and the other has yet to play a game). That team had an unquestioned senior leader, Shane Battier....

Cook, whose role has changed due to Duke not needing a traditional point guard to bring the ball up the floor is in the best shape of his life,

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/07/3344253/duke-built-to-win-a-lot-like-coach.html#storylink=cpy

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/11/07/3344253/duke-built-to-win-a-lot-like-coach.html#storylink=cpy

Turned out not having an unquestioned senior leader and a "traditional point guard" were issues that were never resolved

[Sixthman]

All teams in the college game are generally only going to go as far as their PG takes them, and this is especially true with Coach K teams. I'm really wondering, looking back on our PGs since the Jason Williams/Chris Duhon days, if a part of our issues during many seasons hasn't been directly related to the PG position. It just seems to me the one thing that is a constant is that when we have truly quick, penetrating PGs we play well but when we don't have that player we struggle. The one exception was 2010 when we had a fantastic blend of a senior Jon and junior Nolan. They worked very well together and Nolan had enough slashing skills to allow for the penetration necessary at times when an offense gets stale in the half court set. But so often, it seems like I see us NOT getting into the lane for easy baskets or dishes for easy baskets. It almost seems like a rarity more times than not. Surely we won't have a Kyrie Irving, or Bobby Hurley every year. But I just wonder if we haven't suffered from a lack of quickness and the ability to penetrate at that key position more times than not in the last 7 or 8 years.

Thoughts?

I've wondered if the intentional shift of Coach K to more of a NBA style offense -- which has the result of making the strong traditional point guards which were the hallmark of the greatest teams of the Coach K era less important -- was due to the lack of a great point guard, or something else. On the one hand, we can agree that if this were Kyrie's senior season, the offense would have been running through his hands. On the other hand, I think the change in offense was due not to point guard talent, but likely the thought that greater talent could be recruited if the Hoods and Parkers of the world could be promised the opportunity to make plays from the perimeter with the ball in their hands. This didn't really work out very well for us today, and I think led to our inconsistency over the course of the season.

I heard Jay Bilas debating on Mike and Mike this morning the proposition that the tournament put a premium on great guard play -- which seems to be a commonly accepted proposition. He strongly protested, saying that a strong low post player who could score with his back to the basket was more essential. We didn't have either of these this year. Of course, we didn't have either in 2010, when our point guard was a great baller, but not a great point guard, and our run was fueled by Zoubek, who was a physical presence, rebounded and distributed, but was not a back to the basket scorer. What Scheyer was, even though not the kind of power guard who is highly valued in tournament play, was a great decision maker. I don't care how good a decision maker the players are independently, the team will make bad decisions at key moments when on the court decisions are not run, primarily, through one leader. You know where I learned this? Watching Coach K's teams for 30 years. Admit it, the last half of the season, every time Jabari shot a three, you cringed, because every time he did so it was a bad choice, not because he can't make it, but because there was almost always going to be a better shot, and there was almost always going to be no one to rebound if he missed.

I hope as we look at our talent for next year, we will all remember that a lot of what the coaches are doing is putting together a puzzle that has more pieces than we as fans can quantify. A lot of fans put too much emphasis on the tangibles of raw athletic talent and not enough on experience, intelligence, and intangibles, like that special quality that Jabari has that is related to athletic talent, but not quite the same, or like the drive to win and give every ounce of effort to do so, which, it seems to me obvious, not everyone has, but we have been so lucky to have so much of it among our players over the years that we have come to expect it, and I think take it for granted. We saw these other characteristics at play on the Mercer team today, and in greater abundance than among our guys. We will have the raw athletic talent next year to be a great team -- but we did this year as well. It takes more, and finding it, developing it, and seeing it evolve, is part of what makes the sport so fun.

[Reilly]

After the open practice before the Troy football game, I thought we were loaded yet wondered how it would all come together. It seemed a key would be how K would choose to maximize and use the assemblage of talent ... b/c it wasn't necessarily apparent like it is some years (when you pretty much know who will be playing what roles). For this year, I thought we should've done something a bit untraditional for Duke and just played in waves -- sending wave after wave at folks, using everybody a fair amount, creating a sense of manic urgency, playing up tempo on both O and D. We didn't choose that path. All that said, we are awfully spoiled -- many would love the level of success Duke had this year.

In past years, it was always Duke who clearly could be seen as the team that wanted it more, that got more of the 50/50 balls, that got after it so hard to impose its will on the game. Not this year.

[OldSchool]

A lot of good points by the original poster.

I would like to see us a sagging defense situationally. To carry out K's preferred defensive style, we need super-quick guards who can pressure the opponent out beyond the 3-pt line and yet still do a reasonable job of resisting dribble penetration. When we don't have that, it puts tremendous pressure on our bigs. Even with NBA-quality bigs like Mason and Miles and Ryan in the paint, it's a difficult thing for our bigs.

I would like to see us get the bigs involved more in the offense through rolls and off-ball screening. Our guards need to be able to hit pocket passes and lobs and back-door passes to our bigs. The bigs can do more than just provide a high dribble screen, but the guards are the key to getting them involved.

As far as JP trying to be the leader, I did not have a problem with that. JP was our best player. It works best when your best player is the one exercising leadership. It can be pretty annoying when someone is trying to be the leader and getting all emotional and on your case, and yet he's the one turning the ball over, taking bad shots and letting his man blow by him. On the other hand, a veteran role player can be an effective leader if he performs his role at a high level and is not frequently making mistakes.

[_Gary]

One more thought about rotation before retiring for the night. Not only did Coach K move away from the platooning as the season came to a close, but he also made some very curious moves in the ACC Tournament that I didn't understand at all. After settling on Marshall as our primary big off the bench, Coach suddenly decided to reinsert Josh back into the rotation after sitting him during the majority of the 2nd half of the year. I found that strange and felt it hurt our chemistry a bit. The second decision, which also manifested in the ACC Tournament, was the demotion of Andre. My main point of contention would be that if we don't have a settled rotation by the time the ACC Tournament rolls around, and are instead tinkering with it (somewhat drastically if you ask me), that speaks to instability and unsureness. It just seems like we should have, by the ACC Tournament, just gone with what got us there. It wasn't, imho, the time to be tinkering with the rotation. But again, I don't see what the coaches see in practice. So caveat acknowledged.

[jv001]

I want to preface this post with three points, and everything I say after should be read with these three points in mind (also, apologies in advance for the length):



As fans, I think coaching is the hardest thing for us to assess. Our proxy for it is what the players do on the court, but it's not always a guarantee that the players do what the coaches want them to do. Telling the difference between an error in strategy (the coaching aspect) and an error in execution (the player aspect) is difficult, and I certainly don't profess to be able to do that with any degree of confidence.
We can't watch practice, so we can't see what the team works on in non-game situations or how players play in practice. Not being able to watch practice also is one of the contributing aspects to point 1 - we can't see how the coaches coach the players, what they tell them to work on, etc.
In no way am I suggesting personnel changes among the coaching staff, and certainly not at the top.


All of that being said, I think some of the things that happened to the team this year raise questions about the coaching strategy for the season. In no particular order.

Defense:



Everyone knows this was our worst defensive season in a long time (2012 was also not great, but not this bad). On the whole, however, our profile was not dissimilar to how we usually play defense, with two exceptions - 2pt FG% and fouling. They're related, but let's take them in reverse order.
Fouling:

Coming into the season, there was an officiating change that emphasized two things - contact on the perimeter and a shift in block/charge. Both of those things have been a staple of Duke's defense for a long time.
We play aggressive defense on the perimeter, extending beyond the three point line, hedging high rather than laterally, trying to deny passing lanes, etc. That style creates contact on the perimeter, and we got called for it more this year than in years past.
Similarly, the strategy for defending at the rim, with limited exceptions for designated shot blockers (Williams, McRoberts, Plumlees), has been to contest shots by trying to draw charges rather than by playing vertically. Here, too, we got called for more fouls than in years past.
In my observation, we never adjusted for this at a strategic level. We would adjust within games, on a player-by-player basis, as players got into foul trouble (which mostly led to individuals playing a little more tentatively), but we trotted out the same defensive approach, game after game, even when it didn't work. This, I think (again, subject to all the caveats above) is a coaching issue - we did not seem to make an adjustment in approach that took into account how the game was being called.


2pt FG%:

Opponents shot over 50% from 2 against Duke this season. I don't think that's ever happened against a K coached Duke team.
There were, in my mind, three things that contributed to this (below in no particular order)
Fouling:

We got in foul trouble too often, which led to people playing too soft, which led to easy scores.


Rotation:

Our team struggled all year with team defense. The rotations didn't come quickly enough, players (especially Parker, but not limited to him) struggled guarding screen situations, and communication was not a strength. Again, we did not change philosophy, even when we continued to struggle with the approach.


Size:

Duke had zero shot-blocking presence inside. Since Shelden graduated, we've never been a particularly strong shot-blocking team, but we were especially bad this year, checking in at 260th in the country. It was the single worst thing we did on defense, relative to the rest of the NCAA.
We had a 7 footer who spent the majority of the season glued to the bench (Marshall played about 7 mpg). I don't believe that Marshall Plumlee was an instant cure-all, and there are trade-offs that come with playing him (he's an offensive liability, he can't execute switches, etc.), but there's a lot to be said for having someone 7 feet tall anchoring the middle of the defense. Under most circumstances, it makes it harder for teams to score at the rim, which was a weakness for this team all season.




Offense:



Generally speaking, offense was a strength. We scored more points per possession than any Duke team in the past 12 years (albeit in a nationwide environment that was more favorable to offenses) and had lots of talented offensive weapons. That said, we seemed vulnerable to terrible droughts at terrible times, and in close games seemed particularly incapable of getting good shots when it mattered. From a coaching perspective, I think there are a couple things at play.

Shot selection:

We had a tendency to settle for shots, particularly early in the shot clock. This was a two-fold issue.
One, people just took some bad shots. Jabari, in particular, was guilty of this (but he was far from the only offender) - he settled for jump shots that came a little out of the offensive flow, were contested and/or came off of one-on-one play, etc. But all of our top 5 offensive players (Parker, Hood, Sulaimon, Cook, Dawkins) had possessions where they decided that they were going to shoot the ball, no matter what.
Two, this team had a hard time distinguishing between a "good" shot and a smart shot. One of the downsides of having so many offensive weapons (as we do) is that there are a lot of good shots on the court, at least from the perspective of a particular player. For example, objectively speaking, Hood or Sulaimon shooting a wide open 15-foot jumper is a good shot. But it's not necessarily the best shot we can get in a possession and far too often the team seemed to take the first "good" shot that presented itself, rather than work the ball to try to find an even better shot.
These two approaches cost us down the stretch of games. In situations where we still had plenty of time (even when trailing late), too often guys tried to take the first good shot they could find rather than work a bit to create a great shot. Yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and there's danger in waiting too long for a perfect shot, but I think there's a happy medium in there that we could have approached with more frequency.
Whether or not this is a coaching issue or an execution issue is, again, subject to interpretation.


Offensive independence:

K's motion offense gives a lot of freedom to the guys on the court. We don't run a ton of set plays, but instead put people in motion and try to get them in positions to create mismatches and scoring opportunities.
The downside of that is that we don't have a single go-to play to run when we need to get a good shot. It's up to the guys on the court to come up with something.
This is related, a bit, to shot selection above - in crunch time, as soon as someone thought they had a decent/good shot, they took it. There wasn't the discipline that comes from having set plays to ensure that guys got the best (or close to the best) shot that they could in key possessions.


3s:

This is related to the above as well, but we were the most reliant on 3s of any Duke team in the past 9 years.
On a season-based view, this is a great strategy. Across many possessions, it's the most likely to generate the most points (particularly when you have shooters as good as we do). But in a single possession scenario, it's less likely to succeed (taking 3s is a great strategy when you succeed, as we did, 2 out of every 5 tries, but it means that any single possession is more likely to fail to produce points than to produce points). We missed 3s down the stretch in a lot of our games (today, for example, we went 0-6 from deep from the 6:58 mark until Quinn's shot at the buzzer).



At a macro level, it's almost impossible to fault our offense for shortcomings this season. But on a micro level, our end-game struggles in losses were equally attributable to offensive failings as defensive failings. And some of that, I think, is a strategy issue - our approach on offense was not necessarily designed to produce the best possible shot in scenarios where we needed to produce the best possible shot.


Rotation:

The rotation point has two aspects to it: line changes and point guard.
Line changes:

At the urging of the assistants, we adopted a line change approach for a handful of games. It was a more NBA-level approach (somewhat - NBA teams don't often do line changes) in that it gave people clearly defined roles for extended periods of time. We had some success with it, but it always felt like K was holding his nose when he implemented it and that he couldn't wait to get back to a more normal (for him) rotation. We thus went away from it quickly. It's not clear whether that was a wise decision.


Point guard:

I don't think Coach K could tell you today who his lead point guard is. At the very least, the rotation didn't offer any obvious answer to that question. We trotted out 3 - Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton. Each has their strengths and shortcomings, and I'm not sure that any of them was necessarily a better choice than any of the others. But we never made a choice.
Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton have different styles at the point guard role. Shifting among the three as we did meant that the team constantly had to adjust to a different style initiating the offense. I would vastly have preferred that we put our eggs in one of their baskets and let them dictate the offense for the team. Continuity creates competence; variability creates uncertainty.



To a certain degree, these are all nitpicks. We had a pretty strong season, and (on the aggregate) an exceptional season on the offensive side of the ball. But it seemed like this team failed to reach its potential, and to the extent the coaching approach contributed to holding the team back, I hope that we spend the offseason giving a hard look to strategy and coaching choices and think about how we can improve things for the next season.

You pretty much nailed it with your post. I have to agree with most posters, our coaching staff did not have their greatest season coaching this team. But, it's understandable with rule changes, our two best players never playing an ACC game before this season, and worst of all, the personal loss of Coach's brother. One thing I've thought about is how coaching the USA team has affected Coach K. I wonder if coaching players like Labron and Durant and not having to coach them up has Coach doing the same with the Duke players. In other words, is he letting them play through bad plays and bad defense? I hope if we lose one of our assistants, Coach K hires a coach with a good knowledge of Zone Defense. Not having that weapon available surely hurt this team. Well I guess it's golf season, Cardinal baseball and Next Play. GoDuke!

[gcashwell]

I was disappointed that the staff found something that worked (line changes), but then reverted back to what didn't. It was like they were unwilling to make the drastic changes that were necessary.

That being said, it is tough without a senior leader and with losing K's brother. I think the loss of ChrisCo hurt as well.

[ICP]

In any case, this is a very young team. The seniors are support players. The best players on the team were a freshman and 2 sophs.

This will likely be the case from now on every year. Our most talented players will likely be freshmen, or at best sophomores. It's an issue made almost inevitable by the one-and-done rule...

[ICP]

I am beginning to worry a bit about the dynamic around Coach K at Duke in terms of constructive criticism and accountability. It's one thing to respect and admire his stellar record, it's another thing to fall into a virtual cult of personality where criticism is not tolerated easily.

Let's not forget he made $7.2m last year, far and away more so than any other coach in college basketball (Pitino second with 5m) Expectations should be high when you pay someone the most of all his peers, and I was disheartened to hear him call this a very good year overall in his press conference. I doubt that in any other area if activity you could finish the year way below average in terms of your usual performance and yet be able to just brush it off like that. For Duke devoted fans, alumni, and/ or donors, I think he should at least try and explain all of us in future weeks his conclusions about why we got bounced in the first round of the tourney, and address some of the excellent criticism about his defensive strategy made in this thread.

[Billy Dat]

3s:

This is related to the above as well, but we were the most reliant on 3s of any Duke team in the past 9 years.
On a season-based view, this is a great strategy. Across many possessions, it's the most likely to generate the most points (particularly when you have shooters as good as we do). But in a single possession scenario, it's less likely to succeed (taking 3s is a great strategy when you succeed, as we did, 2 out of every 5 tries, but it means that any single possession is more likely to fail to produce points than to produce points). We missed 3s down the stretch in a lot of our games (today, for example, we went 0-6 from deep from the 6:58 mark until Quinn's shot at the buzzer).



First off, thanks for putting together such a strong post. As others have said, it is well done and I agree with much of it. What is your source for the statement about us being more reliant on the 3 than any other year? I ask because I remember a point at least 2/3rds through the season where this did not appear to be the trend. What are the relevant stats? Again, I am curious and I can't find relevant stats outside of attempts each year...and this year seems comparable.

Anyway, two other signs that coaching was a little off...these are observational but I think others will agree:
-We were rarely sharp the first game after a longer than usual lay-off. Is that always true because of rust? I'm not sure. We'd have these breaks where we were so happy that the coaches would be able to make adjustments and then we'd look really bad...today, Wake, V.Tech in the ACCs, Notre Dame
-We were as bad as I can ever remember out of timeouts, many shot clock violations or totally chucked shots as the shot clock expired, near 5 second calls on out of bounds plays after timeouts, etc.

[heyman25]

I am beginning to worry a bit about the dynamic around Coach K at Duke in terms of constructive criticism and accountability. It's one thing to respect and admire his stellar record, it's another thing to fall into a virtual cult of personality where criticism is not tolerated easily.

Let's not forget he made $7.2m last year, far and away more so than any other coach in college basketball (Pitino second with 5m) Expectations should be high when you pay someone the most of all his peers, and I was disheartened to hear him call this a very good year overall in his press conference. I doubt that in any other area if activity you could finish the year way below average in terms of your usual performance and yet be able to just brush it off like that. For Duke devoted fans, alumni, and/ or donors, I think he should at least try and explain all of us in future weeks his conclusions about why we got bounced in the first round of the tourney, and address some of the excellent criticism about his defensive strategy made in this thread.

I agree with this post. Yes Mercer was better than Duke today. When I look at the NCAA tournament as a whole Duke might be first in the most disappointing performance as a team. I don't know how the revenue stream works but this first round loss most likely cost Duke a lot of money as well as the Duke Brand. ESPN is showing all the first round losses since Eastern Michigan. I hate UNC but they are undefeated in first round play. We have a great class coming in. Our first true potentially outstanding center since Randy Denton and a point guard that may be another Bobby Hurley. Justice Winslow is likely to be outstanding along with Okafor and Jones.However this team did not have it . To quote K whatever it is.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

We have a great class coming in. Our first true potentially outstanding center since Randy Denton .....

Mike Gminski, Christian Laettner, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams.

[Edouble]

I hate UNC but they are undefeated in first round play.

This year.

You've never heard of The Show?

[eddiehaskell]

I'm sure UNC fans would give up "undefeated in the first round" for "not missing the tournament completely in 2003 and 2010". :D

[Edouble]

UNC is not undefeated in the first round of the NCAA Tournament!!!!!

They were the victims of their own 3/14 pairing upset in 1999, when they were beaten by Weber St. behind 36 points from Harold "The Show" Arceneaux.

[eddiehaskell]

UNC is not undefeated in the first round of the NCAA Tournament!!!!!

They were the victims of their own 3/14 pairing upset in 1999, when they were beaten by Weber St. behind 36 points from Harold "The Show" Arceneaux.I believe the announcers were saying Roy Williams or Roy Williams as coach of UNC is undefeated in the first round.

[Des Esseintes]

I am beginning to worry a bit about the dynamic around Coach K at Duke in terms of constructive criticism and accountability. It's one thing to respect and admire his stellar record, it's another thing to fall into a virtual cult of personality where criticism is not tolerated easily.

Let's not forget he made $7.2m last year, far and away more so than any other coach in college basketball (Pitino second with 5m) Expectations should be high when you pay someone the most of all his peers, and I was disheartened to hear him call this a very good year overall in his press conference. I doubt that in any other area if activity you could finish the year way below average in terms of your usual performance and yet be able to just brush it off like that. For Duke devoted fans, alumni, and/ or donors, I think he should at least try and explain all of us in future weeks his conclusions about why we got bounced in the first round of the tourney, and address some of the excellent criticism about his defensive strategy made in this thread.

26-9, in college basketball, is a "very good year." There's nothing wrong with K saying that. It wasn't as good a year as we all wished, to be sure. I echo others on this thread in saying it wasn't as good as it could or perhaps should have been. This team had tremendous talent all over the court. Everyone who is disappointed with where we ended up is right to feel so. But come on. We played almost .750 ball. That's very good. It's just not extraordinary.

Moreover, I do not care if K falls on his sword publicly. Do not care even a little bit. Nor do I want him spending his time reading fan message boards, even as thoughtful a thread as this one. I want the defense to be better next season and the team to show more resilience late in tough games. Which I'm confident is exactly what will happen.

[DukeAlumBS]

I've wondered if the intentional shift of Coach K to more of a NBA style offense -- which has the result of making the strong traditional point guards which were the hallmark of the greatest teams of the Coach K era less important -- was due to the lack of a great point guard, or something else. On the one hand, we can agree that if this were Kyrie's senior season, the offense would have been running through his hands. On the other hand, I think the change in offense was due not to point guard talent, but likely the thought that greater talent could be recruited if the Hoods and Parkers of the world could be promised the opportunity to make plays from the perimeter with the ball in their hands. This didn't really work out very well for us today, and I think led to our inconsistency over the course of the season.

I heard Jay Bilas debating on Mike and Mike this morning the proposition that the tournament put a premium on great guard play -- which seems to be a commonly accepted proposition. He strongly protested, saying that a strong low post player who could score with his back to the basket was more essential. We didn't have either of these this year. Of course, we didn't have either in 2010, when our point guard was a great baller, but not a great point guard, and our run was fueled by Zoubek, who was a physical presence, rebounded and distributed, but was not a back to the basket scorer. What Scheyer was, even though not the kind of power guard who is highly valued in tournament play, was a great decision maker. I don't care how good a decision maker the players are independently, the team will make bad decisions at key moments when on the court decisions are not run, primarily, through one leader. You know where I learned this? Watching Coach K's teams for 30 years. Admit it, the last half of the season, every time Jabari shot a three, you cringed, because every time he did so it was a bad choice, not because he can't make it, but because there was almost always going to be a better shot, and there was almost always going to be no one to rebound if he missed.

I hope as we look at our talent for next year, we will all remember that a lot of what the coaches are doing is putting together a puzzle that has more pieces than we as fans can quantify. A lot of fans put too much emphasis on the tangibles of raw athletic talent and not enough on experience, intelligence, and intangibles, like that special quality that Jabari has that is related to athletic talent, but not quite the same, or like the drive to win and give every ounce of effort to do so, which, it seems to me obvious, not everyone has, but we have been so lucky to have so much of it among our players over the years that we have come to expect it, and I think take it for granted. We saw these other characteristics at play on the Mercer team today, and in greater abundance than among our guys. We will have the raw athletic talent next year to be a great team -- but we did this year as well. It takes more, and finding it, developing it, and seeing it evolve, is part of what makes the sport so fun.

I agree with Bilas. We lack a penetrating point guard, that can shoot layups in the low post. Or make the outside shot or then pass off to another. Our PG play was not very good at all. One that has the keen insight to be aware of the court as well. Hoping this gets developed this year. I am sure the staff is aware of this. I also feel Parker will come back another year to work on his game as well. Which he needs to do.
nice day
Jimmy

[eddiehaskell]

I don't really like having the validity of "very good year" hinge on one game. What if Jabari hits the 3 near the end and we eek out a win - does that mean we can say "good year"? A lot of people had us getting upset by Tennessee. Even if we beat Tennessee and lost to Michigan in the sweet 16, I'm sure many would say it was a bad year, right?

I guess I'm not as upset as some simply because this year's team didn't really tease us. Duke didn't roll through the ACC, win 12 in a row to end the season or hold the #1 spot for a month. We lost to the big boys like Arizona and Kansas to start the season and almost every time we thought the train was back on the tracks we would get bopped on the head by the likes of ND, UNC, Clemson or Wake Forest. Each loss would leave us scratching our head and pointing out some fundamental flaw that would eventually get us.

[heyman25]

Mike Gminski, Christian Laettner, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer, Shelden Williams.

Gminski a true interior post man. Laettner was great inside and out.
Brand Boozer and Williams to me were power forwards.
Okafor will be a center that can post up like Gminski and yes Randy Denton.

[Indoor66]

Gminski a true interior post man. Laettner was great inside and out.
Brand Boozer and Williams to me were power forwards.
Okafor will be a center that can post up like Gminski and yes Randy Denton.

Frankly, I see distinctions without difference in your post. All of the named players were the centers on their team. Their later positions seem, to me, irrelevant to the discussion.

[TruBlu]

Great and thoughtful analysis by the O P. (I couldn't spork PFR, but others probably did).


26-9, in college basketball, is a "very good year." There's nothing wrong with K saying that. It wasn't as good a year as we all wished, to be sure. I echo others on this thread in saying it wasn't as good as it could or perhaps should have been. This team had tremendous talent all over the court. Everyone who is disappointed with where we ended up is right to feel so. But come on. We played almost .750 ball. That's very good. It's just not extraordinary.

Like the old saying: "Good isn't good enough when better was expected."

[rocketeli]

Great post from the OP, and many thoughtful responses. I think the OP listed all the concerns and thoughts I have been having. Was anybody else disappointed but not surprised by Friday’s outcome? I agree that coaching was an issue this year. It seemed that the staff suffered from “imagination failure,” and kept trying to cram the players they had into some predetermined “Duke team” mold, rather than maximizing their strengths (offensive firepower, shooting, quickness, depth) all season long. The only exception to this was the wholesale substitution thing, and it worked-and then they (Coach K?) abandoned it. Let’s hope that the answer to our often asked question “What would Coach K do with Kentucky/UNC etc’s talent? doesn’t turn out to be “jack--,” and this is just a down year for the coaching for a variety of reasons already mentioned.

[arnie]

Great and thoughtful analysis by the O P. (I couldn't spork PFR, but others probably did).



Like the old saying: "Good isn't good enough when better was expected."

Yes, we all need to lower our expectations. We saw issues with this team early and yet most (me included) thought the team could figure it out. Losing to Mercer should be unexpected, but this team was never going to go far. Next year's team will likely be ranked Top 5-10 preseason, but probably should not expect those results. Without great guard defense our defensive philosophy will fail us.

[Matches]

A lot of good points by the original poster.

I would like to see us a sagging defense situationally. To carry out K's preferred defensive style, we need super-quick guards who can pressure the opponent out beyond the 3-pt line and yet still do a reasonable job of resisting dribble penetration. When we don't have that, it puts tremendous pressure on our bigs. Even with NBA-quality bigs like Mason and Miles and Ryan in the paint, it's a difficult thing for our bigs.



I'd just like to see a little more variance in what we do. I wonder if the "book" is out on attacking our defense at this point. It seems like we do the same things, just about all game, just about every game, and at this point everyone and their grandma knows the game plan to beat it. We'll pressure the ball anywhere over halfcourt, so if you can get by our lead guard the defense breaks down. We'll switch aggressively on screens, so if you use ball screens you can create some weird/ suboptimal matchups. We'll hawk passing lanes so we're vulnerable to backdoor cuts. And we'll help aggressively (or try to) if the guards are beaten, so if you make an extra pass you can get an easy bucket and/or draw a foul.

Sometimes our guys are good enough that it doesn't matter if opponents know what we're doing - having a gameplan and executing it are two different things. But where we have personnel that doesn't match that strategy to a T - as was the case this year - attacking our defense is pretty devestatingly simple. If *I* know how to beat it you can bet every competent head coach in America does, too.

K has been masterful at adapting the offense to fit our personnel over the years, or even within a season, but at times he seems strangely unwilling to adjust the defensive game plan when it clearly isn't working. From the outside, the staff's response to defensive breakdowns appears to be to yell at the players or insist that they just need to try harder, without a compensatory scheme alteration. I'm not saying we should turn into Syracuse - just that maybe playing defense differently depending on situations and/or personnel might make us a little tougher to prepare for, and make course corrections easier when there's a problem.

[Reilly]

Yesterday, we lost in the round of 64.

50 years ago yesterday, we lost in the national championship game:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1964-03-21-duke.html

Bring back Bubas!

[BlueTeuf]

Real nice job by the OP.

Some random snippets from my twisted world...honest, but none of them charitable:

I've been ready for Coach to move on for a while... awesome recruiter, unsurpassed program builder, passé tactician and strategist. Stubborn as hell.

Take the 2010 title out of the résumé and the story's rather bland. But of course, you can't take away the 2010 title - nor do I want to.

Coach prides himself on getting people to accept their roles. Works fabulously for winning with NBA superstars. Is a crappy way to deal with 18 yr old HS phenoms who need to develop each and every part of their game (and self-confidence). I wouldn't send my son to Coach unless he received the promises that Jabari received. I don't respect the promises Coach offered Jabari. (remember, I'm twisted)

This board often observes we don't know what goes on in practices. Other than practicing an outdated, ill-suited defense, I'm not sure much goes on in practices. We are pedestrian at getting the ball in bounds, breaking the press or pressing ourselves. Blocking out, snappy passing; those skills are for lesser teams. Our physical fitness is suspect.

How can you effectively practice defense if you have no idea how to run set plays on offense? How do you practice post defense when you have no idea how to feed the post? How do you practice post offense when you don't have any ability to play post defense?

That said, Coach has earned the privilege to coach as long as he wants to - I don't begrudge him that. I respect and admire his complete body of work and am thrilled we were blessed to bring him on at such a young age and exercise the institutional patience that got us through some early growing pains.

No matter how this sounds, I am accepting this loss in stride. I told my (inappropriately) devastated freshman daughter that yesterday would be a wake up call for the coaching staff. 20 hours later, I'm losing much conviction for such a silver lining. I see from these boards that many don't agree on a need for change. I don't think the Coach Krzyzewski of 1988 would agree with them. However, it's 2014 and as may soon be pointed out - I have no idea what Coach is thinking.

So, for me, it's patience in the beginning and patience at the end. As many have pointed out - it wasn't a bad season. Heck it was a "very good year".

[Troublemaker]

Excellent post, pfr. Whether one agrees with all, some, or none of your points, your post --its thoughtfulness, quality, and humility-- gave us a better chance of having a level-headed discussion on this topic.

I wanted to focus in on our how Duke plays defense. You provide very good summaries below. The second excerpt was something you wrote in the Mercer pre-game thread.




We play aggressive defense on the perimeter, extending beyond the three point line, hedging high rather than laterally, trying to deny passing lanes, etc. That style creates contact on the perimeter, and we got called for it more this year than in years past.
Our team struggled all year with team defense. The rotations didn't come quickly enough, players (especially Parker, but not limited to him) struggled guarding screen situations, and communication was not a strength. Again, we did not change philosophy, even when we continued to struggle with the approach.





If you were asked to sum up a Coach K defense in a single philosophy, "don't let opponents shoot 3s" would be the most accurate statement. It's the one defensive thing we've done more consistently - and more consistently well - than anything else. We've been in the top 25 in this category nationally in every year since 2003 and in the top 5 nationally in all of those years except for last year (24th - a real aberration for us) and 2010 (11th). As you say, the commitment to extending the defense out to the three point line and running shooters off of those shots does open up interior lanes, which requires help and rotation, but that's something that we are always vulnerable to and thus (I suspect, having never been in a practice personally) are always working on.

Additionally, for further setup to a point/theory I'll be making soon, here are Duke's defensive ranks in the past dozen years (the kenpom era):



Year
D-Rnk


2003
16


2004
4


2005
3


2006
18


2007
7


2008
8


2009
36


2010
8


2011
21


2012
81


2013
31


2014
114



Looking at that table, one might ask: Was there something that changed in 2009 that caused Duke's defense to be generally less effective over the past six seasons?

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season.

My theory is a ridiculously simple one that I'm not sure I believe myself: The extra bit of court area our defense has had to cover since 2009 has caused our defensive rotations to suffer. That is, help defenders are coming from a little bit farther away than they had been prior to the 3-pt line extension, and therefore, sometimes help defenders arrive a little bit later than what they have to be in order to properly contest the offensive player, who is often someone that has driven into the lane.

[jv001]

I guess the biggest disappointment for me with this team, was waiting for the team to reach it's ceiling, especially on defense. I just couldn't get my mind to accept that these gifted athletes couldn't move their feet and could not communicate on defense. My heart goes out to Jabari, Rodney and the seniors. They played hard and gave it their all. If Jabari stays(miracle) or goes, I'll always respect this young man. We are blessed to have him as a Duke Blue Devil. GoDuke!

[pfrduke]

First off, thanks for putting together such a strong post. As others have said, it is well done and I agree with much of it. What is your source for the statement about us being more reliant on the 3 than any other year? I ask because I remember a point at least 2/3rds through the season where this did not appear to be the trend. What are the relevant stats? Again, I am curious and I can't find relevant stats outside of attempts each year...and this year seems comparable.

We finished the season taking 39.7% of our attempts from 3, which was 40th in the country. The only year since 2003 (which is as far back as Pomeroy data goes) where we were higher was 2005 (39.8% of our attempts from 33, 33rd in the country). We were also high in 2012 and 2008, over 38% both years. More often we're in the 33-35% range.

I recall us being at a lower attempt percentage earlier in the season as well, so it may have been that we got more reliant on the 3 as the season went on.

[pfrduke]

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season.

My theory is a ridiculously simple one that I'm not sure I believe myself: The extra bit of court area our defense has had to cover since 2009 has caused our defensive rotations to suffer. That is, help defenders are coming from a little bit farther away than they had been prior to the 3-pt line extension, and therefore, sometimes help defenders arrive a little bit later than what they have to be in order to properly contest the offensive player, who is often someone that has driven into the lane.

This is a completely reasonable theory. It's not like our rotations are dramatically off - we often seem to be about a half-step behind, which could be explained by the fact that we are covering more ground.

[_Gary]

We finished the season taking 39.7% of our attempts from 3, which was 40th in the country. The only year since 2003 (which is as far back as Pomeroy data goes) where we were higher was 2005 (39.8% of our attempts from 33, 33rd in the country). We were also high in 2012 and 2008, over 38% both years. More often we're in the 33-35% range.

I recall us being at a lower attempt percentage earlier in the season as well, so it may have been that we got more reliant on the 3 as the season went on.

Thanks for the stats. Another spork for that. I think the reason we saw a rise in 3PP as the season moved forward has direct correlation with our slowing down. Early on we'd see Jabari (and others) pull down boards and initiate fast breaks. As the season wore on we did this less and less. Once we got into half court sets we seemed to rely more and more of 3 point shots. I think this was due, in part, to the lack of a pentetrating PG on the team. The only time we saw anyone "drive" when we were in a half court was when either Jabari or Rodney went one on one with their man, or on occasion when Rasheed would try to slash. But other than that, we saw very little ball movement toward the basket. It was all perimeter passing, which led to more 3 point shooting. At least that's what I think happened.

[cspan37421]

Those defensive numbers are very interesting - and frankly, an indictment. 2014 may continue to change as kenpom is still updating with tournament results.

It is sad to me that this incredibly talented team failed to play better defense. Either they would not or could not. I now lean toward the latter, as I've seen quite a bit of maturing of attitude on the part of some of our players who were formerly prone to being mouthy, woofing, etc. I am glad for that, and I don't see them tuning out the coach during timeouts. There's every reason to suppose they are trying but just cannot execute on defense. Our superstar seemed to be particularly weak on defense, but I think there may be another reason for that ... he felt (probably correctly) that we could not afford to have him foul out. So he conserved his fouls not unlike a certain other coach has a reputation for conserving his time-outs. Long way of saying that I suspect he could play tougher defense, but perhaps not without regularly risking DQ with 5 fouls.

As for others, I don't understand why there was not improvement or progression during the year. I can't say that I called it, but the 91-90 home win against Vermont struck me as a bad omen, and it did prove to be a harbinger of the defensive struggles to come.

The OP made a great respectful but frank analysis, and I think I agree wholeheartedly. A number of people have cited rules changes as possible causes of our troubles. It seems to me that every coach and team in the country faced the same change and it clearly did not affect others as much as us (if that was a factor). We can't blame the rule change without blaming ourselves for failing to adapt. Frankly I am a skeptic that it was a significant factor at all. Our coaches had to know, and a few players haven't been in our system long enough to have habits that are hard to break (perhaps it might have affected TT, but I'm sure other programs have senior guards too!).

One thing that was kind of interesting is how many different players were stars for a given game. Sure, Jabari had more than his share. But earlier in the season, Hood sometimes outshined him. Rasheed had great games here and there, and Cook's play might be infuriating one game, only to be "bacon-saving" the next. Even Andre had a few great games. Sometimes it's wonderful to have so many weapons, your opponent can't just focus on one guy and make the others beat you - because they will. However, too often the others could not beat them. If Andre hits 40% from 3 in the Mercer game, it probably would have played out differently. And he was not the only one to have a down game.

All this gets to a sense of identity ... we didn't really settle on a lineup with well-defined roles. And of course we lacked veterans among our stars ... the last game was not the first time a group of seniors outplayed (as a team) a group of younger players with more raw talent. And think about the difficulty in integrating players new to the program, it's not always easy for them to play as a team. Jabari was obviously new. Rodney sat out a year (yes?) thus practiced some with the team, but no game experience with us before this year. Andre was coming from a year off. The minutes for other players probably changed a lot from last year. Josh seemed to play less, Amile a lot more. So it was far from a familiar group. Still, it can be done - we've seen it done - but not often.

Bottom line, I do think they gave their all, but they just could not play well together on defense. The chemistry was just not there, and I'm not sure why. You know the old Coach K saying about players without positions? Is that just for offense? If not, I wonder if that's part of the problem ... that philosophy may only work in certain limited circumstances, and this was simply not one of them. You have to walk before you can run, and perhaps you have to already be pretty solid on defense before you can entertain notions of not having well-defined positions.

[oldnavy]

What frustrates me to no end, is that in a year where our defense was a GLARING weakness, where articles are being written in SI about teams adapting to rule changes by using zone defenses that traditionally are man to man, and where we have had numerous games where our starters were saddled with foul trouble attempting to play man to man... we didn't do anything different.

[jv001]

What frustrates me to no end, is that in a year where our defense was a GLARING weakness, where articles are being written in SI about teams adapting to rule changes by using zone defenses that traditionally are man to man, and where we have had numerous games where our starters were saddled with foul trouble attempting to play man to man... we didn't do anything different.

You and I are the only Duke fans that see a good zone defense being a weapon on defense. The zone helps out when the team gets in foul trouble, it helps stop dribble penetration and it makes the other team prepare for more than just Duke's man to man. Is it that Coach K can't teach the zone, stubborn about using the zone or a little of both. Teams used the zone more this year than any time I can remember. I'm hoping next year our HOF coach learns the principles of zone defense and gives our players another weapon. If Roy can coach the zone I would think Coach K can :cool: GoDuke!

[oldnavy]

You and I are the only Duke fans that see a good zone defense being a weapon on defense. The zone helps out when the team gets in foul trouble, it helps stop dribble penetration and it makes the other team prepare for more than just Duke's man to man. Is it that Coach K can't teach the zone, stubborn about using the zone or a little of both. Teams used the zone more this year than any time I can remember. I'm hoping next year our HOF coach learns the principles of zone defense and gives our players another weapon. If Roy can coach the zone I would think Coach K can :cool: GoDuke!

Your point about preparing for Duke is a good one. The book on Duke for the past several years is drive and penetrate into the lane. Mercer did just that. I had the distinct feeling that they were better prepared to play us than we were to play them...

[jv001]

Your point about preparing for Duke is a good one. The book on Duke for the past several years is drive and penetrate into the lane. Mercer did just that. I had the distinct feeling that they were better prepared to play us than we were to play them...

I had the very same thought watching the game yesterday. GoDuke!

[wsb3]

You and I are the only Duke fans that see a good zone defense being a weapon on defense. The zone helps out when the team gets in foul trouble, it helps stop dribble penetration and it makes the other team prepare for more than just Duke's man to man. Is it that Coach K can't teach the zone, stubborn about using the zone or a little of both. Teams used the zone more this year than any time I can remember. I'm hoping next year our HOF coach learns the principles of zone defense and gives our players another weapon. If Roy can coach the zone I would think Coach K can :cool: GoDuke!

Count me in that if man to man is not working trying some zone is not a bad idea. I have a library of Duke games & I am always surprised at the times in the 80's I see Coach K go to a zone for a few possessions. But as another poster stated he is stubborn. I am not bashing him but he as well as Dean Smith have been very stubborn coaches and it has cost them.

I think this team in particular and not just because they were not good man to man had the length to play not just some token zone but some really good zone. At the very least if your guards can't stop penetration please play softer man. I still have nightmares from Paulus trying to pick his man up at half court only to be blown by repeatedly.

I know he is a hall of fame coach and I love & appreciate all that he has done but I just don't think anyone can say he did a good job this year. The potential of this team was not reached.

On another note I did not notice this as much because I was probably so nervous but I have seen a lot of Facebook posts, and comments about how he seem to just sit and hold his head in his hands when things were going south. I don't recall him being up as much but I really wasn't focused on that. Thoughts? I still wonder about his health.

[KandG]

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season.

My theory is a ridiculously simple one that I'm not sure I believe myself: The extra bit of court area our defense has had to cover since 2009 has caused our defensive rotations to suffer. That is, help defenders are coming from a little bit farther away than they had been prior to the 3-pt line extension, and therefore, sometimes help defenders arrive a little bit later than what they have to be in order to properly contest the offensive player, who is often someone that has driven into the lane.


This has been a great thread, spurred by the original excellent post, and I like the point above as well.

Note that while we can point to a decline since 2009, a defense that hovers in the top 20 is not horrible if you take into account some increased instability in the roster due to the increased number of one-and-done/two-and-done type players. But even taking into account many of the explanations offered (players out of position, rules changes, distracted coach, etc), that 114 ranking is a massive outlier. It's what you would expect from the 1995 or 1996 team, not a group with this level of talent, mismatched parts or not.

I really wonder if this year was just a perfect storm of all the factors mentioned, particularly the rules changes and K's personal loss. When you have a falloff this seismic, I just don't think you can point to one factor or one player and say things like "Coach K's finished", "so and so can't play defense", etc etc. Keep in mind last year's team largely had the same guards (along with Curry, no defensive stopper) and had Ryan and Mason instead of Jabari and Rodney. I don't think anyone would have expected two NBA lottery picks, no matter how inexperienced and defensively challenged, to step in and send the defense down this spiral. And that's not what happened -- it's not just on them, but on the whole thing crashing down somehow.

I know some here are bearish on the coaches, but I do think they're aware of what a dropoff this year was (even though people are latching on the "very good year" comment, K knows this was bad), and they'll take this as a cue to re-evaluate everything and reload. I also think K's international work this summer will bring dividends, because he'll be working with Tom Thibodeau, one of the absolute best at taking even the most defensively challenged players and turning them into a defensive unit no other team wants to play.

I'm also looking forward to the coaches using the players in more creative ways defensively, and having more two way players. Felt like we were making too many difficult choices this year (put in Andre for offense or Matt for defense, the Jabari offense-defense subs, etc), and it was too easy for defenses with simple ball movement or a ball screen to turn our defense into jello.

UPDATE: I am also with others who would like to see some experimentation with zone/matchup zone -- I'm on Coach K's side, but the one comment he made this year in a press conference where he said "we don't play zone" was the one time I winced at something he said. Going back to Thibodeau, he's one of the best in the NBA at bending the NBA's defensive 3 second rule in having his players protect the paint and zone up sides of the floor. I hope K takes something from him in this regard.

[jv001]

Count me in that if man to man is not working trying some zone is not a bad idea. I have a library of Duke games & I am always surprised at the times in the 80's I see Coach K go to a zone for a few possessions. But as another poster stated he is stubborn. I am not bashing him but he as well as Dean Smith have been very stubborn coaches and it has cost them.

I think this team in particular and not just because they were not good man to man had the length to play not just some token zone but some really good zone. At the very least if your guards can't stop penetration please play softer man. I still have nightmares from Paulus trying to pick his man up at half court only to be blown by repeatedly.

I know he is a hall of fame coach and I love & appreciate all that he has done but I just don't think anyone can say he did a good job this year. The potential of this team was not reached.

On another note I did not notice this as much because I was probably so nervous but I have seen a lot of Facebook posts, and comments about how he seem to just sit and hold his head in his hands when things were going south. I don't recall him being up as much but I really wasn't focused on that. Thoughts? I still wonder about his health.

I've had Duke fans and non-Duke fans say the same thing to me. From his dizzy spell check up, every thing was fine with him. I believe he has not had time to grieve from his brother's passing. I pray that he takes the time now to do just that. GoDuke!

[CDu]

Was there something that changed in 2009 that caused Duke's defense to be generally less effective over the past six seasons?

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season.

My theory is a ridiculously simple one that I'm not sure I believe myself: The extra bit of court area our defense has had to cover since 2009 has caused our defensive rotations to suffer. That is, help defenders are coming from a little bit farther away than they had been prior to the 3-pt line extension, and therefore, sometimes help defenders arrive a little bit later than what they have to be in order to properly contest the offensive player, who is often someone that has driven into the lane.

That is a VERY interesting theory, and one that I had never considered. But it makes complete sense. From wing to wing, we're having to cover almost two feet more (note: I'm too lazy to do the geometry) to challenge the 3pt shots. It is only logical that that extra distance causes problems for our rotations.

Along those lines, I think it's interesting that our best defensive team since that rule change occurred in 2010, when we deliberately did not extend pressure on the perimeter (due to a shortage of bodies on the perimeter). Which certainly adds further support to your theory.

I think we may be stuck in a situation where a coach that has long been lauded (and correctly so) for his flexibility is starting to get more set in his ways - especially defensively. He has a defensive system that has worked for over 30 years. But in the past 5-6 years a bunch of factors have worked in concert to threaten the effectiveness of that system:
- extended 3pt line which causes defenders to have to cover more ground in their rotations/recoveries
- increased reliance on "one and done" talent which affects cohesiveness
- the rules changes this year to penalize contact on the perimeter and to make charges more difficult to earn

Hopefully the coaching staff will take a long look at this season (and the past 6 seasons) and assess the situation. Something has to change. I think it needs to be our defensive strategy rather than our recruiting approach. But something has to change.

[dyedwab]

I know some here are bearish on the coaches, but I do think they're aware of what a dropoff this year was (even though people are latching on the "very good year" comment, K knows this was bad), and they'll take this as a cue to re-evaluate everything and reload. I also think K's international work this summer will bring dividends, because he'll be working with Tom Thibodeau, one of the absolute best at taking even the most defensively challenged players and turning them into a defensive unit no other team wants to play.

This is both my hope and my fear. My hope is that they fundamentally reevaluate what happened this year. My fear is that they will treat it as a perfect storm of bad things that only require minimal tweaking.

Despite great overall talent, this team was weak in predictable ways. And "young" and "small" don't do enough accounting for it.

[jv001]

That is a VERY interesting theory, and one that I had never considered. But it makes complete sense. From wing to wing, we're having to cover almost two feet more (note: I'm too lazy to do the geometry) to challenge the 3pt shots. It is only logical that that extra distance causes problems for our rotations.

Along those lines, I think it's interesting that our best defensive team since that rule change occurred in 2010, when we deliberately did not extend pressure on the perimeter (due to a shortage of bodies on the perimeter). Which certainly adds further support to your theory.

I think we may be stuck in a situation where a coach that has long been lauded (and correctly so) for his flexibility is starting to get more set in his ways - especially defensively. He has a defensive system that has worked for over 30 years. But in the past 5-6 years a bunch of factors have worked in concert to threaten the effectiveness of that system:
- extended 3pt line which causes defenders to have to cover more ground in their rotations/recoveries
- increased reliance on "one and done" talent which affects cohesiveness
- the rules changes this year to penalize contact on the perimeter and to make charges more difficult to earn

Hopefully the coaching staff will take a long look at this season (and the past 6 seasons) and assess the situation. Something has to change. I think it needs to be our defensive strategy rather than our recruiting approach. But something has to change.

All kidding aside, I think you and Troublemaker may be onto something. I couldn't agree more on the bolded part of your post. GoDuke!

[richardjackson199]

Thanks for the stats. Another spork for that. I think the reason we saw a rise in 3PP as the season moved forward has direct correlation with our slowing down. Early on we'd see Jabari (and others) pull down boards and initiate fast breaks. As the season wore on we did this less and less. Once we got into half court sets we seemed to rely more and more of 3 point shots. I think this was due, in part, to the lack of a pentetrating PG on the team. The only time we saw anyone "drive" when we were in a half court was when either Jabari or Rodney went one on one with their man, or on occasion when Rasheed would try to slash. But other than that, we saw very little ball movement toward the basket. It was all perimeter passing, which led to more 3 point shooting. At least that's what I think happened.

Another great post. As has been pointed out many times, there are good 3's and bad 3's. Good 3's usually come from going inside first and kicking out to a shooter in rhythm who got enough space for a good look when the defense collapsed inside.

I also fully agree on the failure of our defensive approach this year. I don't know enough about basketball to understand the intricacies of that pack-line defense approach that Virginia and Arizona use. No doubt it's helped by having great defensive players like Akil Mitchell. But it sure seems to work. Maybe to mix things up next year, we could learn that as well and go with that sometimes if our other approach isn't working. And go with that more if it works better.

What a great article (link provided below). This sums it up for our team. Our players have nothing to hang their heads about. I think they gave it their all this year, tried their best to do all that was asked of them, and played reasonably well yesterday. The ball really did not bounce our way yesterday.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2014/03/21/duke-basketball-sticks-together-season-ending-loss

Dawkins leaves Duke with a national championship he helped earn. He suffered a tragedy no one should have to endure, but his Duke education was all it could have been. He graduates knowing more about living a fulfilling life than most. He will remain one of my all-time favorite Duke players. True Duke blue 100% through and through. Keep smiling Dre!

Same with Hairston and Thornton. Their attitude, heart, leadership, and integrity represented Duke with everything I could have hoped for. I'd take 12 Thorntons and Hairstons over a PJ Hairston or Leslie McDonald every time. Winning is damn important. But even winning will never be important as representing Duke basketball right, and everyone on this team did. I couldn't say this yesterday I was so shocked and devastated. But like Coach K said, I'm proud of them too.

Jabari and Rodney have important decisions to make. I loved watching those 2 kids and how they represented Duke. One year was not enough to see them develop into accomplishing any of their realistic college goals. Well except for becoming an NBA lottery pick. Is that really worth leaving this kind of disappointing legacy at Duke? Nothing is guaranteed, but the money and NBA will still be there next year. What an amazing ride Duke's team could have next year if they both come back. Now that would be a way to go out right and into the NBA. This decision is not a no brainer. I hope they will consider it and do what is best for them. I hope they come back to Duke and lead us to a dream season, but I loved watching them play for us either way.

[_Gary]

Hopefully the coaching staff will take a long look at this season (and the past 6 seasons) and assess the situation. Something has to change. I think it needs to be our defensive strategy rather than our recruiting approach. But something has to change.

I so agree with this. Been thinking about it in short spaces for the last several years, but this year it's been front and center in my mind game after game. We simply can't put the pressure on the wings the way Coach would like us to without getting mauled in other aspects of our defense. The proposition for such overplaying is that it will lead to either out and out turnovers, or at least contest an entry pass so much as to get the other team out of it's comfort zone. This just hasn't happened with any regularity in recent years when we've tried to extend. Sure, we get a few steals that turn into easy buckets, but not nearly as much as we seem to get burned going the other way. Hopefully Coach K and the others can really take a long look in the mirror this off season and consider some modification to the way he's traditionally asked our guys to play defense. I'd say it's all but necessary at this point.

[cspan37421]

That is a VERY interesting theory, and one that I had never considered. But it makes complete sense. From wing to wing, we're having to cover almost two feet more (note: I'm too lazy to do the geometry) to challenge the 3pt shots. It is only logical that that extra distance causes problems for our rotations.


The main problem with the theory is that EVERY team has had to adapt due to this change; we didn't, or couldn't.

[pfrduke]

The main problem with the theory is that EVERY team has had to adapt due to this change; we didn't, or couldn't.

Well, the point of the theory is that we did need to adapt due to this change and didn't.

[Wander]

The main problem with the theory is that EVERY team has had to adapt due to this change; we didn't, or couldn't.

But defensive styles aren't equal. It would hurt teams more that place a lot of emphasis on pressuring the perimeter. Like Duke does, except in 2010. I agree it is a very interesting theory.

One thing that could help, if that theory is correct and Coach K doesn't want to give up the style of defense, is more of an emphasis on shot blockers in the middle to make up for the extra space. This is more of a recruiting thing, I guess.

[robed deity]

But defensive styles aren't equal. It would hurt teams more that place a lot of emphasis on pressuring the perimeter. Like Duke does, except in 2010. I agree it is a very interesting theory.

One thing that could help, if that theory is correct and Coach K doesn't want to give up the style of defense, is more of an emphasis on shot blockers in the middle to make up for the extra space. This is more of a recruiting thing, I guess.

Or, using more size and length at the lead and off guards (like Scheyer and Smith, for example) to make it easier to play a little more sagging man to man and still contest 3's. Also a recruiting issue, maybe.

[CDu]

The main problem with the theory is that EVERY team has had to adapt due to this change; we didn't, or couldn't.

That's not a problem with the theory. That IS the theory. The theory is that the reason that our defense has struggled more in recent years is in part because the 3pt line and rules changes made our long-standing defensive strategy much harder to do. Since we stuck with that strategy rather than adjusting, we've struggled.

Other teams either had less aggressive perimeter defense or made adjustments or suffered the same fate.

So what you're basically saying is EXACTLY the theory that Troublemaker was positing: we need to adjust, because the new rules make our defensive strategy MUCH harder to succeed with.

[SoCalDukeFan]

The team could not close out games. I do not know why. As K has said, just did not have IT. I don't blame the coaches.

The team had other issues which are discussed at length on the board. Where I do have a problem with the coaching is not exploiting the depth. The platoon deal worked and was then dropped. I can understand why K does not like the idea, but I don't understand dropping it when it was working. Especially when the alternative was an inconsistent rotation.

SoCal

[Billy Dat]

We finished the season taking 39.7% of our attempts from 3, which was 40th in the country. The only year since 2003 (which is as far back as Pomeroy data goes) where we were higher was 2005 (39.8% of our attempts from 33, 33rd in the country). We were also high in 2012 and 2008, over 38% both years. More often we're in the 33-35% range.

I recall us being at a lower attempt percentage earlier in the season as well, so it may have been that we got more reliant on the 3 as the season went on.

Thanks, again. Is KenPom the only place to get these stats? I am not a paid subscriber...maybe I will next year. Just curious, of the 39 teams ahead of us on the list, how many are top 40 teams? I am wondering if we are an anomaly - are most highly ranked teams taking less of a % of their shots from 3 - a lot less or a little less?

[CDu]

The team could not close out games. I do not know why. As K has said, just did not have IT. I don't blame the coaches.

The team had other issues which are discussed at length on the board. Where I do have a problem with the coaching is not exploiting the depth. The platoon deal worked and was then dropped. I can understand why K does not like the idea, but I don't understand dropping it when it was working. Especially when the alternative was an inconsistent rotation.

SoCal

Yeah, where I think the coaching staff failed this year is:
1. Not adjusting to our defensive issues. I'm not even suggesting zone; I'm saying we never attempted to sag off of the perimeter pressure defense to try to prevent dribble penetration.
2. Never figuring out the optimal rotation for the team. The line-change system definitely seemed to be effective for the brief time we used it. But it is hard to teach and old dog new tricks, and I don't think Coach K ever really embraced the idea.
3. Never identifying an end-of-game strategy. When the game got late, teams played tougher defensively and we wilted. And on the other end, we were in foul trouble and couldn't defend aggressively. Both of those are on the coaching staff for (a) not coming up with an offensive plan down the stretch and (b) not recognizing the value in using our deep bench just a bit more in hopes of avoiding foul trouble for our key players down the stretch.
4. Never figuring out a good recipe for beating the zone on offense. I'm still not sure how we practice a zone offense since we clearly don't practice a zone defense. But it would seem that we'd need to practice both more moving forward, as I expect more and more teams to implement zone against us with the new rules.

[Des Esseintes]

That is a VERY interesting theory, and one that I had never considered. But it makes complete sense. From wing to wing, we're having to cover almost two feet more (note: I'm too lazy to do the geometry) to challenge the 3pt shots. It is only logical that that extra distance causes problems for our rotations.

Along those lines, I think it's interesting that our best defensive team since that rule change occurred in 2010, when we deliberately did not extend pressure on the perimeter (due to a shortage of bodies on the perimeter). Which certainly adds further support to your theory.

I think we may be stuck in a situation where a coach that has long been lauded (and correctly so) for his flexibility is starting to get more set in his ways - especially defensively. He has a defensive system that has worked for over 30 years. But in the past 5-6 years a bunch of factors have worked in concert to threaten the effectiveness of that system:
- extended 3pt line which causes defenders to have to cover more ground in their rotations/recoveries
- increased reliance on "one and done" talent which affects cohesiveness
- the rules changes this year to penalize contact on the perimeter and to make charges more difficult to earn

Hopefully the coaching staff will take a long look at this season (and the past 6 seasons) and assess the situation. Something has to change. I think it needs to be our defensive strategy rather than our recruiting approach. But something has to change.

I want to piggyback on what you and Troublemaker are suggesting, which sounds highly plausible. Moving the 3-point line out may also have hurt us defensively because, by making threes harder to hit, it slightly lowered the *value* of our primary defensive focus. If a taken three returns fewer expected points in the new environment than it used to, that raises the importance of other forms of scoring on the court. Defenses need to shift focus slightly toward those other forms. If a defense remains equivalently predicated on stopping threes as it did before the environment changed, it must be expending its resources less efficiently than before.

[sagegrouse]

Lot of good points here by my colleagues. I would reemphasize one thing:

In the one-and-done era, capabilities of college teams have been leveled, and many more teams are capable of making a deep run in the NCAAs.

Maybe we should have an electronic stamp that reads, "Lot of good teams nowadays!"

In that same vein, I thought we were outplayed by Mercer. After all, we made our 3's. I thought our misses on 2's reflected their defense as much as our jitters. Moreover, Mercer exploited weaknesses in the defense that have been all too obvious throughout the season. I mean, our lack of defense almost saved Bzdelik's job!

Sage

[Des Esseintes]

Lot of good points here by my colleagues. I would reemphasize one thing:

In the one-and-done era, capabilities of college teams have been leveled, and many more teams are capable of making a deep run in the NCAAs.

Maybe we should have an electronic stamp that reads, "Lot of good teams nowadays!"

In that same vein, I thought we were outplayed by Mercer. After all, we made our 3's. I thought our misses on 2's reflected their defense as much as our jitters. Moreover, Mercer exploited weaknesses in the defense that have been all too obvious throughout the season. I mean, our lack of defense almost saved Bzdelik's job!

Sage
Sure, the playing field is leveled, but *somebody* is atop those defensive efficiency rankings. While the gulf between best defensive team and an average defensive may have shrunk in college basketball (is that true? maybe it's true?), that still doesn't explain why Duke in particular has lost its perch as a perennially excellent defensive team. In previous years, we thought the problem was an artifact of roster construction, that we were small on the perimeter and lacked a 6'7" guy to throw at wings. Neither was the case this year, where we had speed and length at multiple positions pretty much all the time, and we yet we played catastrophic, worse-than-ever-before defense. Why? The answer has to be more involved than appeals to parity.

[NYBri]

Lot of good points here by my colleagues. I would reemphasize one thing:

In the one-and-done era, capabilities of college teams have been leveled, and many more teams are capable of making a deep run in the NCAAs.

Maybe we should have an electronic stamp that reads, "Lot of good teams nowadays!"

In that same vein, I thought we were outplayed by Mercer. After all, we made our 3's. I thought our misses on 2's reflected their defense as much as our jitters. Moreover, Mercer exploited weaknesses in the defense that have been all too obvious throughout the season. I mean, our lack of defense almost saved Bzdelik's job!

Sage

That and the fact that other coaches have had a good long look at K and his strengths and weaknesses, and they are adapting...especially when there is little chance that he'll change things up. Notice how effective the line change was...a good part was due to the fact that the other teams weren't prepared. Mercer knew exactly what we were going to try to do and they took it away.

If an opponent knows that we are going to go into our set trip after trip, and we don't perfectly execute, then we are totally capable of going into those long stretches where we just can't score.

[DukeAlumBS]

The team could not close out games. I do not know why. As K has said, just did not have IT. I don't blame the coaches.

The team had other issues which are discussed at length on the board. Where I do have a problem with the coaching is not exploiting the depth. The platoon deal worked and was then dropped. I can understand why K does not like the idea, but I don't understand dropping it when it was working. Especially when the alternative was an inconsistent rotation.

SoCal

The platoon deal caught me off guard as well. It worked. It was to help with a tiring team. This "should not" be the issue. The team gets top notch training from 2 plus hours of practice every day. Weight training. And a daily 6-8 mile run at 7-8 minute mile pace. I do not think this was the flaw in our team regarding being fit.
I have no qualms about this team. Yes, am upset to the max. A bottle of scotch helps with these fevers!

We beat a few great teams this year UCLA, Syracuse, Virginia, Michigan, PITT at home, and of course UNC! We lost the ACC title to Virginia. We went to the tourney and got beat in the first round. We were top 10 all year. I am waiting for next year!
I feel Parker will realize he may need time to work his "complete" game, IMO.
We start again. The coaches did a great job IMO with what they had, what we saw.
They need to key on all aspects of the game IMO. A PG , very athletic. That can score in the low post at will. Or from the 3. And DEFENSE! This we lacked this year IMO.
Again, top ten or less, a great win/loss record, runner up in ACC tourney.
I am looking for next year!
You all have a nice day.

Jimmy

[Atlanta Duke]

Interesting to read this interview with Coach K on how he sees USA Basketball to be his only opportunity to get outside input

USA Basketball gave me an opportunity to work with as good a man as there is in this country, Jerry Colangelo — business-wise, character, passion for the game, I’ve loved my relationship with him.

Jim Tooley [executive director], Sean Ford [national team director] … now you throw in [coaches] Jim Boeheim, Nate McMillan, Mike D’Antoni.

Who do I share ideas with, as one of the top coaches? People aren’t going to share ideas with me. Which clinic do I go to? I don’t go to clinics, I give clinics. Now I have a chance to work with these great minds.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jou...-Sit-Down.aspx

If that is going to be the extent of the outside input there may be a problem - Coach Boeheim certainly knows zone defense but there is no indication that expertise is being applied at Duke

It may have been a bygone time, but when another coaching legend hit a rough patch in the mid-80s (although not as rough as what was ahead) he sought outside advice

[Joe] Paterno sent his staff to the University of Miami to study how one of the more successful football programs in the 1980's was run. He also asked Buddy Ryan, the defensive coordinator of the Chicago Bears, to evaluate the Penn State system

http://www.nytimes.com/1985/10/14/sp...s-paterno.html

And Bill Belichick has consulted with top shelf college coaches

[Nick] Saban served four years under Belichick in Cleveland as his defensive coordinator and Belichick often picks Saban’s brain on defense. [Urban] Meyer and Belichick met when Meyer took the job at Florida in the winter of 2005, and the two trade off-season visits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/05/sp...05coaches.html

I assume K is not in a bubble but if he really thinks this past season was a good one by his standards (and he was not just saying it out of support for the players) I wonder

[bedeviled]

The "Thank you, Seniors and whomever decides to go" thread is already halfway down page 2. It has, thus far, only accumulated about a page of appreciation since the end of the season. This strikes me as unusual for DBR. Also, in recollection, it seems like every year is ended with some comments like "my favorite Duke team" or "my favorite player ever"....not so much so this time.

Why is that? For me, I'm pretty sure that I did not enjoy this season as much as past years (early season and Syracuse Part One being exceptions). I can think of some reasonable possibilities why that may be so, but what keeps striking me most is the thought that we didn't play with much joy. I think Coach K's mental departure was a terrifically bad combination with the mentality of this team. And, on tv anyway, I didn't see assistants step up to take on that role of enthusiasm generator.

Aside: I think there will be a significant change when Coach K departs, even if the successor is from the family tree. He has previously made comments that his particular strength is the mental-emotional charge.

Anyway, during the season and especially now, I found myself jealous of the joy that other teams played with. It's such a shame. Like everyone else, I am beyond grateful that a person/player like Parker is representing Duke, but I think I should be MUCH more appreciative of getting to watch him play than I am (EDIT: Not due to Jabari in particular, but dynamics in general). The kid is remarkable; it should have been quite a pleasure to share in that. But, from my view, there wasn't much evident pleasure/joy/challenge/fire for basketball this season (though there was personal anger, pouting, and agitation). Whether or not it could/should have been different, given the unfortunate circumstance, I think it does fall on the coaching staff. We were in every game, and that enthusiasm could have gone a very long way in assisting our play.

Along those lines, I would like to say, "thank you seniors for your enthusiasm and smiles! I appreciate your daily contributions on and off the court."

[wsb3]

The team could not close out games.SoCal

Amen to that.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The "Thank you, Seniors and whomever decides to go" thread is already halfway down page 2. It has, thus far, only accumulated about a page of appreciation since the end of the season. This strikes me as unusual for DBR. Also, in recollection, it seems like every year is ended with some comments like "my favorite Duke team" or "my favorite player ever"....not so much so this time.

Why is that?

Along those lines, I would like to say, "thank you seniors for your enthusiasm and smiles! I appreciate your daily contributions on and off the court."
IF you would reply your comments to the "Thank you seniors thread", which you haven't posted in at all, then it would be at the top right now, instead of "already halfway down page 2". Just an observation.

[Huh?]

I really think we missed Chris Collins this year.

[CR9]

I really think we missed Chris Collins this year.

So true and incredibly understated (at least from what I've seen recently. I'm sure someone's brought it up)

[NashvilleDevil]

The "Thank you, Seniors and whomever decides to go" thread is already halfway down page 2. It has, thus far, only accumulated about a page of appreciation since the end of the season. This strikes me as unusual for DBR. Also, in recollection, it seems like every year is ended with some comments like "my favorite Duke team" or "my favorite player ever"....not so much so this time.

Why is that? For me, I'm pretty sure that I did not enjoy this season as much as past years (early season and Syracuse Part One being exceptions). I can think of some reasonable possibilities why that may be so, but what keeps striking me most is the thought that we didn't play with much joy. I think Coach K's mental departure was a terrifically bad combination with the mentality of this team. And, on tv anyway, I didn't see assistants step up to take on that role of enthusiasm generator.

Aside: I think there will be a significant change when Coach K departs, even if the successor is from the family tree. He has previously made comments that his particular strength is the mental-emotional charge.

Anyway, during the season and especially now, I found myself jealous of the joy that other teams played with. It's such a shame. Like everyone else, I am beyond grateful that a person/player like Parker is representing Duke, but I think I should be MUCH more appreciative of getting to watch him play than I am (EDIT: Not due to Jabari in particular, but dynamics in general). The kid is remarkable; it should have been quite a pleasure to share in that. But, from my view, there wasn't much evident pleasure/joy/challenge/fire for basketball this season (though there was personal anger, pouting, and agitation). Whether or not it could/should have been different, given the unfortunate circumstance, I think it does fall on the coaching staff. We were in every game, and that enthusiasm could have gone a very long way in assisting our play.

Along those lines, I would like to say, "thank you seniors for your enthusiasm and smiles! I appreciate your daily contributions on and off the court."

You mean the mental departure that probably coincided with the sudden passing of his brother?

[bedeviled]

You mean the mental departure that probably coincided with the sudden passing of his brother?Yes. Perhaps I should have made that more clear. I think the passing of his brother resulted in a down year, emotionally, from the top down. And, the emotional characteristics of our players were not of the type to buoy the team and their play.

[SheltonBob]

I really think we missed Chris Collins this year.

I am a devoted Duke basketball fan and grad - class of 1978. My first Duke game at Cameron was watching Tenn. with the Bernie and Earnie show and we had Tate Armstrong!! I have watched virtually ever televised game since, been to Cameron a few times, been to every game in the NE since, saw the Laettner games in person (UConn and Kentucky), and even buy the B.C. 5 game season ticket package at B.C. so I can attend the Duke game. Coach K has brought me more pleasure than I could ever have dreamed about. He is in the Top Five of his profession (or better) EVER - and how many of us can say that about ourselves in our professions? He has won 983 games more than I have - But we are allowed to critique him with the same class and dignity as he probably critques himself.

For whatever reasons - this was not a good year for him as coach - he has admitted that in some of the press conferences. So here goes - my critque: MARSHALL PLUMLEE ("MPIII) - been saying it all year. MPIII gives his best, and his best is not all star caliber - yet (2 more years to grow +). But we needed MPIII for 15-20 minutes per game. We needed him to make mistakes and learn and develop to the best he could be. (First guess - not a second guess). The key that MPIII had to offer was that he allowed Jabari to play the 4 (sorry - I know #ing positions is verboten) and Rodney the #3. And with Rasheed and Quin (our best 5 in my opinion) could play (not dissing Amile who in my view would play the other 23 minutes at the #5). And then when MPIII did play, he often replaced Jabari and many times he played in those lineups with Tyler - leaving us only 3 viable options to score in lessening MPIII's effectiveness.

I was disappointed when "K" said at the Presser yesterday that we were too small - we were,, but we did not take advantage of the height we had. I disagreed all year with the lack of time given to MPIII.

But having said that, I will get over yesterday in about a month or six, and am already looking forward to 2014-2015 and for Coach K to analyze this year and continue to turn the "next page" and maintain "toughness" and for me to be SO PROUD OF WHO WE ARE AND who our coach is!! Enjoy K folks - we may not hve him for too many more years as our coach!!

And for perspective - everyone at Va. Tech is excited about the new coach Buzz Williams. Great hire BUT - WE HAVE COACH k - and we are 983X more excited than any other team could be.

Next Page - see ya'll in October, 2014

THANK YOU DUKE BBALL TEAM 2013-2014 FOR EVERYTHING - and a special tip of the chapeu to Andre Dawkins!!

[MChambers]

Additionally, for further setup to a point/theory I'll be making soon, here are Duke's defensive ranks in the past dozen years (the kenpom era):



Year
D-Rnk


2003
16


2004
4


2005
3


2006
18


2007
7


2008
8


2009
36


2010
8


2011
21


2012
81


2013
31


2014
114



Looking at that table, one might ask: Was there something that changed in 2009 that caused Duke's defense to be generally less effective over the past six seasons?

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season.

My theory is a ridiculously simple one that I'm not sure I believe myself: The extra bit of court area our defense has had to cover since 2009 has caused our defensive rotations to suffer. That is, help defenders are coming from a little bit farther away than they had been prior to the 3-pt line extension, and therefore, sometimes help defenders arrive a little bit later than what they have to be in order to properly contest the offensive player, who is often someone that has driven into the lane.
These are interesting statistics. Having said that, Duke at its best has always pressured the ball far outside the three point line (except perhaps in 2010, when it did not extend so far). I don't think the extended three point arc changed anything in that regard.

I agree, however, that it's been very disappointing and puzzling how the defensive rankings have dropped. I'm sure the coaching staff is going to give that a great deal of thought.

Interesting that Harvard's defense is ranked #31 in Pomeroy, with far less talent. Northwestern is #17 (who would have thought Chris Collins would be a good defensive coach, based on his playing days?).

[Kedsy]

Looking at that table, one might ask: Was there something that changed in 2009 that caused Duke's defense to be generally less effective over the past six seasons?

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season.

My theory is a ridiculously simple one that I'm not sure I believe myself: The extra bit of court area our defense has had to cover since 2009 has caused our defensive rotations to suffer. That is, help defenders are coming from a little bit farther away than they had been prior to the 3-pt line extension, and therefore, sometimes help defenders arrive a little bit later than what they have to be in order to properly contest the offensive player, who is often someone that has driven into the lane.

It's an interesting theory, and I think there might be some truth in it, but let me throw in a wrinkle. The following shows our forced turnover% since 1997 (shows what percentage of possessions we've forced opposing turnovers).

2014: 18.5
2013: 20.4
2012: 18.5
2011: 21.0
2010: 21.4
2009: 23.5
2008: 24.7
2007: 22.1
2006: 22.5
2005: 21.8
2004: 24.4
2003: 24.4
2002: 25.7
2001: 24.9
2000: 23.7
1999: 23.1
1998: 27.0
1997: 25.8

I was too lazy to go any further back, but the last five years are the five worst years in the table, with this year tying 2012 for Duke's worst turnover percentage (by a lot) in at least the last 18 years. (Obviously in 2010 we made up for the lack of turnovers in other ways, but in the past four years it seems we've been playing "traditional" Duke D except without forcing the turnovers.

It's still possible to blame it on the extra space inside the three-point line, but it doesn't seem quite as reasonable to do so. So I have no idea what the answer is, but the difference (for example) between 2003's defense (#16) and 2014's (#114) is almost entirely due to the difference in turnovers. If we'd turned opponents over at the 2003 rate, our opponents would have approximately six fewer possessions to score on, which would translate to 5 or 6 fewer points a game. Which is a lot.

[roywhite]

It's an interesting theory, and I think there might be some truth in it, but let me throw in a wrinkle. The following shows our forced turnover% since 1997 (shows what percentage of possessions we've forced opposing turnovers).....

I was too lazy to go any further back, but the last five years are the five worst years in the table, with this year tying 2012 for Duke's worst turnover percentage (by a lot) in at least the last 18 years. (Obviously in 2010 we made up for the lack of turnovers in other ways, but in the past four years it seems we've been playing "traditional" Duke D except without forcing the turnovers.

It's still possible to blame it on the extra space inside the three-point line, but it doesn't seem quite as reasonable to do so. So I have no idea what the answer is, but the difference (for example) between 2003's defense (#16) and 2014's (#114) is almost entirely due to the difference in turnovers. If we'd turned opponents over at the 2003 rate, our opponents would have approximately six fewer possessions to score on, which would translate to 5 or 6 fewer points a game. Which is a lot.

Interesting; it seems that we have seen a widespread template that teams use against Duke:
plenty of ball screens
dribble penetration
patience

Is it this approach that has resulted in Duke forcing fewer turnovers?

[cspan37421]

It's an interesting theory, and I think there might be some truth in it, but let me throw in a wrinkle. The following shows our forced turnover% since 1997 (shows what percentage of possessions we've forced opposing turnovers).

2014: 18.5
2013: 20.4
2012: 18.5
2011: 21.0
2010: 21.4
2009: 23.5
2008: 24.7
2007: 22.1
2006: 22.5
2005: 21.8
2004: 24.4
2003: 24.4
2002: 25.7
2001: 24.9
2000: 23.7
1999: 23.1
1998: 27.0
1997: 25.8

I was too lazy to go any further back, but the last five years are the five worst years in the table, with this year tying 2012 for Duke's worst turnover percentage (by a lot) in at least the last 18 years. (Obviously in 2010 we made up for the lack of turnovers in other ways, but in the past four years it seems we've been playing "traditional" Duke D except without forcing the turnovers.

It's still possible to blame it on the extra space inside the three-point line, but it doesn't seem quite as reasonable to do so. So I have no idea what the answer is, but the difference (for example) between 2003's defense (#16) and 2014's (#114) is almost entirely due to the difference in turnovers. If we'd turned opponents over at the 2003 rate, our opponents would have approximately six fewer possessions to score on, which would translate to 5 or 6 fewer points a game. Which is a lot.
Interesting. Data source?

Also noteworthy how 2010 was not terribly high either, historically, and we won a NC that year.

But it's pretty clear from watching games we've had little on-ball pressure defense. Our best guy doing that, IMO, was TT, and he was a bit foul-prone in doing so.

Why would this be? Other than being foul-prone, I suspect the others who didn't attempt it at TT's rate either feel they can't recover in time or the defense behind them would not help in time. Or both.

[bedeviled]

Interesting. Data source?
You can find the year by year data on Statsheet (http://statsheet.com/mcb/teams/duke/team_stats?season=1996-1997&type=all). Statsheet doesn't go back further than 1997, but, based on steals, I expect TO% for 94, 95, and 96 to be equal or worse to the last few years...eventhough we were playing Duke-style defense prior to the extended 3pt line.

[bedeviled]

Looking at that table, one might ask: Was there something that changed in 2009 that caused Duke's defense to be generally less effective over the past six seasons?

In fact, there WAS a major change to college basketball that was implemented starting with the 2009 season. It was an offensive rule change that ironically might have ended up affecting our defense given how we choose to play defense. Beginning in 2009, the 3-point arc was extended to 20'9" from the previous 19'9" that had been in place since the 1987 season

Another major change to college basketball that may or may not be pertinent is Johnny Dawkins leaving to coach Stanford, starting with the 2009 season.

[tommy]

After the open practice before the Troy football game, I thought we were loaded yet wondered how it would all come together. It seemed a key would be how K would choose to maximize and use the assemblage of talent ... b/c it wasn't necessarily apparent like it is some years (when you pretty much know who will be playing what roles). For this year, I thought we should've done something a bit untraditional for Duke and just played in waves -- sending wave after wave at folks, using everybody a fair amount, creating a sense of manic urgency, playing up tempo on both O and D. We didn't choose that path. All that said, we are awfully spoiled -- many would love the level of success Duke had this year.

In past years, it was always Duke who clearly could be seen as the team that wanted it more, that got more of the 50/50 balls, that got after it so hard to impose its will on the game. Not this year.

In fact, over the years many have said that this was the defining characteristic of Duke Basketball: that Duke's kids just played so, so hard, every night out. They were just relentless, and separated themselves from their opponents by (among other things) just out-working them and out-wanting-it them. I did not see that at all this year, and frankly, haven't seen it in a number of years. Which I guess is why nobody tends to say those types of things anymore.

[tommy]

One more thought about rotation before retiring for the night. Not only did Coach K move away from the platooning as the season came to a close, but he also made some very curious moves in the ACC Tournament that I didn't understand at all. After settling on Marshall as our primary big off the bench, Coach suddenly decided to reinsert Josh back into the rotation after sitting him during the majority of the 2nd half of the year. I found that strange and felt it hurt our chemistry a bit. The second decision, which also manifested in the ACC Tournament, was the demotion of Andre. My main point of contention would be that if we don't have a settled rotation by the time the ACC Tournament rolls around, and are instead tinkering with it (somewhat drastically if you ask me), that speaks to instability and unsureness. It just seems like we should have, by the ACC Tournament, just gone with what got us there. It wasn't, imho, the time to be tinkering with the rotation. But again, I don't see what the coaches see in practice. So caveat acknowledged.

How bout failing to substitute at all in the last 10 minutes of a game, when you're in the midst of a 3-games-in-3-days tournament? I thought that was bizarre.

[_Gary]

How bout failing to substitute at all in the last 10 minutes of a game, when you're in the midst of a 3-games-in-3-days tournament? I thought that was bizarre.

Without a doubt. I'm not about to try and explain or defend that.

[Atlanta Duke]

With regard to the disappearance of Andre, didn't he start the first game of the ACC tournament?

And with regard to substitutions, was there an explanation for Jabari sitting when Duke was on defense during the last 5 minutes of the Mercer game? At that point I recall he still had 3 fouls and presumably would have been of assistance if Duke went over to offense after managing to make a stop.

[Kedsy]

Interesting. Data source?

Yeah, bedeviled is right. I used statsheet. The information prior to 1997 is calculable (using GoDuke stats) as TOs/(possessions). So far I've been too lazy to calculate possessions for the earlier years, but if I get the inclination at some point perhaps I'll try.

[Troublemaker]

...but in the past four years it seems we've been playing "traditional" Duke D except without forcing the turnovers.

It's still possible to blame it on the extra space inside the three-point line, but it doesn't seem quite as reasonable to do so.

Oh, I agree with you that forcing fewer turnovers has been a problem for our defense in recent years. It's not immediately obvious to me, though, why the extended 3-pt line (and theorized poorer defensive rotations resulting from it) couldn't have been a major contributor to the decrease in turnovers. Firstly, fewer charges taken directly decreases the turnover count. (It would be interesting to see whether there has been a decline in team charges taken since the 3-pt line was extended, but as far as I know, charge data is not available.) Also, I think if help defense is there on time, sometimes you force extra passes that can be picked off or go out-of-bounds. An attacking offensive player might take an extra step and get called for a travel if he sees a help defender jump into the picture. Things of that nature.

But, in any case, I would definitely agree that a multi-faceted explanation of Duke's defensive decline over the past few seasons (including possibly just randomness being a factor) is preferable to putting the burden of explanation on any one thing.

[mo.st.dukie]

I really think we missed Chris Collins this year.

He was on the coaching staff in 2012 when we had an equally bad defense and also lost in the 1st round. He was also on the coaching staff in 2007 when we were a 6 seed and also lost in the 1st round.

[NSDukeFan]

I'm curious as to what the overall trend line in turnovers has been the last few years. It seems to me that more teams are going with more deliberate offenses that may result in fewer turnovers than running teams. This is just a hypothesis that teams try to value the ball more and therefore it may be harder to succeed with a defense that tries to force turnovers.

[roywhite]

I'm curious as to what the overall trend line in turnovers has been the last few years. It seems to me that more teams are going with more deliberate offenses that may result in fewer turnovers than running teams. This is just a hypothesis that teams try to value the ball more and therefore it may be harder to succeed with a defense that tries to force turnovers.

Maybe so, and perhaps we should hope for a rule change to reduce the shot clock. Don't know the numbers, but often it seemed like Duke played good defense for a while, but opponents got quality shots late in the shot clock.

The shot clock issue is not just about Duke. I don't see why NCAA Men's basketball should have a longer shot clock than FIBA, or even a longer shot clock than NCAA Women's basketball.

[oldnavy]

Maybe so, and perhaps we should hope for a rule change to reduce the shot clock. Don't know the numbers, but often it seemed like Duke played good defense for a while, but opponents got quality shots late in the shot clock.

The shot clock issue is not just about Duke. I don't see why NCAA Men's basketball should have a longer shot clock than FIBA, or even a longer shot clock than NCAA Women's basketball.

PLUS, it would give the refs less time to call ticky tacky fouls! :rolleyes:

[pfrduke]

I'm curious as to what the overall trend line in turnovers has been the last few years. It seems to me that more teams are going with more deliberate offenses that may result in fewer turnovers than running teams. This is just a hypothesis that teams try to value the ball more and therefore it may be harder to succeed with a defense that tries to force turnovers.

Trending very slightly downward with a huge drop this season (likely attributable to the change in foul emphasis, which reduced both offensive foul turnovers resulting from charges and turnovers resulting from defensive pressure on the perimeter that was harder to do without fouling):



2014: 18.3%
2013: 20.0%
2012: 20.2%
2011: 20.1%
2010: 20.4%
2009: 20.4%
2008: 20.9%
2007: 21.2%
2006: 21.3%
2005: 21.3%
2004: 21.4%
2003: 21.5%

[Wheat/"/"/"]

The real problem lately, IMO, has been the interior play....on both ends of the floor.
(Bet some of you thought I'd say post play;).

It just hasn't been good, and the best teams have big strong, aggressive guys inside. It's been masked somewhat the past few years with Plumlee's being so athletic and pretty good defenders, but they were not complete players, lacking scoring moves close to the rim that could spread the floor and the will to learn them.

It's no coincidence that when Zubek stepped up, Duke made it to the top.

I will be watching closely next season to see how K uses Okafor, who's supposed to be a true center and the exact sort of player I'm talking about that the best teams need.

[devilnfla]

He was on the coaching staff in 2012 when we had an equally bad defense and also lost in the 1st round. He was also on the coaching staff in 2007 when we were a 6 seed and also lost in the 1st round.

This team was way more talented than those 2 teams.

[devilnfla]

The platoon deal caught me off guard as well. It worked. It was to help with a tiring team. This "should not" be the issue. The team gets top notch training from 2 plus hours of practice every day. Weight training. And a daily 6-8 mile run at 7-8 minute mile pace. I do not think this was the flaw in our team regarding being fit.
I have no qualms about this team. Yes, am upset to the max. A bottle of scotch helps with these fevers!

We beat a few great teams this year UCLA, Syracuse, Virginia, Michigan, PITT at home, and of course UNC! We lost the ACC title to Virginia. We went to the tourney and got beat in the first round. We were top 10 all year. I am waiting for next year!
I feel Parker will realize he may need time to work his "complete" game, IMO.
We start again. The coaches did a great job IMO with what they had, what we saw.
They need to key on all aspects of the game IMO. A PG , very athletic. That can score in the low post at will. Or from the 3. And DEFENSE! This we lacked this year IMO.
Again, top ten or less, a great win/loss record,
runner up in ACC tourney.
I am looking for next year!
You all have a nice day.

Jimmy

I wouldn't call UCLA, Pitt or UNC great teams. The others are debatable but don't think they're great either. Also regarding being in the top 10 all year. That streak was broken early in the season and we nearly fell out of the top 25.

[vrob90]

I am beginning to worry a bit about the dynamic around Coach K at Duke in terms of constructive criticism and accountability. It's one thing to respect and admire his stellar record, it's another thing to fall into a virtual cult of personality where criticism is not tolerated easily.

Let's not forget he made $7.2m last year, far and away more so than any other coach in college basketball (Pitino second with 5m) Expectations should be high when you pay someone the most of all his peers, and I was disheartened to hear him call this a very good year overall in his press conference. I doubt that in any other area if activity you could finish the year way below average in terms of your usual performance and yet be able to just brush it off like that. For Duke devoted fans, alumni, and/ or donors, I think he should at least try and explain all of us in future weeks his conclusions about why we got bounced in the first round of the tourney, and address some of the excellent criticism about his defensive strategy made in this thread.

This seems to me too a pretty sensible comment. Losses like the one to Mercer at the beginning of the NCAA tournament, which has happened before, can't happen too much more without taking significant luster off the Duke basketball program. Whether justified or not, the general expectation was that Duke would administer a total beat down to Mercer. It's difficult to explain to most folks why that didn't happen.

[cspan37421]

Maybe so, and perhaps we should hope for a rule change to reduce the shot clock. Don't know the numbers, but often it seemed like Duke played good defense for a while, but opponents got quality shots late in the shot clock.

The shot clock issue is not just about Duke. I don't see why NCAA Men's basketball should have a longer shot clock than FIBA, or even a longer shot clock than NCAA Women's basketball.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I feel compelled to comment on this. I like the shot clock in college just the way it is. To me, the NBA is too frenetic of a pace, the games are too long, the season is too long, the playoffs are too long. A short shot clock like in the NBA fosters sloppy play on both ends. I'm not saying a shot clock isn't needed - it is - but I find the game more pleasing when just enough time is allowed to enjoy seeing offensive ball movement unfold and perhaps a beautiful play take place. I don't get the emphasis on offense at any cost, either, but then again, I don't get why Premier League Football (soccer) isn't more popular ... there's a lot of dramatic tension as an offensive attack unfolds and either does or does not lead to a goal. Of course, no one wants the four corners back. There's a balance to be struck.

The other matters I cite are related. When the games, season, and playoffs are too long, each individual component means less ... the potential for injury goes up, and I suspect the longevity of stars goes down. To me, the college game is darn near perfect as it is. I might cut the timeouts - when added to the media timeouts, it disrupts the flow too much. But I definitely would not like a 24 second clock. 30 might be an acceptable compromise, but only if other levels of basketball went to it.

To tie back to the thread (or A thread - there are so many good ones as we engage in our post-mortem analysis) - good point that Collins was also on the staff when the 2012 team was not very good on defense too. But I don't think it's accurate to say they were every bit as bad defensively as this team. Not by the rankings anyway. And I don't know which staff member was responsible for what during what year. But if the staff is the same, if the philosophy has been the same, that really puts it on the players.

And I agree that K stating that this has been a very good year rings odd - but consider the alternative ... do you want him throwing the players under the bus in public? I believe there's another ACC coach who regularly gets castigated around here for doing that, dadgummit. Moreover, I seriously doubt he's saying those words privately. In fact, I take his reported comment that "I don't even know who will be on this team next year" as potentially a shot across the bow to all players and coaches in the program, not merely a reflection of the uncertainty about Jabari and Rodney. I could be reading way too much into this ... but as someone noted, when a big business performs this poorly in a key area, heads tend to roll.

[tbyers11]

The real problem lately, IMO, has been the interior play....on both ends of the floor.
(Bet some of you thought I'd say post play;).

It just hasn't been good, and the best teams have big strong, aggressive guys inside. It's been masked somewhat the past few years with Plumlee's being so athletic and pretty good defenders, but they were not complete players, lacking scoring moves close to the rim that could spread the floor and the will to learn them.

It's no coincidence that when Zubek stepped up, Duke made it to the top.

I will be watching closely next season to see how K uses Okafor, who's supposed to be a true center and the exact sort of player I'm talking about that the best teams need.

Yeah, because Zoubek executed so many scoring post moves within your magical close distance of the rim. He rarely had the ball entered to him in the post. His defensive presence and offensive and defensive rebounding abilities were key to the success of the 2010 team but IMO his offensive post moves did not have much impact.

If you don't think that Mason's post moves last year were effective at spreading the floor regardless of how close they began to the rim you either didn't watch many games (quite likely) or we have totally different definitions of effective floor spacing.

Your comment about Mason not having the will to learn post moves is ludicrous hyperbole. The improvement in patience, execution and timing of his offensive post play over his career was quite impressive.

That being said the lack of offensive post presence was a major shortcoming with this year's team and I am interested to see Okafor operate in the post next year.

[AnotherNYCDukeFan]

I'm not sure of the proper thread for this, but it's interesting to see that Dawkins is running a zone against Kansas. I seem to recall Harvard running it last night, too. It definitely seems like the disciples are less wed to the pressure man-to-man than K.

[CR9]

I'm not sure of the proper thread for this, but it's interesting to see that Dawkins is running a zone against Kansas. I seem to recall Harvard running it last night, too. It definitely seems like the disciples are less wed to the pressure man-to-man than K.

K is the only coach in the country who seems stuck in his man-to-man ways. Boeheim the same with zone. 2 old codgers.

[NashvilleDevil]

K is the only coach in the country who seems stuck in his man-to-man ways. Boeheim the same with zone. 2 old codgers.

Yeah those old codgers with all their wins, titles and final fours.

[CR9]

Yeah those old codgers with all their wins, titles and final fours.

You realize there's nothing derogatory about the word codger, right?

[ohjjio]

One of the most frustrating "in game" coaching decisions to me has been Coach K calling a timeout when Duke is on a run. 5+ years ago, no coaches would ever call a timeout when on a run. In fact, one of Dick Vitale's favorite sayings is "CALL A TO BABY!!" I'm pretty sure he's not talking about the coach whose team is firing on all cylinders.

I understand that in the last 2 minutes of the game, when you're trying to mount a comeback, you may call a timeout to set up the press defense and make a defensive substitution. But, I have noticed Coach K does this with 5 minutes or more on the clock and doesn't make any substitutions. Several times this season (and the last few seasons), Duke will go on a mini run and then Coach K calls timeout and in almost every situation, the run ends and the opponent sets up a play and scores.

Many times, I feel like the opponent was probably going to use one of their timeouts, or perhaps try to get another possession giving Duke another chance to keep the run going. I'll try to do some research and look at the box scores to see what kind of a results have come after calling the timeout.

Is this something else that he has brought back from the International game?

[4Gen]

On Coach K's show today, it was stated he has more tournament wins than any other coach. Somehow I didn't get the fuzzies.

[Newton_14]

This seems to me too a pretty sensible comment. Losses like the one to Mercer at the beginning of the NCAA tournament, which has happened before, can't happen too much more without taking significant luster off the Duke basketball program. Whether justified or not, the general expectation was that Duke would administer a total beat down to Mercer. It's difficult to explain to most folks why that didn't happen.

General expectation of who, exactly? I know very few people who know basketball well that expected this Duke team to "administer a total beat down to Mercer". Most recognized that a Mercer team that won their championship beating Florida Gulf coast on their own court in the tournament final for their league, and whose top 8 players were all either 4th, 5th, or 6th year Seniors was not going to just roll over and die. Did you not learn anything at all from the Vermont game? The Notre Dame game? This Duke team, while talented was certainly no juggernaut and were vulnerable to losing to any decent to good team, while also being capable of beating most anyone in the country. They played a veteran Mercer team with more size, and that felt they should have beaten last years FLorida Gulf Coast team that made a lot of noise in last years tourney.

Should Duke have won? Certainly. But to perceive that Mercer had no shot at all, or to perceive that Duke was just going to roll the ball out and win by 30 is ludicrous. Several analysts from ESPN and cbs predicted ahead of time that Mercer would give Duke problems, and Duke would have to play well to win.

As for the lost luster comments, the luster is gone from the following programs then in additon to Duke. Kentucky, Ohio St, Syracuse, UNC, Kansas, Arizona, Georgetown, as all have lost in the tournament (NIT or NCAA) to teams not even as good as Mercer. If getting upset by a cinderella is the cardinal sin, I know a lot of programs that will bust hell wide open.

[NSDukeFan]

Trending very slightly downward with a huge drop this season (likely attributable to the change in foul emphasis, which reduced both offensive foul turnovers resulting from charges and turnovers resulting from defensive pressure on the perimeter that was harder to do without fouling):



2014: 18.3%
2013: 20.0%
2012: 20.2%
2011: 20.1%
2010: 20.4%
2009: 20.4%
2008: 20.9%
2007: 21.2%
2006: 21.3%
2005: 21.3%
2004: 21.4%
2003: 21.5%


Thank you very much for pulling this up. I assume the earl season focus on hand checks may have been a factor in this year's big decline in TO %. This would also appear to make it a bit more difficult to play coach K's preferred extended pressure D to generate turnovers.

[dukelifer]

This seems to me too a pretty sensible comment. Losses like the one to Mercer at the beginning of the NCAA tournament, which has happened before, can't happen too much more without taking significant luster off the Duke basketball program. Whether justified or not, the general expectation was that Duke would administer a total beat down to Mercer. It's difficult to explain to most folks why that didn't happen.

Did the luster go away from the UNC program when they went to the NIT? Did it go away from Kansas with back to back exits in 2005 and 2006? Duke's luster is just fine.

[roywhite]

This seems to me too a pretty sensible comment. Losses like the one to Mercer at the beginning of the NCAA tournament, which has happened before, can't happen too much more without taking significant luster off the Duke basketball program. Whether justified or not, the general expectation was that Duke would administer a total beat down to Mercer. It's difficult to explain to most folks why that didn't happen.

So our losses will no longer be headlines or leading stories on ESPN?

Opponent fans will stop rushing the court when they beat Duke?

[MaxAMillion]

On Coach K's show today, it was stated he has more tournament wins than any other coach. Somehow I didn't get the fuzzies.

Why not? If Coach K's accomplishments don't give you the fuzzies then I assume no coach's resume makes you feel good.

[MaxAMillion]

K is the only coach in the country who seems stuck in his man-to-man ways. Boeheim the same with zone. 2 old codgers.

Well pointing out that someone is old and eccentric (which is what a codger is) doesn't sound like a positive. Most coaches are beholden to their system. Pitino plays man to man and I don't hear many complaints about it now because they are winning. Of course just a few years ago Louisville was getting bounced in round one and their fans were complaining about Pitino. Izzo also runs his system consistently and K has beaten MSU almost every time they play (including last year). Duke just made the final eight last year,but I guess that was in spite of the old codger coach.

[Atlanta Duke]

Well pointing out that someone is old and eccentric (which is what a codger is) doesn't sound like a positive. Most coaches are beholden to their system. Pitino plays man to man and I don't hear many complaints about it now because they are winning. Of course just a few years ago Louisville was getting bounced in round one and their fans were complaining about Pitino. Izzo also runs his system consistently and K has beaten MSU almost every time they play (including last year). Duke just made the final eight last year,but I guess that was in spite of the old codger coach.

Maybe K can be forced to take a buyout - Johnny and Tommy are ready to sit in the big chair at Cameron:)

Before the flames start, I could not find a sarcasm emoticon to post

[devildeac]

Maybe K can be forced to take a buyout - Johnny and Tommy are ready to sit in the big chair at Cameron:)

Before the flames start, I could not find a sarcasm emoticon to post

This one would probably be the closest:

:rolleyes:

[CR9]

Well pointing out that someone is old and eccentric (which is what a codger is) doesn't sound like a positive. Most coaches are beholden to their system. Pitino plays man to man and I don't hear many complaints about it now because they are winning. Of course just a few years ago Louisville was getting bounced in round one and their fans were complaining about Pitino. Izzo also runs his system consistently and K has beaten MSU almost every time they play (including last year). Duke just made the final eight last year,but I guess that was in spite of the old codger coach.

It's hardly a derogatory comment. K is old. He's pushing 7 decades on this planet. Louisville can play that kind of defense. They have athletes at the guard position and shot blockers in the post should someone get beat. MSU only plays a press-man style against team who can't threaten them off the bounce. Whenever they play an athletic team (see, Kentucky this season) they squeezed into the lane and made Kentucky shoot over them. Until Randle took over in the second half, it was working.

Playing man-to-man is fine and all if you're not giving away lay-ups because you're playing passing lanes and your guards can't stay in front of anyone.

[roywhite]

It's hardly a derogatory comment. K is old. He's pushing 7 decades on this planet. Louisville can play that kind of defense. They have athletes at the guard position and shot blockers in the post should someone get beat. MSU only plays a press-man style against team who can't threaten them off the bounce. Whenever they play an athletic team (see, Kentucky this season) they squeezed into the lane and made Kentucky shoot over them. Until Randle took over in the second half, it was working.

Playing man-to-man is fine and all if you're not giving away lay-ups because you're playing passing lanes and your guards can't stay in front of anyone.

Just what are you saying here?

Coach K is too old to be effective?
USA Basketball has made a mistake in selecting him as coach for the FIBA World Championships and 2016 Olympics?
It's time for someone else to take over at Duke?

I don't believe any of that, but I'm not clear what your position is.

[TNDukeFan]

So our losses will no longer be headlines or leading stories on ESPN?

Opponent fans will stop rushing the court when they beat Duke?

They were in awe when K stopped by to congratulate them.

The luster's still there.

[CR9]

Just what are you saying here?

Coach K is too old to be effective?
USA Basketball has made a mistake in selecting him as coach for the FIBA World Championships and 2016 Olympics?
It's time for someone else to take over at Duke?

I don't believe any of that, but I'm not clear what your position is.

All I'm saying is he's old. You people are reading into it far too much. He's stuck in his ways because he's old. That's it.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Why not? If Coach K's accomplishments don't give you the fuzzies then I assume no coach's resume makes you feel good.
I totally understand what 4Gen is saying, and don't fault him for it one bit. K had that title before the tourney started, and he had it after he didn't win one game this year. It is nicer to enjoy bragging about your guy when he pads his stats. What he said is not a negative statement, he is simply less excited by the announcement.

[roywhite]

All I'm saying is he's old. You people are reading into it far too much. He's stuck in his ways because he's old. That's it.

Or, you could say that he has great experience and strong principles.

You seem to be criticizing him on the basis of being old. He's less of a coach because of his age?

Really, this guy, the game is passing him by? He's not adapting well?

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

As someone who is a contemporary of Coach K's, I find the comments about age to be alarmingly simple and incomplete. Perhaps the poster who brought the matter of age into the conversation could illuminate what this focus on age is about. (At this point, I would add a cute little emoticon with eye lashes batting if it were available.)

[31andcounting]

Lifelong Blue Devil fan but this is my first time ever posting on the message boards. Heck, this season is the first time I've even looked at them. But the way things have started to go just have me a bit worried - I don't think the sudden welcome mat for one-and-dones is benefitting us. Nor do I think taking Hood was worth it. In talking about the decisions K has made in the past few years, one that I question a lot is the decision to take Hood as a transfer knowing he was only going to be there for two years (and was only going to play for one year). It seems silly to take someone for just 2 years of practice and 1 year of game play. If you're going to take a transfer, you should get more out of them than just one year of playing. Don't get me wrong - Hood is a great player, but it seems like K had to know from the start that he'd be putting way more into Hood than he'd ever be getting out of him.

Do people agree/disagree with this?

[CameronBornAndBred]

As someone who is a contemporary of Coach K's, I find the comments about age to be alarmingly simple and incomplete. Perhaps the poster who brought the matter of age into the conversation could illuminate what this focus on age is about. (At this point, I would add a cute little emoticon with eye lashes batting if it were available.)
http://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/5.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/5.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/5.gifhttp://www.crazietalk.net/ourhouse/images/smilies/4.gif And to your point, I agree with your premise. Age = wisdom, and besides, K does a good job of keeping younger minds around him, and I do think he listens. Nobody works years for a guy that doesn't seek input, there is no self-worth in that position.

[NashvilleDevil]

Lifelong Blue Devil fan but this is my first time ever posting on the message boards. Heck, this season is the first time I've even looked at them. But the way things have started to go just have me a bit worried - I don't think the sudden welcome mat for one-and-dones is benefitting us. Nor do I think taking Hood was worth it. In talking about the decisions K has made in the past few years, one that I question a lot is the decision to take Hood as a transfer knowing he was only going to be there for two years (and was only going to play for one year). It seems silly to take someone for just 2 years of practice and 1 year of game play. If you're going to take a transfer, you should get more out of them than just one year of playing. Don't get me wrong - Hood is a great player, but it seems like K had to know from the start that he'd be putting way more into Hood than he'd ever be getting out of him.

Do people agree/disagree with this?

Roshown McLeod, Dahnty Jones and Seth Curry all disagree with you about transfers.

[31andcounting]

Roshown McLeod, Dahnty Jones and Seth Curry all disagree with you about transfers.

I have no issue with transfers... when they play for more than a single season. Those guys all brought a lot to the program - in part because they stayed for a number of years and helped to lead the team as seniors. I don't think it's worth it to spend two years of scholarship on someone in knowing that they'll only be in Duke uniform for a single season... It's not so much a transfer issue (FWIW, Seth Curry is in my top 5 favorite Duke players of all time), it's about someone making more of a commitment to the program when you know that they'll only be a practice player for a year before they ever suit up.

It's a matter of return on investment. My comment was based on the fact that it appears Coach K knew all along that Hood would only be playing for a single season. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though?

[CameronBornAndBred]

I have no issue with transfers... when they play for more than a single season. Those guys all brought a lot to the program - in part because they stayed for a number of years and helped to lead the team as seniors. I don't think it's worth it to spend two years of scholarship on someone in knowing that they'll only be in Duke uniform for a single season... It's not so much a transfer issue (FWIW, Seth Curry is in my top 5 favorite Duke players of all time), it's about someone making more of a commitment to the program when you know that they'll only be a practice player for a year before they ever suit up.

It's a matter of return on investment. My comment was based on the fact that it appears Coach K knew all along that Hood would only be playing for a single season. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though?
I don't fault Hood at all for going, IMO he is more ready than Parker, by a decent margin. And I don't consider Rodney a one and done either, even though we only got to watch him for one year. He was a captain this year, so that enough speaks volumes about his contributions to the team in his first year at Duke. I'd say that it turned out to be a solid investment, unfortunately it wasn't one that resulted in any titles. He should enjoy a lengthy and productive NBA career; I look forward following it.

[Des Esseintes]

Lifelong Blue Devil fan but this is my first time ever posting on the message boards. Heck, this season is the first time I've even looked at them. But the way things have started to go just have me a bit worried - I don't think the sudden welcome mat for one-and-dones is benefitting us. Nor do I think taking Hood was worth it. In talking about the decisions K has made in the past few years, one that I question a lot is the decision to take Hood as a transfer knowing he was only going to be there for two years (and was only going to play for one year). It seems silly to take someone for just 2 years of practice and 1 year of game play. If you're going to take a transfer, you should get more out of them than just one year of playing. Don't get me wrong - Hood is a great player, but it seems like K had to know from the start that he'd be putting way more into Hood than he'd ever be getting out of him.

Do people agree/disagree with this?

Rodney invested two years in Duke. Duke invested two years in Rodney. I don't know what's "silly" about that. Nor do I see how this year's team would have been better at basketball without him.

However, welcome to the board!

[vrob90]

General expectation of who, exactly? I know very few people who know basketball well that expected this Duke team to "administer a total beat down to Mercer". Most recognized that a Mercer team that won their championship beating Florida Gulf coast on their own court in the tournament final for their league, and whose top 8 players were all either 4th, 5th, or 6th year Seniors was not going to just roll over and die. Did you not learn anything at all from the Vermont game? The Notre Dame game? This Duke team, while talented was certainly no juggernaut and were vulnerable to losing to any decent to good team, while also being capable of beating most anyone in the country. They played a veteran Mercer team with more size, and that felt they should have beaten last years FLorida Gulf Coast team that made a lot of noise in last years tourney.

Should Duke have won? Certainly. But to perceive that Mercer had no shot at all, or to perceive that Duke was just going to roll the ball out and win by 30 is ludicrous. Several analysts from ESPN and cbs predicted ahead of time that Mercer would give Duke problems, and Duke would have to play well to win.

As for the lost luster comments, the luster is gone from the following programs then in additon to Duke. Kentucky, Ohio St, Syracuse, UNC, Kansas, Arizona, Georgetown, as all have lost in the tournament (NIT or NCAA) to teams not even as good as Mercer. If getting upset by a cinderella is the cardinal sin, I know a lot of programs that will bust hell wide open.

"I know very few people who know basketball well that expected this Duke team to 'administer a total beat down to Mercer".

I don't know your acquaintances, so I'll take you at your word. It's certainly possible that the significance of Mercer's win over Florida Gulf Coast was grossly underestimated by everyone, including the committee. It's also possible that the universal expressions of shock and the related leads/headlines in pretty much every publication involved with sports reporting were attributable to people who don't "know basketball"? I tend to doubt it.

[CameronBornAndBred]

"I know very few people who know basketball well that expected this Duke team to 'administer a total beat down to Mercer".

I don't know your acquaintances, so I'll take you at your word. It's certainly possible that the significance of Mercer's win over Florida Gulf Coast was grossly underestimated by everyone, including the committee. It's also possible that the universal expressions of shock and the related leads/headlines in pretty much every publication involved with sports reporting were attributable to people who don't "know basketball"? I tend to doubt it.
"Duke Loses" sells ads, regardless of whether the loss was expected or not.

[Des Esseintes]

"Duke Loses" sells ads, regardless of whether the loss was expected or not.

I think the point the OP was making was that a 3-seed is expected to trounce a 14-seed. People with close knowledge of both teams' play throughout the year would have predicted a closer game, but the average 3-14 game is a blowout.

[31andcounting]

Rodney invested two years in Duke. Duke invested two years in Rodney. I don't know what's "silly" about that. Nor do I see how this year's team would have been better at basketball without him.

However, welcome to the board!

Thanks... ha unlike most people on here I'm not really here to argue a particular point, mainly just to bounce my own thoughts off of other people who care a lot about the program.

I agree wholly with you that Rodney "invested" two years in Duke. But investing in Duke is different from Duke getting the benefit - with Rodney I think one could argue that we invested two years, he invested two years, and we got the benefit for one year. I'm not saying K shouldn't have taken him - and I'm certainly not saying K shouldn't take transfers at all. My concern is simply continuity in who is on the court. If we're going to start getting more one-and-done freshman, then I think it's important to angle for more continuity elsewhere. My hope is just that this doesn't become a trend where we end up with even more guys who aren't on the court in Duke uniform for more than a year because that makes it harder to have leadership out on the court.

[Des Esseintes]

Thanks... ha unlike most people on here I'm not really here to argue a particular point, mainly just to bounce my own thoughts off of other people who care a lot about the program.

I agree wholly with you that Rodney "invested" two years in Duke. But investing in Duke is different from Duke getting the benefit - with Rodney I think one could argue that we invested two years, he invested two years, and we got the benefit for one year. I'm not saying K shouldn't have taken him - and I'm certainly not saying K shouldn't take transfers at all. My concern is simply continuity in who is on the court. If we're going to start getting more one-and-done freshman, then I think it's important to angle for more continuity elsewhere. My hope is just that this doesn't become a trend where we end up with even more guys who aren't on the court in Duke uniform for more than a year because that makes it harder to have leadership out on the court.

I guess what I would say to that is: K and Rodney didn't necessarily know he would be jumping after this season. He certainly wasn't ready after his freshman year at MSU. Moreover, Rodney was listed a couple of weeks ago on SI as a guy who did more than almost anyone else to improve his draft position this season. If he leaves now, as he likely will, that's because he exceeded expectations. (The TEAM did not, of course, but that's a different story. Each of these guys is running a one-man race in his career.) Hard to feel Duke lost out when a guy blows away his projections.

I should also add that I know a lot of people on this board expected immediate lottery play from Hood from the day his transfer was announced, so they can be said to have expected this. I don't get the impression the larger basketball world did, however, and that's probably the more objective lens through which to analyze the thing.

[BlueTeuf]

Really, this guy, the game is passing him by? He's not adapting well?

Well, without any interest in recruiting anybody to my opinion, I'll say it: Yes, the game is passing him by. Yes he's stubborn - was once a significant strength, now a glaring liability. His success with the pro's comes from getting megastars to accept their roles. Applicability to the college game has some value - but a destructive quality as well.

We've been in a decade long decline, capably and delightfully disguised by our National Championship in 2010. Based on the incredible talent we put on the court, some Duke fans haven't noticed. Opposing coaches have noticed and are capitalizing.

Still, it's been a great run (best of the era) and next year is a great opportunity to right the ship. But it certainly needs righting - and Coach Krzyzewski was once the perfect guy for the task. He might be again, but he will have to swallow hard and make some significant changes.

[vrob90]

"Duke Loses" sells ads, regardless of whether the loss was expected or not.

Not likely. The game took place on Friday afternoon and was reported the rest of the day and the following day and that was pretty much it. I'm not sure how Duke's loss to Mercer could have resulted in the sale of advertising. Ads are purchased well ahead of time.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Not likely. The game took place on Friday afternoon and was reported the rest of the day and the following day and that was pretty much it. I'm not sure how Duke's loss to Mercer could have resulted in the sale of advertising. Ads are purchased well ahead of time.
Sigh. Very likely. Online ads are largely paid for by "clicks" and views. More traffic to your page, more ads seen, more ads clicked, more revenue brought in.

[Kedsy]

We've been in a decade long decline...

What's your basis for saying we're on a "decade long decline"? Especially if you use the standard definition of "decline," there's no discernible trend that I can see that shows a decline from the beginning of the decade to the end. If instead you mean this decade hasn't been as good as previous decades, then really the only basis I can see is based on two games. I'll grant that losing in the first round of the NCAAs this year and in 2012 was disappointing, but it can hardly be the basis for so grand a statement as "decade long decline."

[31andcounting]

I guess what I would say to that is: K and Rodney didn't necessarily know he would be jumping after this season. He certainly wasn't ready after his freshman year at MSU. Moreover, Rodney was listed a couple of weeks ago on SI as a guy who did more than almost anyone else to improve his draft position this season. If he leaves now, as he likely will, that's because he exceeded expectations. (The TEAM did not, of course, but that's a different story. Each of these guys is running a one-man race in his career.) Hard to feel Duke lost out when a guy blows away his projections.

I should also add that I know a lot of people on this board expected immediate lottery play from Hood from the day his transfer was announced, so they can be said to have expected this. I don't get the impression the larger basketball world did, however, and that's probably the more objective lens through which to analyze the thing.

I agree with you that in the end K and Rodney probably didn't know this would be the scenario from the outset. Though I do think some people (esp. on this board) portray it in that manner. And I totally understand Hood going to the NBA if he decides to do so - it's more important for him to go than JP I think.

Here's how I would sum up my thoughts/argument: (1) There is an increasing pattern of one-and-dones; (2) K has been bringing on transfers more frequently, and transfers are a potential way to help deal with the losses of one&dones - someone like Curry can end up providing some much needed leadership; (3) At the end of the day, a pattern of transfers who came to Duke and left for the NBA (thereby only playing only one season) could end up compounding the one-and-done problem because it too would cause there to be fewer juniors and seniors.

[Des Esseintes]

I agree with you that in the end K and Rodney probably didn't know this would be the scenario from the outset. Though I do think some people (esp. on this board) portray it in that manner. And I totally understand Hood going to the NBA if he decides to do so - it's more important for him to go than JP I think.

Here's how I would sum up my thoughts/argument: (1) There is an increasing pattern of one-and-dones; (2) K has been bringing on transfers more frequently, and transfers are a potential way to help deal with the losses of one&dones - someone like Curry can end up providing some much needed leadership; (3) At the end of the day, a pattern of transfers who came to Duke and left for the NBA (thereby only playing only one season) could end up compounding the one-and-done problem because it too would cause there to be fewer juniors and seniors.

Duke has been bringing in transfers more frequently, yes, but a) "more frequently" here means going from "almost never" to "2 in five years" and b) college basketball has seen a vast uptick in the number of transfers. More guys are hitting the transfer marker than ever before, a number of them are very talented, and the fact that they are transferring no longer carries the automatic question of attitude/failure-to-communicate problem. If Duke *didn't* change with the times and acknowledge that reality, we should be more concerned, right? Seth spent four years at Duke; Rodney will likely have spent two. If we can average three years out of our transfer guys, I think that's a big net positive for Duke in the long run.

[vrob90]

Sigh. Very likely. Online ads are largely paid for by "clicks" and views. More traffic to your page, more ads seen, more ads clicked, more revenue brought in.

Sigh and Eye Roll. If you want to embrace the narrative that everyone's expressions of shock over the Mercer loss were ginned up to sell advertising and not genuine, that's OK with me.

[roywhite]

Well, without any interest in recruiting anybody to my opinion, I'll say it: Yes, the game is passing him by. Yes he's stubborn - was once a significant strength, now a glaring liability. His success with the pro's comes from getting megastars to accept their roles. Applicability to the college game has some value - but a destructive quality as well.

We've been in a decade long decline, capably and delightfully disguised by our National Championship in 2010. Based on the incredible talent we put on the court, some Duke fans haven't noticed. Opposing coaches have noticed and are capitalizing.

Still, it's been a great run (best of the era) and next year is a great opportunity to right the ship. But it certainly needs righting - and Coach Krzyzewski was once the perfect guy for the task. He might be again, but he will have to swallow hard and make some significant changes.

A quick look shows an average win-loss of 29-6 per season over the last 10 years. And a *total* of 11 home losses.

Anything different? My opinion -- maybe just the ever higher level of the opponent's efforts when we play on the road (and unfortunately, that often seems to include NCAA Tournament games -- VCU, Lehigh, Arizona, now Mercer -- seems like they play at their absolute best when they realize they can actually beat mighty Duke). Teams make their season when they beat Duke. The theory has been that it makes us better to get everybody's best shot, but IMO we are getting the best shots that some teams can muster, and it is resulting in some losses. As the wins have mounted for Coach K, so has the perceived value of the target on our backs.

[MaxAMillion]

Well, without any interest in recruiting anybody to my opinion, I'll say it: Yes, the game is passing him by. Yes he's stubborn - was once a significant strength, now a glaring liability. His success with the pro's comes from getting megastars to accept their roles. Applicability to the college game has some value - but a destructive quality as well.

We've been in a decade long decline, capably and delightfully disguised by our National Championship in 2010. Based on the incredible talent we put on the court, some Duke fans haven't noticed. Opposing coaches have noticed and are capitalizing.

Still, it's been a great run (best of the era) and next year is a great opportunity to right the ship. But it certainly needs righting - and Coach Krzyzewski was once the perfect guy for the task. He might be again, but he will have to swallow hard and make some significant changes.

Well if the game is passing him by then he won't know how to make proper changes. If his stubborn attitude is now a glaring liablity then he won't have success (assuming 25 win seasons are not a success). If his success with the pros has had a destructive quality then the program will continue to suffer.

I do especially like how a national championship disguises real problems. I guess last year's elite eight appearance was yet another example of decline. Fortunately Coach K doesn't have that much longer to coach. Coach K is getting closer to retirement and that means the programs era of decline is closer to ending.

[31andcounting]

A quick look shows an average win-loss of 29-6 per season over the last 10 years. And a *total* of 11 home losses.

Anything different? My opinion -- maybe just the ever higher level of the opponent's efforts when we play on the road (and unfortunately, that often seems to include NCAA Tournament games -- VCU, Lehigh, Arizona, now Mercer -- seems like they play at their absolute best when they realize they can actually beat mighty Duke). Teams make their season when they beat Duke. The theory has been that it makes us better to get everybody's best shot, but IMO we are getting the best shots that some teams can muster, and it is resulting in some losses.

I would argue that our increased number of road losses are a result of our lack of experience. Experience and poise are really help teams play in hostile environments. We've always gotten everyone's best shot - that's nothing new.

[roywhite]

I would argue that our increased number of road losses are a result of our lack of experience. Experience and poise are really help teams play in hostile environments. We've always gotten everyone's best shot - that's nothing new.

Okay; we're getting close to agreement here; with the changing nature of the game and early exits to the NBA, we simply don't have the experience level we used to have. The best players aren't staying 4 years as they used to. But this trend is not peculiar to Duke and has resulted in greater parity and more teams with a chance to go deep into the NCAA Tournament.

IMO, it's a remarkable job by Coach K to have sustained the level of excellence that we've seen over the last decade (and of course well before that). What other major program has been able to do that without a serious dip. We fail to win a conference title or make a good NCAA run, end the season with "only" 26 wins and we're worried about a great decline.

Coach K has stated that it's his goal to contend for a national championship every year. Really, I suppose he could change his recruiting focus to take fewer players who could realistically go to the pros early and concentrate on 4-year players. That would probably mean building toward a national championship push every 3 or 4 years with an experienced unit. Is this the direction we want to go?

[31andcounting]

Okay; we're getting close to agreement here; with the changing nature of the game and early exits to the NBA, we simply don't have the experience level we used to have. The best players aren't staying 4 years as they used to. But this trend is not peculiar to Duke and has resulted in greater parity and more teams with a chance to go deep into the NCAA Tournament.

IMO, it's a remarkable job by Coach K to have sustained the level of excellence that we've seen over the last decade (and of course well before that). What other major program has been able to do that without a serious dip. We fail to win a conference title or make a good NCAA run, end the season with "only" 26 wins and we're worried about a great decline.

Coach K has stated that it's his goal to contend for a national championship every year. Really, I suppose he could change his recruiting focus to take fewer players who could realistically go to the pros early and concentrate on 4-year players. That would probably mean building toward a national championship push every 3 or 4 years with an experienced unit. Is this the direction we want to go?

I'm not worried about a "great decline." I'm simply saying that we've had to adjust b/c college basketball has changed - and maybe our first adjustment to the changed college basketball landscape wasn't perfect, so maybe it's time to make a few more adjustments. That's nothing about K being a bad coach - it's just a reality that change is a tricky process that even the best coach doesn't necessarily get perfect right off the bat.

I have confidence that K is able to do this and will eventually make those adjustments. That ability is part of why his fellow coaches (like Boeheim said in their joint interview) respect him so much.

[MaxAMillion]

I would argue that our increased number of road losses are a result of our lack of experience. Experience and poise are really help teams play in hostile environments. We've always gotten everyone's best shot - that's nothing new.

It wasn't just road losses. It was road collapses. This team basically led in the 2nd half of every road or neutral site game. They would have periods in each game when they were completely ineffective on both ends of the floor. That is what would lead to the losses. That is part of why I reject the thought that Coach K is holding the team back with his stubborn attitude. The team (despite its inexperience) was leading sometimes by double digits and then when the opponent started to make a run they would fold. The Notre Dame game was when the problems first became noticeable. Duke would normally blow that team out when having a comfortable 2nd half lead. Instead they looked to fold.

[Duvall]

I would argue that our increased number of road losses are a result of our lack of experience. Experience and poise are really help teams play in hostile environments. We've always gotten everyone's best shot - that's nothing new.

*Has* Duke had an increased number of road losses in recent years? That seems like a knowable fact.

[Furniture]

All I'm saying is he's old. You people are reading into it far too much. He's stuck in his ways because he's old. That's it.

Where I am from calling someone an old codger is definitely not nice...

[NashvilleDevil]

Okay; we're getting close to agreement here; with the changing nature of the game and early exits to the NBA, we simply don't have the experience level we used to have. The best players aren't staying 4 years as they used to. But this trend is not peculiar to Duke and has resulted in greater parity and more teams with a chance to go deep into the NCAA Tournament.

IMO, it's a remarkable job by Coach K to have sustained the level of excellence that we've seen over the last decade (and of course well before that). What other major program has been able to do that without a serious dip. We fail to win a conference title or make a good NCAA run, end the season with "only" 26 wins and we're worried about a great decline.

Coach K has stated that it's his goal to contend for a national championship every year. Really, I suppose he could change his recruiting focus to take fewer players who could realistically go to the pros early and concentrate on 4-year players. That would probably mean building toward a national championship push every 3 or 4 years with an experienced unit. Is this the direction we want to go?

I think that's how Billy Donovan has done it at Florida. At least this year's team is like that.

[CoachJ10]

A quick look shows an average win-loss of 29-6 per season over the last 10 years. And a *total* of 11 home losses.

Anything different? My opinion -- maybe just the ever higher level of the opponent's efforts when we play on the road (and unfortunately, that often seems to include NCAA Tournament games -- VCU, Lehigh, Arizona, now Mercer -- seems like they play at their absolute best when they realize they can actually beat mighty Duke). Teams make their season when they beat Duke. The theory has been that it makes us better to get everybody's best shot, but IMO we are getting the best shots that some teams can muster, and it is resulting in some losses. As the wins have mounted for Coach K, so has the perceived value of the target on our backs.

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. I often refer to it as the "heavy crown" syndrome.

Not only does it affect our opponents (having their Super Bowl every time they play us, as well as playing out of their minds during their "one shining moment" opportunity), but it also affects our players, our fans, and our coaches.

From the minute they step on campus, our players have exceedingly high expectations for them. To carry on the mantle of success that the past Duke teams have achieved...is an added layer of pressure and responsibility that is rather unique. I am not sure even us fans can appreciate that as much as we should.

As for us fans...well, we all have to be honest about how are expectations have changed with success. We'd all like to think of individual teams and season on their own merit...but in reality, that is a very challenging mindset to be in.

And finally...the challenges of coaching when you are the standard bearer for success are non trivial. From never being the underdog, from always being the most scouted team, from having to never have a lull, from having fewer chances to experiment...they add up to a lot more variables than most coaches ever have to deal with.

Being a Duke basketball fan really has become a unique experience...having some perspective on it helps.

[Stratrat]

I want to preface this post with three points, and everything I say after should be read with these three points in mind (also, apologies in advance for the length):



As fans, I think coaching is the hardest thing for us to assess. Our proxy for it is what the players do on the court, but it's not always a guarantee that the players do what the coaches want them to do. Telling the difference between an error in strategy (the coaching aspect) and an error in execution (the player aspect) is difficult, and I certainly don't profess to be able to do that with any degree of confidence.
We can't watch practice, so we can't see what the team works on in non-game situations or how players play in practice. Not being able to watch practice also is one of the contributing aspects to point 1 - we can't see how the coaches coach the players, what they tell them to work on, etc.
In no way am I suggesting personnel changes among the coaching staff, and certainly not at the top.


All of that being said, I think some of the things that happened to the team this year raise questions about the coaching strategy for the season. In no particular order.

Defense:



Everyone knows this was our worst defensive season in a long time (2012 was also not great, but not this bad). On the whole, however, our profile was not dissimilar to how we usually play defense, with two exceptions - 2pt FG% and fouling. They're related, but let's take them in reverse order.
Fouling:

Coming into the season, there was an officiating change that emphasized two things - contact on the perimeter and a shift in block/charge. Both of those things have been a staple of Duke's defense for a long time.
We play aggressive defense on the perimeter, extending beyond the three point line, hedging high rather than laterally, trying to deny passing lanes, etc. That style creates contact on the perimeter, and we got called for it more this year than in years past.
Similarly, the strategy for defending at the rim, with limited exceptions for designated shot blockers (Williams, McRoberts, Plumlees), has been to contest shots by trying to draw charges rather than by playing vertically. Here, too, we got called for more fouls than in years past.
In my observation, we never adjusted for this at a strategic level. We would adjust within games, on a player-by-player basis, as players got into foul trouble (which mostly led to individuals playing a little more tentatively), but we trotted out the same defensive approach, game after game, even when it didn't work. This, I think (again, subject to all the caveats above) is a coaching issue - we did not seem to make an adjustment in approach that took into account how the game was being called.


2pt FG%:

Opponents shot over 50% from 2 against Duke this season. I don't think that's ever happened against a K coached Duke team.
There were, in my mind, three things that contributed to this (below in no particular order)
Fouling:

We got in foul trouble too often, which led to people playing too soft, which led to easy scores.


Rotation:

Our team struggled all year with team defense. The rotations didn't come quickly enough, players (especially Parker, but not limited to him) struggled guarding screen situations, and communication was not a strength. Again, we did not change philosophy, even when we continued to struggle with the approach.


Size:

Duke had zero shot-blocking presence inside. Since Shelden graduated, we've never been a particularly strong shot-blocking team, but we were especially bad this year, checking in at 260th in the country. It was the single worst thing we did on defense, relative to the rest of the NCAA.
We had a 7 footer who spent the majority of the season glued to the bench (Marshall played about 7 mpg). I don't believe that Marshall Plumlee was an instant cure-all, and there are trade-offs that come with playing him (he's an offensive liability, he can't execute switches, etc.), but there's a lot to be said for having someone 7 feet tall anchoring the middle of the defense. Under most circumstances, it makes it harder for teams to score at the rim, which was a weakness for this team all season.




Offense:



Generally speaking, offense was a strength. We scored more points per possession than any Duke team in the past 12 years (albeit in a nationwide environment that was more favorable to offenses) and had lots of talented offensive weapons. That said, we seemed vulnerable to terrible droughts at terrible times, and in close games seemed particularly incapable of getting good shots when it mattered. From a coaching perspective, I think there are a couple things at play.

Shot selection:

We had a tendency to settle for shots, particularly early in the shot clock. This was a two-fold issue.
One, people just took some bad shots. Jabari, in particular, was guilty of this (but he was far from the only offender) - he settled for jump shots that came a little out of the offensive flow, were contested and/or came off of one-on-one play, etc. But all of our top 5 offensive players (Parker, Hood, Sulaimon, Cook, Dawkins) had possessions where they decided that they were going to shoot the ball, no matter what.
Two, this team had a hard time distinguishing between a "good" shot and a smart shot. One of the downsides of having so many offensive weapons (as we do) is that there are a lot of good shots on the court, at least from the perspective of a particular player. For example, objectively speaking, Hood or Sulaimon shooting a wide open 15-foot jumper is a good shot. But it's not necessarily the best shot we can get in a possession and far too often the team seemed to take the first "good" shot that presented itself, rather than work the ball to try to find an even better shot.
These two approaches cost us down the stretch of games. In situations where we still had plenty of time (even when trailing late), too often guys tried to take the first good shot they could find rather than work a bit to create a great shot. Yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and there's danger in waiting too long for a perfect shot, but I think there's a happy medium in there that we could have approached with more frequency.
Whether or not this is a coaching issue or an execution issue is, again, subject to interpretation.


Offensive independence:

K's motion offense gives a lot of freedom to the guys on the court. We don't run a ton of set plays, but instead put people in motion and try to get them in positions to create mismatches and scoring opportunities.
The downside of that is that we don't have a single go-to play to run when we need to get a good shot. It's up to the guys on the court to come up with something.
This is related, a bit, to shot selection above - in crunch time, as soon as someone thought they had a decent/good shot, they took it. There wasn't the discipline that comes from having set plays to ensure that guys got the best (or close to the best) shot that they could in key possessions.


3s:

This is related to the above as well, but we were the most reliant on 3s of any Duke team in the past 9 years.
On a season-based view, this is a great strategy. Across many possessions, it's the most likely to generate the most points (particularly when you have shooters as good as we do). But in a single possession scenario, it's less likely to succeed (taking 3s is a great strategy when you succeed, as we did, 2 out of every 5 tries, but it means that any single possession is more likely to fail to produce points than to produce points). We missed 3s down the stretch in a lot of our games (today, for example, we went 0-6 from deep from the 6:58 mark until Quinn's shot at the buzzer).



At a macro level, it's almost impossible to fault our offense for shortcomings this season. But on a micro level, our end-game struggles in losses were equally attributable to offensive failings as defensive failings. And some of that, I think, is a strategy issue - our approach on offense was not necessarily designed to produce the best possible shot in scenarios where we needed to produce the best possible shot.


Rotation:

The rotation point has two aspects to it: line changes and point guard.
Line changes:

At the urging of the assistants, we adopted a line change approach for a handful of games. It was a more NBA-level approach (somewhat - NBA teams don't often do line changes) in that it gave people clearly defined roles for extended periods of time. We had some success with it, but it always felt like K was holding his nose when he implemented it and that he couldn't wait to get back to a more normal (for him) rotation. We thus went away from it quickly. It's not clear whether that was a wise decision.


Point guard:

I don't think Coach K could tell you today who his lead point guard is. At the very least, the rotation didn't offer any obvious answer to that question. We trotted out 3 - Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton. Each has their strengths and shortcomings, and I'm not sure that any of them was necessarily a better choice than any of the others. But we never made a choice.
Cook, Sulaimon, and Thornton have different styles at the point guard role. Shifting among the three as we did meant that the team constantly had to adjust to a different style initiating the offense. I would vastly have preferred that we put our eggs in one of their baskets and let them dictate the offense for the team. Continuity creates competence; variability creates uncertainty.



To a certain degree, these are all nitpicks. We had a pretty strong season, and (on the aggregate) an exceptional season on the offensive side of the ball. But it seemed like this team failed to reach its potential, and to the extent the coaching approach contributed to holding the team back, I hope that we spend the offseason giving a hard look to strategy and coaching choices and think about how we can improve things for the next season.

Thanks so much for capturing the thoughts that many long time Duke fans have had this whole season. We lost to Mercer while playing just six people primarily with 4 others getting just a few minutes. A lot of us old time Duke fans
were excited to just think about a run and gun team with our 11 people capable of playing a full court trap press. Instead, we played with tired legs and no strategy that allowed us a chance to win. I was really looking forward to next
year but now I fear we will again play with a 6 man rotation. Parker would have been so much better had Plumlee been seasoned early on and he wouldn't have had to play out of position. Look, we all love coach. Let's hope we get it together next year.

[Des Esseintes]

Thanks so much for capturing the thoughts that many long time Duke fans have had this whole season. We lost to Mercer while playing just six people primarily with 4 others getting just a few minutes. A lot of us old time Duke fans
were excited to just think about a run and gun team with our 11 people capable of playing a full court trap press. Instead, we played with tired legs and no strategy that allowed us a chance to win. I was really looking forward to next
year but now I fear we will again play with a 6 man rotation. Parker would have been so much better had Plumlee been seasoned early on and he wouldn't have had to play out of position. Look, we all love coach. Let's hope we get it together next year.

If only Joel Anthony had played more in 2011, LeBron wouldn't have had such a rough Finals against Dallas, amiright?

[31andcounting]

Okay; we're getting close to agreement here; with the changing nature of the game and early exits to the NBA, we simply don't have the experience level we used to have. The best players aren't staying 4 years as they used to. But this trend is not peculiar to Duke and has resulted in greater parity and more teams with a chance to go deep into the NCAA Tournament.

IMO, it's a remarkable job by Coach K to have sustained the level of excellence that we've seen over the last decade (and of course well before that). What other major program has been able to do that without a serious dip. We fail to win a conference title or make a good NCAA run, end the season with "only" 26 wins and we're worried about a great decline.

Coach K has stated that it's his goal to contend for a national championship every year. Really, I suppose he could change his recruiting focus to take fewer players who could realistically go to the pros early and concentrate on 4-year players. That would probably mean building toward a national championship push every 3 or 4 years with an experienced unit. Is this the direction we want to go?


It seems like what we're doing right now is a legit national championship push every 3-4 years. While we're ranked in the top 10 pretty much every year I don't think we've really made a legitimate push on a yearly basis.

Wins are definitely important, I'm not disputing that and I don't want us to do things to seriously jeopardize that. HOWEVER, I will say this: I've been a Duke fan since I was born in the early 80s, obsessed with the players, watching every game, etc. For all of those years, the reason I was a Duke fan (ok well other than being born into it) wasn't just the wins. It was the satisfaction of knowing that we did things the "right way." Back in the 80s and 90s other teams had kids going pro early - we didn;t even have one! K wasn't even interested in kids if they wanted to go pro early. Our first early exit wasn't even until 1999 - years after every other powerhouse, and it was a big deal when it happened.

But here's the thing - even when we made an early exit (i.e. our '93 loss to Cal) there was some smug satisfaction that we were doing things the "right" way -- taking kids who were student-athletes not athlete-students. Now we're looking more and more like all of those schools we said in the 1990s we'd never be like (i.e. UNC, Kentucky). We don't even have the satisfaction of claiming to be uniquely Duke anymore. Maybe it's really not feasible anymore, maybe I'm being too nostalgic. But maybe I'd be willing to sacrifice a tourney run or two if it meant we were still doing things the "right" way. There's a lot of pride in that and to me that was what made it "college" basketball rather than just a prep ground for the NBA.

[Sorry this was meant for the one and done thread]

[Des Esseintes]

It seems like what we're doing right now is a legit national championship push every 3-4 years. While we're ranked in the top 10 pretty much every year I don't think we've really made a legitimate push on a yearly basis.

Wins are definitely important, I'm not disputing that and I don't want us to do things to seriously jeopardize that. HOWEVER, I will say this: I've been a Duke fan since I was born in the early 80s, obsessed with the players, watching every game, etc. For all of those years, the reason I was a Duke fan (ok well other than being born into it) wasn't just the wins. It was the satisfaction of knowing that we did things the "right way." Back in the 80s and 90s other teams had kids going pro early - we didn;t even have one! K wasn't even interested in kids if they wanted to go pro early. Our first early exit wasn't even until 1999 - years after every other powerhouse, and it was a big deal when it happened.

But here's the thing - even when we made an early exit (i.e. our '93 loss to Cal) there was some smug satisfaction that we were doing things the "right" way -- taking kids who were student-athletes not athlete-students. Now we're looking more and more like all of those schools we said in the 1990s we'd never be like (i.e. UNC, Kentucky). We don't even have the satisfaction of claiming to be uniquely Duke anymore. Maybe it's really not feasible anymore, maybe I'm being too nostalgic. But maybe I'd be willing to sacrifice a tourney run or two if it meant we were still doing things the "right" way. There's a lot of pride in that and to me that was what made it "college" basketball rather than just a prep ground for the NBA.

[Sorry this was meant for the one and done thread]

I think you answered yourself. You can't win like we win without NBA talent, and NBA talent doesn't typically linger for four years of college ball. We remain a place where guys stay longer than they might, and still make Association rosters, too, so it could be much worse. In any case, our players represent Duke very well. We regularly place guys on the All-ACC academic team, and of the early entries, the vast majority continue to pursue their degrees over the summer. Duke remains a place of integrity. That isn't likely to change under current leadership.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Duke remains a place of integrity. That isn't likely to change under current leadership.

That also won't change under any future leadership.

[Spret42]

The OP's points regarding fouling and the rule changes were spot on. It really affected a lot of college basketball this year. Right from the beginning I thought it would really hurt Duke. The emphasis on limiting the hand checking in the backcourt as well calling the block/charge correctly (in my humble opinon) took dead aim at the way Duke has played defense for years. I anticipate Coach Krzysewski adjusting to it as he usually does, but it may take time. It is tough to reverse 25 years of muscle memory.

[BlueTeuf]

What's your basis for saying we're on a "decade long decline"?

Fair enough - I agree a decade is rather arbitrary and won't defend it as an assertion. Those so inclined can pick their own starting point. It all points to the same place which is where we are today. The more interesting question is what constitutes a decline? If one's metric is national rankings or season records, perhaps there's no decline.
I use other personal observations:

- our fundamentals aren't what they used to be. I watch other tournament teams and see better drilled, better prepared, more fundamentally sound squads.

- It's not just our season record or who we beat. It's also to whom we lose. To whom are we even susceptible to losing.

- How well do we compete? Ouch.

- Do we improve over a season anymore?

OK, so we're Duke and a known entity. But if somebody didn't know the history and watched the Lehigh and Mercer games - would they see us as a well coached team? I don't know how. But if they do - I won't argue. There's room in my life for irreconcilable differences of opinion.


Well if the game is passing him by then he won't know how to make proper changes. - Yes you've restated my concern. But I like and admire Coach and would soften the assertion to ..may be slow to make certain...


If his stubborn attitude is now a glaring liablity then he won't have success (assuming 25 win seasons are not a success).
- So, here I may not agree with your restatement. I think 25 wins is an admirable outcome and quite likely to continue. Coach will put a highly talented, hard-playing team on the court - and we get to play a lot of home games. With the depth of talent at Duke it would be quite unsettling if we don't. The liability comes from our inability to achieve the "sum is greater than the parts" outcome necessary to defeat certain opponents.


If his success with the pros has had a destructive quality then the program will continue to suffer.

- No, not what I'm trying to convey. His success with the pros is not hurting Duke. I'm simply observing that Coach's effectiveness at getting superstars to accept their roles is a skill of lesser utility in the college environment where he is supposed to be developing raw, unfinished talent.


Coach K is getting closer to retirement and that means the programs era of decline is closer to ending.

- I don't agree. I think we're at our nadir - and will sustain our current level of outcomes - unless the talent stops coming. However, I do think we have a greater upside than we are achieving. On second thought, I don't know; perhaps the abundance of talent is interfering with ingenuity. It's not surprising that powerful institutions go stale after prolonged success in an evolving, competitive environment. It's more the norm than the exception.

[Furniture]

I think you answered yourself. You can't win like we win without NBA talent, and NBA talent doesn't typically linger for four years of college ball. We remain a place where guys stay longer than they might, and still make Association rosters, too, so it could be much worse. In any case, our players represent Duke very well. We regularly place guys on the All-ACC academic team, and of the early entries, the vast majority continue to pursue their degrees over the summer. Duke remains a place of integrity. That isn't likely to change under current leadership.

Where is the NBA talent in team Mercer?

[Kedsy]

Fair enough - I agree a decade is rather arbitrary and won't defend it as an assertion. Those so inclined can pick their own starting point. It all points to the same place which is where we are today. The more interesting question is what constitutes a decline? If one's metric is national rankings or season records, perhaps there's no decline.
I use other personal observations:

- our fundamentals aren't what they used to be. I watch other tournament teams and see better drilled, better prepared, more fundamentally sound squads.


I'm not sure to what teams you're referring, but it might be apples and oranges. Teams who recruit the top talent are necessarily younger and have less time to train the fundamentals. If you're comparing to a team like Mercer whose top 8 guys (or whatever) are all seniors, it would only make sense they'd have strong fundamentals.




- It's not just our season record or who we beat. It's also to whom we lose. To whom are we even susceptible to losing.


Go check Duke's record in the '80s and '90s -- we lost to plenty of unranked teams to which we should never have lost. Especially ACC road games (like this year's Notre Dame, Clemson, and Wake Forest). It's not a new phenomenon, and therefore shouldn't legitimately be considered a source of decline.



OK, so we're Duke and a known entity. But if somebody didn't know the history and watched the Lehigh and Mercer games - would they see us as a well coached team?

Come on. That's your standard? Pick arguably our two worst games in 15 years and use that to judge anything?How about I pick our Final Four game against West Virginia in 2010 and the 82-50 shellacking of UNC that same season. Are we well coached now?

[throatybeard]

The real problem lately, IMO, has been the interior play....on both ends of the floor.
(Bet some of you thought I'd say post play;).

It just hasn't been good, and the best teams have big strong, aggressive guys inside. It's been masked somewhat the past few years with Plumlee's being so athletic and pretty good defenders, but they were not complete players, lacking scoring moves close to the rim that could spread the floor and the will to learn them.

It's no coincidence that when Zubek stepped up, Duke made it to the top.

I will be watching closely next season to see how K uses Okafor, who's supposed to be a true center and the exact sort of player I'm talking about that the best teams need.

I want to speak to my fellow Duke fans.

I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people. Carolina people enjoy being nasty to us. When we react to him, we are giving him exactly what he wants. You can starve this sort of person by ignoring him. I'd sing the "just don't look" song from Treehouse of Horror VI, but my voice isn't as cute as Yeardly Smith's. If we don't give him the reactions he's trolling for, he'll go away, eventually.

We have had respectable UNC posters in the past, such as DBS, ClosetHurleyFan, and Chris13. I have respect for them. I am not posting this out of disrespect for UNC-Chapel Hill. This is not a poster we should ever respond to, ever again. Cut him off.

[Kedsy]

Where is the NBA talent in team Mercer?

What does that have to do with Des Esseintes's point?

[Furniture]

What does that have to do with Des Esseintes's point?

He said this...
"You can't win like we win without NBA talent".

[eddiehaskell]

Mercer beat Duke one time, but did they actually win anything?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I want to speak to my fellow Duke fans.

I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people. Carolina people enjoy being nasty to us. When we react to him, we are giving him exactly what he wants. You can starve this sort of person by ignoring him. I'd sing the "just don't look" song from Treehouse of Horror VI, but my voice isn't as cute as Yeardly Smith's. If we don't give him the reactions he's trolling for, he'll go away, eventually.

We have had respectable UNC posters in the past, such as DBS, ClosetHurleyFan, and Chris13. I have respect for them. I am not posting this out of disrespect for UNC-Chapel Hill. This is not a poster we should ever respond to, ever again. Cut him off.

Dude, what is your problem?

If you think Dukes inside play was strong this year, make your case.

If you think Mason had a strong low post offensive arsenal, make your case.

I'm only offering my opinion for the board to consider. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Kedsy]

*Has* Duke had an increased number of road losses in recent years? That seems like a knowable fact.

1985 to 1994: 35 road losses
1995 to 2004: 34 road losses
2005 to 2014: 37 road losses

So, technically we have had 0.2 or 0.3 more road losses per season in the past 10 years. As a practical matter, I don't think so.

[Kedsy]

He said this...
"You can't win like we win without NBA talent".

And you're suggesting Mercer wins like Duke wins? This year was Mercer's first NCAA tournament appearance since 1985. They obviously haven't enjoyed the success Duke has had. Asking where Mercer's NBA talent is completely misses his point.

[Furniture]

I want to speak to my fellow Duke fans.

I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people. Carolina people enjoy being nasty to us. When we react to him, we are giving him exactly what he wants. You can starve this sort of person by ignoring him. I'd sing the "just don't look" song from Treehouse of Horror VI, but my voice isn't as cute as Yeardly Smith's. If we don't give him the reactions he's trolling for, he'll go away, eventually.

We have had respectable UNC posters in the past, such as DBS, ClosetHurleyFan, and Chris13. I have respect for them. I am not posting this out of disrespect for UNC-Chapel Hill. This is not a poster we should ever respond to, ever again. Cut him off.

From what I seen I can't imagine others agreeing with your proposal. I don't agree either and I am fairly certain that many Duke fans really enjoy being nasty to UNC fans too. It's reciprocal

[CameronBornAndBred]

I want to speak to my fellow Duke fans.

I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people. Carolina people enjoy being nasty to us. When we react to him, we are giving him exactly what he wants. You can starve this sort of person by ignoring him. I'd sing the "just don't look" song from Treehouse of Horror VI, but my voice isn't as cute as Yeardly Smith's. If we don't give him the reactions he's trolling for, he'll go away, eventually.

We have had respectable UNC posters in the past, such as DBS, ClosetHurleyFan, and Chris13. I have respect for them. I am not posting this out of disrespect for UNC-Chapel Hill. This is not a poster we should ever respond to, ever again. Cut him off.
Wow. Assuming that we place value in our sporks system, the 6 that Wheat has earned says you are incredibly wrong. I've enjoyed many of his posts, as well as disagreed with plenty. I can say the same thing about many others on this board, and they ARE Duke fans. Incredibly sad to see this come from a moderator, bringing your views about one poster into the light. I would ding you, but I don't enjoy that part of the system. This is NOT mod bating, I would say the exact same thing if you weren't, but it is more saddening since you are a mod.

[roywhite]

I want to speak to my fellow Duke fans.

I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people. Carolina people enjoy being nasty to us. When we react to him, we are giving him exactly what he wants. You can starve this sort of person by ignoring him. I'd sing the "just don't look" song from Treehouse of Horror VI, but my voice isn't as cute as Yeardly Smith's. If we don't give him the reactions he's trolling for, he'll go away, eventually.

We have had respectable UNC posters in the past, such as DBS, ClosetHurleyFan, and Chris13. I have respect for them. I am not posting this out of disrespect for UNC-Chapel Hill. This is not a poster we should ever respond to, ever again. Cut him off.


Dude, what is your problem?

If you think Dukes inside play was strong this year, make your case.

If you think Mason had a strong low post offensive arsenal, make your case.

I'm only offering my opinion for the board to consider. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll have to go with Throaty on this one. Your comments on Mason Plumlee in particular are either trolling or clueless.
We saw this guy play; he improved considerably over the years; in his senior year, he averaged 17 points, 10 rebounds, and shot 60% from the field. And most of the year, he didn't have his running mate Ryan Kelly available, so he got a lot of defensive attention. Low post offensive arsenal?? Hell, yes, he did. He scored in a variety of ways around the basket. He had one of the best inside games of anybody playing college basketball last year.

Really, how could you contend otherwise?

[Duvall]

Wow. Assuming that we place value in our sporks system, the 6 that Wheat has earned says you are incredibly wrong. I've enjoyed many of his posts, as well as disagreed with plenty. I can say the same thing about many others on this board, and they ARE Duke fans. Incredibly sad to see this come from a moderator, bringing your views about one poster into the light. I would ding you, but I don't enjoy that part of the system. This is NOT mod bating, I would say the exact same thing if you weren't, but it is more saddening since you are a mod.

We place value in the spork system?

[jipops]

Louisville last year was certainly evidence that the best teams have big strong, aggressive guys inside. Wait...was his name again?

You know, had all those scoring moves close to the rim that could spread the floor and the will to learn them.

[gcashwell]

I follow laettner on twitter. I noticed somebody asked him about the job K did this year. He said K did great, it was the kids that didn't do right because it takes years to learn his style of defense. IMO, in this climate, if your defense takes three years to learn, it is improper.

I'm an Alabama football fan. Saban had a tough year. He immediately started making drastic, visible changes. I hope to see some changes from K as well, though we may have to wait until the start of next season.

[_Gary]

We place value in the spork system?

Lord, I hope not. :D

[Duvall]

Mercer beat Duke one time, but did they actually win anything?

They won the championship of the Atlantic Sun Conference, and good on them for it.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I'll have to go with Throaty on this one. Your comments on Mason Plumlee in particular are either trolling or clueless.
We saw this guy play; he improved considerably over the years; in his senior year, he averaged 17 points, 10 rebounds, and shot 60% from the field. And most of the year, he didn't have his running mate Ryan Kelly available, so he got a lot of defensive attention. Low post offensive arsenal?? Hell, yes, he did. He scored in a variety of ways around the basket. He had one of the best inside games of anybody playing college basketball last year.

Really, how could you contend otherwise?

You guys don't get my point.

I know he improved. I loved his effort and his athleticism. He was a fine defender. He finished lots of dunks and lobs inside. He was a great teammate and a fine representative for Duke.

What he did not have was a great offensive arsenal of back to the basket post moves that one should expect (my opinion), from a big strong 7 footer. And he didn't develop any to the degree I felt he should have over his four years at Duke. Please, feel free to disagree.

Coach K kept him at the high post the majority of his career. He was a pick n roll guy. Nothing wrong with any of that, but I think he could have been a dominating back to the basket player with his size and skill set if he had focused on that aspect of the game...and Duke would have been a better team.

[Duvall]

I'll have to go with Throaty on this one. Your comments on Mason Plumlee in particular are either trolling or clueless.
We saw this guy play; he improved considerably over the years; in his senior year, he averaged 17 points, 10 rebounds, and shot 60% from the field. And most of the year, he didn't have his running mate Ryan Kelly available, so he got a lot of defensive attention. Low post offensive arsenal?? Hell, yes, he did. He scored in a variety of ways around the basket. He had one of the best inside games of anybody playing college basketball last year.

Really, how could you contend otherwise?

I just wish Wheat would name all the UNC big men that have proven to be more efficient and effective low post scorers in the NBA than Mason has in his first season.

[duke96]

Louisville last year was certainly evidence that the best teams have big strong, aggressive guys inside. Wait...was his name again?

Louisville fans would tell you that Gorgui Dieng was a critical part of their team last year.

[eddiehaskell]

They won the championship of the Atlantic Sun Conference, and good on them for it.Yeah, I'm not taking that away for them, but I was thinking on the grander scale where teams like Duke are judged (pretty much final four or bust).

[gcashwell]

I just wish Wheat would name all the UNC big men that have proven to be more efficient and effective low post scorers in the NBA than Mason has in his first season.

I think that is part of the point he is making. Mason wasn't used in the same way at duke as he is now.

[throatybeard]

1985 to 1994: 35 road losses
1995 to 2004: 34 road losses
2005 to 2014: 37 road losses

So, technically we have had 0.2 or 0.3 more road losses per season in the past 10 years. As a practical matter, I don't think so.

But, how do we control for the fact that we don't play OOC road games anymore, unless forced to by the ACC-B1G challenge? In the first period, we did a bit. In the second, a little. (SJU and UCLA...someone else? Illinois once maybe..I forget). In the third period, it's verboten. Cameron, DC, NYC, Chicago, or all of y'all can jump in a lake. So this is rather different from the 1980s.

[roywhite]

You guys don't get my point.

I know he improved. I loved his effort and his athleticism. He was a fine defender. He finished lots of dunks and lobs inside. He was a great teammate and a fine representative for Duke.

What he did not have was a great offensive arsenal of back to the basket post moves that one should expect (my opinion), from a big strong 7 footer. And he didn't develop any to the degree I felt he should have over his four years at Duke. Please, feel free to disagree.

Coach K kept him at the high post the majority of his career. He was a pick n roll guy. Nothing wrong with any of that, but I think he could have been a dominating back to the basket player with his size and skill set if he had focused on that aspect of the game...and Duke would have been a better team.

So you missed the hook shots, the use of glass, the drop steps, the up and unders? Did you even watch the games? You didn't consider him one of the best big men in the country last year?

I'm still down to clueless or trolling. Either one is no longer worth responding to, so as Throaty suggests, I'm done with you.

[Duvall]

But, how do we control for the fact that we don't play OOC road games anymore, unless forced to by the ACC-B1G challenge? In the first period, we did a bit. In the second, a little. (SJU and UCLA...someone else? Illinois once maybe..I forget). In the third period, it's verboten. Cameron, DC, NYC, Chicago, or all of y'all can jump in a lake. So this is rather different from the 1980s.

Winning percentage should do it. But I'm not sure it would make a huge difference - ACC schedule has gone from 14 games to 18 during this time, and there are still a lot of road games against St. John's, Georgetown and a few other schools even in recent years.

[Duvall]

I think that is part of the point he is making. Mason wasn't used in the same way at duke as he is now.

Is he, though? The few times I've seen Nets games that hasn't seemed to be the case.

[throatybeard]

Winning percentage should do it. But I'm not sure it would make a huge difference - ACC schedule has gone from 14 games to 18 during this time, and there are still a lot of road games against St. John's, Georgetown and a few other schools even in recent years.

Not "true" road games. UK and UNC play each other home and home. Likewise UK and IU, and UK and UL. We've played some of these northeastern schools off their campus. We've played some Big Plains schools in Chicago. We are never, ever anymore at Allen, Rupp, Assembly, wherever the heck Arizona plays, Yum (is that's UL's place?) unless the conference or the B1G-ACC forces us to once every other year.

I am not here to debate the merits of this system, which we have done many times. But I am asking whether comparing road win % from the old days and now is valid, given the new way of scheduling the last ten/twelve years.

[Kedsy]

But, how do we control for the fact that we don't play OOC road games anymore, unless forced to by the ACC-B1G challenge? In the first period, we did a bit. In the second, a little. (SJU and UCLA...someone else? Illinois once maybe..I forget). In the third period, it's verboten. Cameron, DC, NYC, Chicago, or all of y'all can jump in a lake. So this is rather different from the 1980s.


Winning percentage should do it. But I'm not sure it would make a huge difference - ACC schedule has gone from 14 games to 18 during this time, and there are still a lot of road games against St. John's, Georgetown and a few other schools even in recent years.

We played 99 road games from 2005 to 2014 (won 62 of them, .626 winning pct) and we played 101 road games from 1995 to 2004 (won 67 of them, .663 winning pct). It's true we've had more ACC road games in the latter period, but I don't know why that would matter in evaluating a claim that we've been losing more road games in recent years. We've played essentially the same number of games and lost only three more games over the course of a decade.

From 1985 to 1994, we did play more road games: 112 (won 77 of them, .688 winning pct). And while 63% is lower than both 66% and 69%, it's not lower enough to be a sign of a chronic problem.

[throatybeard]

We place value in the spork system?

I don't know whether we do or not, but let me offer the following facts.

Jim Sumner has amassed 11 sporks through years worth of being a firsthand source for Duke sports on all sorts of subjects. He's a legend, and he should be.

I also have 11 sporks. I think this is mostly because I offer funny one-liners on the regular. I'm not sure why, and I send love to whoever has sporked me. Keep it up, y'all! If I'm 33% as hilarious as I think I am in my head, I'm a riot.

I don't think I'm being unnecessarily modest when I say Sumner has added about 100 times much as much to this board as I have. Eleven sporks does not equal eleven sporks.

[throatybeard]

We played 99 road games from 2005 to 2014 (won 62 of them, .626 winning pct) and we played 101 road games from 1995 to 2004 (won 67 of them, .663 winning pct). It's true we've had more ACC road games in the latter period, but I don't know why that would matter in evaluating a claim that we've been losing more road games in recent years. We've played essentially the same number of games and lost only three more games over the course of a decade.

From 1985 to 1994, we did play more road games: 112 (won 77 of them, .688 winning pct). And while 63% is lower than both 66% and 69%, it's not lower enough to be a sign of a chronic problem.

Well, OK, point taken. Much of the "arrgh no true OOC road games" argument ignores that we were only talking about a game or two a year.*

The overwhelming majority of your road games will be in conference if you're a big program, no matter what.

* - OTOH, I think that's one of the central complaints of the whiners like me. We're only asking for one real home&home with a big program per two years. Just one. Can you imagine what would happen if we played UK home&home like Carolina does? You would have to find the roof of Cameron somewhere near Rocky Mount.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

So you missed the hook shots, the use of glass, the drop steps, the up and unders? Did you even watch the games? You didn't consider him one of the best big men in the country last year?

I'm still down to clueless or trolling. Either one is no longer worth responding to, so as Throaty suggests, I'm done with you.

I saw a few hook shots, and some up and under moves...usually after a rebound, or when he initiated a move to the basket himself. It was enough to know he could do it, and be elite at, it at least on the college level. That's why how he was used was so frustrating, and I'm not a Duke fan, just a fan of great play.

I rarely saw him used as the first option down low from an entry pass after he had sealed a defender on his hip, it's just not how coach K decided to use him...and I think that was a mistake.

You guys take this stuff way too seriously, it's a message board of hoop opinions. Just because you may not agree with mine, no need for all this personal drama.

[COYS]

I would argue that our increased number of road losses are a result of our lack of experience. Experience and poise are really help teams play in hostile environments. We've always gotten everyone's best shot - that's nothing new.

Hmm, the road loss argument is one that comes up a lot, but, to me, it doesn't necessarily hold much water. The 2011-2012 team, which wasn't super young perhaps but featured players moving from bit parts to starring roles (Seth, mason, Ryan) and Austin who had never played a collegiate game prior to the season went undefeated on the road in ACC play. The only glaring road loss for that team was to an elite ohio state team and to a veteran Temple squad. Meanwhile, the very experienced 2009-2010 championship squad got beat by Wisconsin, trounced by Georgetown, and shredded by a mediocre NC State team on the road. Yet that team went on to win the title.

I think experience matters. However, I don't think it is an essential ingredient to consistently winning on the road.

[gumbomoop]

I saw a few hook shots, and some up and under moves...usually after a rebound, or when he initiated a move to the basket himself. It was enough to know he could do it, and be elite at, it at least on the college level. That's why how he was used was so frustrating, and I'm not a Duke fan, just a fan of great play.

I rarely saw him used as the first option down low from an entry pass after he had sealed a defender on his hip, it's just not how coach K decided to use him...and I think that was a mistake.


I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people.


I'll have to go with Throaty on this one. Your comments on Mason Plumlee in particular are either trolling or clueless.

First, I want to caution roywhite to think carefully about going with Throaty - an admitted Failed Southerner - on anything. Except perhaps to an Over the Rhine concert; that'd probably be safe enough.

I think Wheat is [1] not quite clueless, and [2] mostly not trolling. But......

[1] I myself thought Wheat more accurately nailed Mason's play [during his soph year, IIRC] than any other poster, describing it as "bulky." During Mason's junior season, I returned several times to Wheat's insightful description, especially in debating a few others re Mason's footwork, which I found sorely lacking, and his trouble in traffic, which so differed from his open-court athleticism.

But it sure seemed to me that during his senior season, Mason had noticeably, significantly improved, utilizing a nice variety of moves, and more smoothly, displaying somewhat better if still not excellent footwork. Not perfect, to be sure, but only occasionally "bulky." So Wheat's provocative phrase above - "It was enough to know he could do it .... " does not jibe with Mason's first-rate final campaign, when he "did it" a whole lot more consistently than previously. It seems to me that here in this mini-debate on this thread, Wheat is remembering Mason's bulky earlier play, rather than objectively describing his obvious improvement. Why is he misremembering?

[2] Although Wheat's comments here are not fairly - or at least not fully - described as trolling, nevertheless the very subject of this thread - begun with pfrduke's thorough analysis - must surely have whetted Wheat's appetite to remind us yet again of what he sees as Krzyzewski's signal failure over the past couple of seasons: ".... how coach K decided to use him." And, by the extension conveniently afforded by a post-NCAAT-early-exit thread on what went wrong, how maybe Krzyzewski screws up even more than Roy Williams. Always careful to avoid overt snark when analyzing K's failings, Wheat more often resorts [a loaded word, I concede; and an accurate characterization, I contend] to something like a combo of schadenfreude and crocodile tears. As in, above: "That's why how he was used was so frustrating."

I kind of appreciate Wheat's mostly gentle needling. And it's probably not reasonable to expect from him a full confession.

While Throaty is wrong that Wheat "posts solely to get a rise out of people," I'm confident that [probably more than] just occasionally, Wheat is not above this. Nor am I.

[g-money]

I'm finally getting a chance to read through all the DBR posts after the Mercer loss and want to commend lots of folks (particularly in this thread) for some very frank introspection. pfrduke, Gary, Cdu, Troublemaker - well done. I also thought Julian's write-up on the front page was excellent.

As prfduke stated, it's very hard to delineate between poor coaching and poor execution when things aren't going well. However, I do think coaching can generally be blamed when a team repeatedly experiences similar "failure modes" (sorry for devolving into engineering-speak there) and does not change tactics. As others have pointed out, this team's two biggest issues that seemed to hurt us repeatedly were:

- Poor late game execution. To me (and as recognized by others in this thread) this phenomenon was really the worst manifestation of a bigger problem - that we lacked the ability to consistently get the ball into the heart of defenses, either through a post-up / post entry or dribble penetration. As a result, we tended to dribble the ball around on the perimeter and jack up long threes late in the shot clock (this was painfully evident in the Mercer game, as Rodney, Rasheed, and Quinn struggled mightily to get the ball inside 20'). Here, I think, we might have benefited from Coach K calling more set plays throughout the season that forced the guys to get comfortable with driving/passing the ball inside. Also, more PT for Andre would likely have helped open up passing and driving lanes.

- Poor defense (in my opinion, the larger issue of the two). It's funny, people tend to talk about athleticism when they describe the type of pressure defense that Coach K likes to play. I don't really think that's the most important element; I would rank effort, attentiveness, and communication higher on the hierarchy of needs. As others have pointed out, our poor rotations and poor helpside defense led to lots of easy baskets this year. To fix that, we could have either changed tactics and backed off the pressure, or drilled the players in practice to the point that they could actually execute the desired defensive scheme. My impression is that Coach K pressed ahead with the latter route in the hope that guys like Jabari, Rodney, Quinn, etc. would pick it up by the end of the year, but unfortunately, as became brutally obvious in the Mercer game when Jabari was subbed out during defensive possessions, the kids just couldn't get there. I also wholeheartedly agree that the lack of a shot blocking presence inside (coupled with a change to the block/charge rule) made it much tougher to play this kind of defense. In all, I do think a reassessment by the coaching staff of the overall defensive approach was probably warranted earlier in the season (perhaps around the time of the Vermont game), and could have ultimately helped our team figure out how to get stops better than it did.

And while we are on the subject of assigning blame, I would like to admit some personal culpability as well. I watched the game in Vegas this year, and a disturbing trend is emerging that every year I do this, mainly on the theory that "there's no way Duke will lose the opening round game and kill my weekend", we do in fact lose the opening round game; the last time I was there we laid an egg against Lehigh in 2012. Fortunately I was able to salvage this particular weekend by turning off the TV for the day and heading straight to the pool for a healthy dose of mai tais. However, rest assured that I will provide fair warning to the gamblers and bracket filler-outers on the board the next time I'm going to be watching Duke games in Sin City!

[Wheat/"/"/"]

We had almost no inside-around the rim presence on offense or defense.



BTW, this is Oz's opinion buried within this thread and made previous to mine. Maybe Throaty missed it?

I know I'm held to a different standard around here, and that's OK. I purposely avoided the Duke/Mercer thread because I didn't get to see the game, and I knew I'd become a target if I made any comment, no matter how reasonable. I see no need for any of this crap, I like to talk players, their talents, game strategy etc...

There's also no need for me to try and needle anybody. I can say Black.....and then a group of posters would follow up and call me a troll because I dissed the color of Duke's uniform that particular day.

I was only commenting in this thread after reading comment after comment basically blaming Duke's recent problems on guard play. I just don't see it that way. I actually think guard/wing play has been Duke's biggest strength lately.

On Mason...he did show more "traditional" post moves his Sr. year, and he was often successful with them, but that part of his game was never emphasized at the level it could have been. I think there are many Duke fans out there that would agree with that.

It's hard to argue with coach K. Hall of famer, great coach and it's his job to decide how to play his players.

I'm a stubborn SOB, I know. But I will speak my mind...and always try to do so with respect.

Part of K, or Roy, making the big bucks is letting us fans second guess his decisions.

[GGLC]

Regarding coaching and Duke's offense, a very smart friend of mine and long-time Duke fan made the following observation this morning, which I found extremely apt:

"In thinking about our offense further, what I kept coming around to (other than the just pure aesthetic shortcomings) was that we made it pretty easy for people to defend us. I was struck in watching almost every minute of the Thursday and Friday games last week how it seemed like every other team, from one seed to 16 seed, moved much, much more on offense - both players and the ball.

We were content to just pass the ball around the perimeter or stand around and wait to see if Parker or Hood was going to drive. We seemed to have very little off-the-ball movement, very little of the multiple screen-setting, and very little that required our opponent to spend a lot of energy chasing our players or the ball.

The less energy they spend having to defend constant movement on offense, the more energy they have at the end of games. I suspect - but have no way of proving - that this was a factor in our inability to close teams out. We used to wear teams out, wear them down, and put them away. This year, it felt like we were content to either shoot ourselves to victory or rely on the superb offensive talents of our two stars to win one-on-one battles.

While having interior size is one way to get easy baskets at crunch time, so is wearing an opponent out until they are too tired to keep up with ball and player movement. I recall seeing very little of this in 2013-2014."

I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the relationship between the relative ease of defending our offensive schemes and Duke's late-game woes on both ends of the court.

[CDu]

Regarding coaching and Duke's offense, a very smart friend of mine and long-time Duke fan made the following observation this morning, which I found extremely apt:

"In thinking about our offense further, what I kept coming around to (other than the just pure aesthetic shortcomings) was that we made it pretty easy for people to defend us. I was struck in watching almost every minute of the Thursday and Friday games last week how it seemed like every other team, from one seed to 16 seed, moved much, much more on offense - both players and the ball.

We were content to just pass the ball around the perimeter or stand around and wait to see if Parker or Hood was going to drive. We seemed to have very little off-the-ball movement, very little of the multiple screen-setting, and very little that required our opponent to spend a lot of energy chasing our players or the ball.

The less energy they spend having to defend constant movement on offense, the more energy they have at the end of games. I suspect - but have no way of proving - that this was a factor in our inability to close teams out. We used to wear teams out, wear them down, and put them away. This year, it felt like we were content to either shoot ourselves to victory or rely on the superb offensive talents of our two stars to win one-on-one battles.

While having interior size is one way to get easy baskets at crunch time, so is wearing an opponent out until they are too tired to keep up with ball and player movement. I recall seeing very little of this in 2013-2014."

I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the relationship between the relative ease of defending our offensive schemes and Duke's late-game woes on both ends of the court.

It is true. Our offense was stagnant for much of the season. We'd spend countless possessions with guys standing around for much of the shot clock with little sense of purpose. We seemingly ran just two sets: the weave, and the high ball screen by the center. Other than that, it was simply passing the ball around the perimeter or looking for a post entry to Parker. The notable exception was when Dawkins was in the game, when we would run repeated baseline screens for him to get open for a 3pt shot.

Now, that's not to say that our offense was not effective. We managed to be the most efficient offense in the country over the course of the season. But that was in large part a testament to the ridiculous wealth of individual talent we had on offense. Guys were just so good that it didn't matter that they weren't playing in concert. Jefferson and Parker and Plumlee would pound the offensive glass; Dawkins, Hood, Cook, Thornton, and Sulaimon would bury threes; Hood, Parker and Sulaimon would make driving buckets or draw fouls. And when we were on, we could overwhelm less-disciplined defensive teams with our firepower.

But against well-disciplined defensive teams, when they forced the game into a half-court game, we'd often go long stretches of the game without scoring. And that bit us in a number of games late in the game (including the NCAA tournament). If we didn't overwhelm teams offensively, we frequently lost (unless the other team was pretty bad offensively) as the other team's defense stepped up and our defense didn't.

[GGLC]

It is true. Our offense was stagnant for much of the season. We'd spend countless possessions with guys standing around for much of the shot clock with little sense of purpose. We seemingly ran just two sets: the weave, and the high ball screen by the center. Other than that, it was simply passing the ball around the perimeter or looking for a post entry to Parker. The notable exception was when Dawkins was in the game, when we would run repeated baseline screens for him to get open for a 3pt shot.

Now, that's not to say that our offense was not effective. We managed to be the most efficient offense in the country over the course of the season. But that was in large part a testament to the ridiculous wealth of individual talent we had on offense. Guys were just so good that it didn't matter that they weren't playing in concert. Jefferson and Parker and Plumlee would pound the offensive glass; Dawkins, Hood, Cook, Thornton, and Sulaimon would bury threes; Hood, Parker and Sulaimon would make driving buckets or draw fouls. And when we were on, we could overwhelm less-disciplined defensive teams with our firepower.

But against well-disciplined defensive teams, when they forced the game into a half-court game, we'd often go long stretches of the game without scoring. And that bit us in a number of games late in the game (including the NCAA tournament). If we didn't overwhelm teams offensively, we frequently lost (unless the other team was pretty bad offensively) as the other team's defense stepped up and our defense didn't.

...And Notre Dame, Clemson, Wake, Maryland, and Mercer. :)

[CDu]

...And Notre Dame, Clemson, Wake, Maryland, and Mercer. :)

Maryland and Clemson were well-disciplined teams defensively. Both had top-25 defenses. I agree about Wake, Notre Dame, and Mercer.

[Atlanta Duke]

This from a Jay Bilas story/interview in The New Republic (I guess Foreign Policy and The Economist are planning to interview Jay next:confused:)

On the morning of the UNC-Duke game-that-wasn’t, Bilas sat in his hotel room, reviewing tape of old games on his laptop. Twice he told the maid to come back later. After watching Duke run the same bland half-court offensive set about ten straight times, Bilas switched over to footage of the NBA’s San Antonio Spurs. He had a point to make. The Spurs have more talented and experienced players, of course, but also operate in a league designed to maximize the fan experience. They were magnitudes more exciting.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117079/espns-jay-bilas-ncaas-biggest-critic

I prefer winning to "excitement" but the Spurs certainly manage to do both. Jay Bilas noting the offensive set is repetitive has some credibility for me.

[CDu]

It certainly does appear that our offense has gotten less creative/sophisticated and more bland (note that "efficient" and "bland" are not mutually exclusive). The question is whether that blandness has resulted in issues in late-game situations.

As the game gets tight late, possessions tend to be more half-court oriented. If you don't have any offensive creativity and if you become predictable, then you really have to rely on "out-talenting" the opponent rather than out-thinking the opponent. And that's what we seemed to do this year. We seemed to come down and aimlessly play the ball around the perimeter until one of our very talented players either attempted a jumpshot or drove toward the basket. There was little concert of movement. There was little co-ordination of passing/cutting in an attempt to create easy baskets. We didn't run a team offense.

That was true pretty much on both ends of the floor all year. We never seemed to run a team offense or a team defense. There seemed to be a lack of communication and working together on either end of the floor. So individual breakdowns defensively were not covered up, and we wound up relying on individual greatness on the offensive end.

The scary thing is that this actually was effective for much of the year. We were able to hang with top ten teams like Kansas, Arizona, and Syracuse. We even beat two top-10 teams in Syracuse and UVa. We won over 25 games and were consistently a top-20 team. But we were always susceptible to defeat. We nearly lost to Maryland. We nearly lost to Vermont. We did lose to Clemson and Notre Dame and Wake Forest and finally Mercer.

I think the failures were at the coaching level: primarily that they were either unable to get these players to work together within the system, or they were unable to adjust the system to mesh with the players (or both).

[GGLC]

It certainly does appear that our offense has gotten less creative/sophisticated and more bland (note that "efficient" and "bland" are not mutually exclusive). The question is whether that blandness has resulted in issues in late-game situations.

As the game gets tight late, possessions tend to be more half-court oriented. If you don't have any offensive creativity and if you become predictable, then you really have to rely on "out-talenting" the opponent rather than out-thinking the opponent. And that's what we seemed to do this year. We seemed to come down and aimlessly play the ball around the perimeter until one of our very talented players either attempted a jumpshot or drove toward the basket. There was little concert of movement. There was little co-ordination of passing/cutting in an attempt to create easy baskets. We didn't run a team offense.

That was true pretty much on both ends of the floor all year. We never seemed to run a team offense or a team defense. There seemed to be a lack of communication and working together on either end of the floor. So individual breakdowns defensively were not covered up, and we wound up relying on individual greatness on the offensive end.

The scary thing is that this actually was effective for much of the year. We were able to hang with top ten teams like Kansas, Arizona, and Syracuse. We even beat two top-10 teams in Syracuse and UVa. We won over 25 games and were consistently a top-20 team. But we were always susceptible to defeat. We nearly lost to Maryland. We nearly lost to Vermont. We did lose to Clemson and Notre Dame and Wake Forest and finally Mercer.

I think the failures were at the coaching level: primarily that they were either unable to get these players to work together within the system, or they were unable to adjust the system to mesh with the players (or both).

Very well-said. And this is precisely why I don't understand the assertions I've seen that our problems this year were almost entirely confined to the defensive end. We simply didn't look like a cohesive team for long, long stretches, and the lack of effectiveness of defense was only a part of how this manifested.

It certainly makes me wonder, given all the talent we assuredly had, how far we could have gone this year if we had been able to address these issues. A team as talented as ours should not have had as many scares, close calls, and losses to inferior squads. Great Duke teams -- and I choose the word deliberately -- can certainly have bumps along the road to tournament success, perhaps dropping one or two games to underdog foes, but growing in the process and coming together as the season progressed. I never got any sense that we were building on our successes and adjusting to accommodate for what wasn't working, and that is on the coaching at least as much as the players.

There are many, many teams with much less overall talent that are still alive for the second weekend of the NCAAs.

[OZ]

BTW, this is Oz's opinion buried within this thread and made previous to mine. Maybe Throaty missed it?

I know I'm held to a different standard around here, and that's OK. I purposely avoided the Duke/Mercer thread because I didn't get to see the game, and I knew I'd become a target if I made any comment, no matter how reasonable. I see no need for any of this crap, I like to talk players, their talents, game strategy etc...

There's also no need for me to try and needle anybody. I can say Black.....and then a group of posters would follow up and call me a troll because I dissed the color of Duke's uniform that particular day.

I was only commenting in this thread after reading comment after comment basically blaming Duke's recent problems on guard play. I just don't see it that way. I actually think guard/wing play has been Duke's biggest strength lately.

On Mason...he did show more "traditional" post moves his Sr. year, and he was often successful with them, but that part of his game was never emphasized at the level it could have been. I think there are many Duke fans out there that would agree with that.

It's hard to argue with coach K. Hall of famer, great coach and it's his job to decide how to play his players.

I'm a stubborn SOB, I know. But I will speak my mind...and always try to do so with respect.

Part of K, or Roy, making the big bucks is letting us fans second guess his decisions.



In an attempt to defend his post, Wheat chose a point from an earlier post of mine; and IMO, he took it completely out of context. My post was an attempt to respond to previous posts reflecting upon Coach K's coaching performance THIS year. It had nothing to do with PREVIOUS years and ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with Mason.

[Des Esseintes]

Very well-said. And this is precisely why I don't understand the assertions I've seen that our problems this year were almost entirely confined to the defensive end. We simply didn't look like a cohesive team for long, long stretches, and the lack of effectiveness of defense was only a part of how this manifested.

I think people focussed on the defense because it was so much worse. The offense was imperfect but still the most efficient in the country just about. The D was a disaster. You might worry about dealing with that coolant leak in your car, but when your house is on fire, the coolant leak is much the less pressing concern.

[CDu]

I think people focussed on the defense because it was so much worse. The offense was imperfect but still the most efficient in the country just about. The D was a disaster. You might worry about dealing with that coolant leak in your car, but when your house is on fire, the coolant leak is much the less pressing concern.

Yeah, I agree (and I like the analogy). The offense had its warts. But the biggest problem all season long was the defense. Even our "hero ball" strategy on offense would have worked if we just kept opponents from scoring on 70+% of their possessions down the stretch.

Ideally, we'd correct both problems. But the offensive problems were MUCH less of a concern than our complete inability to get stops down the stretch.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think people focussed on the defense because it was so much worse. The offense was imperfect but still the most efficient in the country just about. The D was a disaster. You might worry about dealing with that coolant leak in your car, but when your house is on fire, the coolant leak is much the less pressing concern.

Yup. Our O wasn't Team USA-good, but Duke rarely, if ever, has a team that is that good on O as this year. D? It was just pathetic. Atrocious. Essentially, open up a thesaurus, look up the word "bad", and I'm pretty sure every adjective would apply to our D.

I said this a few times during the season, but I think it's important to keep this in mind: offense wins games, defense wins championships. We won a lot of games. But we didn't win anything substantial this year in terms of trophies.

[Kedsy]

The offense was imperfect but still the most efficient in the country just about.

According to Pomeroy, since Creighton's clunker against Baylor, Duke now possesses the #1 ranked offense in the nation. I hear everyone that our offense was boring and not particularly pretty and may have contributed to our opponents being fresher at the end of games, etc., but compared to our defense, our offense was not the problem.

[dyedwab]

According to Pomeroy, since Creighton's clunker against Baylor, Duke now possesses the #1 ranked offense in the nation. I hear everyone that our offense was boring and not particularly pretty and may have contributed to our opponents being fresher at the end of games, etc., but compared to our defense, our offense was not the problem.

Our team's problems this year were about communications, decision-making and knowing what they were supposed to do when and where. Manifested themselves much more extremely on the defensive end.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

In an attempt to defend his post, Wheat chose a point from an earlier post of mine; and IMO, he took it completely out of context. My post was an attempt to respond to previous posts reflecting upon Coach K's coaching performance THIS year. It had nothing to do with PREVIOUS years and ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with Mason.

My apologies if it came across as out of context. I was just using that statement to point out a double standard I receive from some posters.

...you can say Duke was weak inside, but evidently I can't.

[CDu]

My apologies if it came across as out of context. I was just using that statement to point out a double standard I receive from some posters.

...you can say Duke was weak inside, but evidently I can't.

Oh, you can certainly say Duke was weak inside this year. What you get grief for is when you say that Duke was weak inside the previous two years (which they weren't). Or that strong post play on offense is critical for a team's success (it is not).

[LobstersPinchPinch]

I think I see the coaching as a bigger issue than the majority of folks on this thread. Many talk about Coach K being a great coach now, whereas I think that's true over his career but no longer the case. I work with senior business leaders on a regular basis, and can say with confidence that the best combination of experience, adaptability, and vitality occur in the late 30's to mid 50's range. I've never seen a senior leader approaching 70, and even folks in their early 60's are more strategic and less operational. From a business perspective, I believe Coach K should be a Chairman rather than CEO.

I believe a more adaptable coaching staff would have quickly realized that Duke's standard approach to D just wasn't going to work this year, based both on the folks on the floor (imo, less "athletic" than many posters seem to think) and the time it apparently takes to learn. Given our major issues were penetration and defense at the rim, it seems very strange that we never even tried to incorporate the Pack Line Defense. (http://www.coachesclipboard.net/BasketballPackLineDefense.html)

On a related note, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that if Jabari leaves (and I think he should) and Emblid stays at KU, that we have a chance to get Turner. His defensive prowess, which apparently exceeds Okafor's, would be a huge step up for our D next year.

[LobstersPinchPinch]

My apologies if it came across as out of context. I was just using that statement to point out a double standard I receive from some posters.

...you can say Duke was weak inside, but evidently I can't.

As someone else recently pointed out, there's a small group of posters who take this board way too seriously. Personally I find your posts to be some of the more balanced and informed on this board. Maybe not at Kedsy level, but whose are? :-)

[flyingdutchdevil]

Oh, you can certainly say Duke was weak inside this year. What you get grief for is when you say that Duke was weak inside the previous two years (which they weren't). Or that strong post play on offense is critical for a team's success (it is not).

How about strong post play on defense? :(

[Troublemaker]

Offense and defense and game pressure are so interrelated in basketball since the same players play both ends of the court and experience all the successes and failures on both ends.

A competing (chicken-or-egg) theory for our end-game struggles would be: Play some freaking defense!

Too often this season, inferior opponents were playing with a ferocious confidence at the end of games that our defense imbued them with. The inferior opponents played with a "We can't believe we're scoring so easily! We have a chance and have nothing to lose! This is fun - wheeee!" verve. Especially a team like Clemson who is so unaccumstomed to scoring well.

On offense, Duke was playing with a "We can't get stops! We need to score every possession or we'll lose to this team we should beat! Panic!" anti-verve.

If Duke had even a top-40 defense this season, I doubt we'd hear much complaint about our offense. For one thing, we'd actually be even more efficient on offense if we had a few more transition buckets from turnovers/stops and more end-of-game free throws to salt away additional wins. For another thing, there would've been less game pressure on the offense down the stretch of games, which might've lead to us executing better.

I get that we didn't play offense as pretty as the Spurs (and what college team does?), but criticism of the offense ultimately feels like a nitpick to me. The offense couldn't handle the pressure at the end of many games, that's true, but there shouldn't have been so much pressure.

[CDu]

How about strong post play on defense? :(

I don't know that we had strong post play or not on defense. I suspect it wasn't good, but it's hard to play good interior defense (which I define slightly differently than post defense) when the other team is beating you from the perimeter.

I suspect that our post defense was also not good. But it was rarely the actual culprit in our losses. Teams were able to break us down on the perimeter and get easy looks, so there was rarely a need to test our post defense.

And just to be fair, I think that a fair amount of the blame for our poor containment on the perimeter can be placed on our bigs for not doing a better job of communicating and/or hedging effectively. But I don't consider that to be post defense.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Offense and defense and game pressure are so interrelated in basketball since the same players play both ends of the court and experience all the successes and failures on both ends.

A competing (chicken-or-egg) theory for our end-game struggles would be: Play some freaking defense!

Too often this season, inferior opponents were playing with a ferocious confidence at the end of games that our defense imbued them with. The inferior opponents played with a "We can't believe we're scoring so easily! We have a chance and have nothing to lose! This is fun - wheeee!" verve. Especially a team like Clemson who is so unaccumstomed to scoring well.

On offense, Duke was playing with a "We can't get stops! We need to score every possession or we'll lose to this team we should beat! Panic!" anti-verve.

If Duke had even a top-40 defense this season, I doubt we'd hear much complaint about our offense. For one thing, we'd actually be even more efficient on offense if we had a few more transition buckets from turnovers/stops and more end-of-game free throws to salt away additional wins. For another thing, there would've been less game pressure on the offense down the stretch of games, which might've lead to us executing better.

I get that we didn't play offense as pretty as the Spurs (and what college team does?), but criticism of the offense ultimately feels like a nitpick to me. The offense couldn't handle the pressure at the end of many games, that's true, but there shouldn't have been so much pressure.

I think a tiny minority are arguing about the offense. The vast majority of us are criticizing (and rightly so) our inept defense. Our major problems started with defense and they end with defense.

I know it's been talked about plenty, but I still don't understand how a Hall of Famer coach who specializes in D, coupled with elite recruits (including 6 McAA) who had a decent amount of experience (3 seniors, 1 junior, 1 redshirt sophomore (3 years in college), 1 transfer sophomore (3 years in college), 2 sophomores (one of which started his freshman campaign) was ranked #115 in defensive efficiency. I honestly don't get it.

[Kedsy]

Given our major issues were penetration and defense at the rim, it seems very strange that we never even tried to incorporate the Pack Line Defense.

The pack line is really tough to use as a secondary defense. It's hard to implement and has enough subtle intricacies that realistically it can only work as a primary (sole?) defense. And even as a primary defense I doubt it would have been feasible to change mid-season to that sort of defense.

The same goes for a really good zone. A lot of teams use a token zone as a secondary defense but the few times this season Duke tried to do that our token zone got shredded, probably for the same reason our man-to-man defense wasn't so good -- poor communication and rotation.

[Duvall]

The pack line is really tough to use as a secondary defense. It's hard to implement and has enough subtle intricacies that realistically it can only work as a primary (sole?) defense. And even as a primary defense I doubt it would have been feasible to change mid-season to that sort of defense.

The same goes for a really good zone. A lot of teams use a token zone as a secondary defense but the few times this season Duke tried to do that our token zone got shredded, probably for the same reason our man-to-man defense wasn't so good -- poor communication and rotation.

Then again, Baylor uses a token zone as its primary defense and managed to crush Creighton last night. I'm still not sure how that happened.

[CDu]

I think a tiny minority are arguing about the offense. The vast majority of us are criticizing (and rightly so) our inept defense. Our major problems started with defense and they end with defense.

I know it's been talked about plenty, but I still don't understand how a Hall of Famer coach who specializes in D, coupled with elite recruits (including 6 McAA) who had a decent amount of experience (3 seniors, 1 junior, 1 redshirt sophomore (3 years in college), 1 transfer sophomore (3 years in college), 2 sophomores (one of which started his freshman campaign) was ranked #115 in defensive efficiency. I honestly don't get it.

That is really the $64,000 question. People talk about youth, but this team wasn't very young. In fact, we were (by major team standards) fairly old. Hood had 2 years of college experience (and a year in the Duke system) coming into the system. Plumlee and Cook had 2 years of experience. Thornton, Dawkins, and Hairston had 3. Sulaimon had just one but was a starter. Sure, Jefferson only played sparingly as a freshman, but he still had a year in the system. Parker, Jones, and Ojeleye were freshmen, but of them only Parker played major minutes. This was not a REALLY old team, but it most certainly wasn't a young team by today's standards.

I do wonder how much of this was related to the death of Coach K's brother (i.e., did he defer too much to his assistants who weren't up to the challenge?) and how much of it was just bad coaching. But it is somewhat shocking how bad we were defensively given that we weren't THAT young.

[Kfanarmy]

I think a tiny minority are arguing about the offense. The vast majority of us are criticizing (and rightly so) our inept defense. Our major problems started with defense and they end with defense.

I know it's been talked about plenty, but I still don't understand how a Hall of Famer coach who specializes in D, coupled with elite recruits (including 6 McAA) who had a decent amount of experience (3 seniors, 1 junior, 1 redshirt sophomore (3 years in college), 1 transfer sophomore (3 years in college), 2 sophomores (one of which started his freshman campaign) was ranked #115 in defensive efficiency. I honestly don't get it.

Perhaps a couple of those players have very little defensive instinct...kind of like Carmelo in the NBA. Once he was taken out of Syracuse protective zone, he's defensive shortfalls became really transparent. Some of the teams he's been on have been great offensively and even more terrible defensively.

[Kedsy]

Once he was taken out of Syracuse protective zone, he's defensive shortfalls became really transparent.

You mean "apparent"?

[CDu]

Perhaps a couple of those players have very little defensive instinct...kind of like Carmelo in the NBA. Once he was taken out of Syracuse protective zone, he's defensive shortfalls became really transparent. Some of the teams he's been on have been great offensively and even more terrible defensively.

I would suggest that it may be more than a couple of those players. I would say that, outside of Thornton, I'm not sure that any of our players this year had very good defensive instincts. Sulaimon and Jefferson seem to have the "want to", but perhaps not the right instincts. Hood and Parker also seem to have the want to but appear to lack the defensive focus and/or instincts. And Hairston seemed to just be overly committal (too quick to switch on D; too interested in drawing a charge rather than playing better positional defense and/or challenging a shot).

[Kfanarmy]

You mean "apparent"?

You are correct. Between typo's and usage today, I need an ESL class!

[jamesfrommaiden]

I understand all the talk about the coaching. I get it. I know a lot of the moves Coach K tried this year didn't work. It isn't in my opinion nothing more than that. I understand the debate about style of play. I know that a majority of us probably think this team should have performed better on the court. We are Duke so I am not going to make any excuses for not at least making a sweet sixteen appearance. I will say this. Sometimes the changes and coaching decisions work, and sometimes they don't. I know that is a bit of an oversimplification of this past season, but I do think it is fair to say if nothing else than to defend the coaching staff at least a little. Youth is not an excuse for losing, but it is a fact. The willingness and lack of the same to play with more heart and determination on the defensive end can not be blamed on the coaches. It is about the fight. Who stood up and said, or took over on the court and with their play and actions said we are Duke and we are not going to lose or that we have to play harder. I don't know who did or if anybody did. Yes there are things I saw and I am sure you all did that we would have liked to see done differently this past year. I just think this is a year when it all didn't come together.

[jv001]

I would suggest that it may be more than a couple of those players. I would say that, outside of Thornton, I'm not sure that any of our players this year had very good defensive instincts. Sulaimon and Jefferson seem to have the "want to", but perhaps not the right instincts. Hood and Parker also seem to have the want to but appear to lack the defensive focus and/or instincts. And Hairston seemed to just be overly committal (too quick to switch on D; too interested in drawing a charge rather than playing better positional defense and/or challenging a shot).

This season our perimeter guys did a poor job of stopping dribble penetration that caused our interior players to get into foul trouble. Our big players were caught out of position way too many times on switches and hedges. I agree with CDu this Duke team lacked good defensive instincts. I certainly hope next years freshmen have those instincts and can apply them to the college game. I'm optimistic that Justise and Okafor can, but I'm concerned about Tyus and Allen. GoDuke!

[throatybeard]

First, I want to caution roywhite to think carefully about going with Throaty - an admitted Failed Southerner - on anything. Except perhaps to an Over the Rhine concert; that'd probably be safe enough.

It's a somewhat oblique reference to Henry McCullough's song, "Failed Christian," which Over the Rhine has actually covered. Unfortunately, he can't sing, and there's not a Youtube of Karin Bergquist covering it. So I give you Nick Lowe's fairly nondescript cover.

In my early twenties, there's no way you could have told me what was in store for my thirties and I'd have consented to hear it. But here we are: I'm an expatriate and I'm never going back permanently. Something inside me broke when we were in Mississippi. It's my fault, not Mississippi's. But when I first got up here in Yankeeland, I found myself using metaphors of escape to describe the first three decades of my life. When I go back South, I have this uncontrollable feeling, as if I'll never be allowed back out, like the Yankees caught me without papers and deported me or something. When the SEC absorbed Mizzou, I felt like something was coming to eat me.

There are pleasures too: the first Southern woman you hear talking after you step off the plane, Honeymonk's, Boone and Blowing Rock. But I'm never moving back. I live a life void of sweet tea, fried everything, eight-month summers, and Carolina fans, and I love it. I'm a failed Southerner.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioMc4AyziYA

[jv001]

It's a somewhat oblique reference to Henry McCullough's song, "Failed Christian," which Over the Rhine has actually covered. Unfortunately, he can't sing, and there's not a Youtube of Karin Bergquist covering it. So I give you Nick Lowe's fairly nondescript cover.

In my early twenties, there's no way you could have told me what was in store for my thirties and I'd have consented to hear it. But here we are: I'm an expatriate and I'm never going back permanently. Something inside me broke when we were in Mississippi. It's my fault, not Mississippi's. But when I first got up here in Yankeeland, I found myself using metaphors of escape to describe the first three decades of my life. When I go back South, I have this uncontrollable feeling, as if I'll never be allowed back out, like the Yankees caught me without papers and deported me or something. When the SEC absorbed Mizzou, I felt like something was coming to eat me.

There are pleasures too: the first Southern woman you hear talking after you step off the plane, Honeymonk's, Boone and Blowing Rock. But I'm never moving back. I live a life void of sweet tea, fried everything, eight-month summers, and Carolina fans, and I love it. I'm a failed Southerner.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioMc4AyziYA

Yeh, but you're a Cardinal fan. I know that has to count for something. :cool: GoDuke and GoRedbirds!

[Duvall]

That is really the $64,000 question. People talk about youth, but this team wasn't very young. In fact, we were (by major team standards) fairly old.

Actually, I'm not sure that is the case. Duke measured #279 in the country in experience this year according to Pomeroy - all those minutes to freshmen and sophomores added up, I guess. That's still pretty far from historically young, though.

[Troublemaker]

I think I see the coaching as a bigger issue than the majority of folks on this thread. Many talk about Coach K being a great coach now, whereas I think that's true over his career but no longer the case. I work with senior business leaders on a regular basis, and can say with confidence that the best combination of experience, adaptability, and vitality occur in the late 30's to mid 50's range. I've never seen a senior leader approaching 70, and even folks in their early 60's are more strategic and less operational. From a business perspective, I believe Coach K should be a Chairman rather than CEO.

The thing is, at age 63, Coach K won a national championship. At age 66, he put together another very strong Final Four contender in the 2013 team. Do you even make this post if Ryan Kelly and Seth Curry didn't get injured and/or Duke was placed in a different bracket from Louisville last season?

Obviously his age 67 season was disappointing. I'm pretty darn confident that his age 68 season will be terrific, though.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Actually, I'm not sure that is the case. Duke measured #279 in the country in experience this year according to Pomeroy - all those minutes to freshmen and sophomores added up, I guess. That's still pretty far from historically young, though.

Does KenPom add Hood's transfer year or MP3's redshirt year? Amongst our year-end rotation, we only had 1 true freshman. Hood was in the system, practicing with the senior squad, for a full year before he ever played a game for Duke. And, as many of the old guard have noted on DBR, practice goes a much longer way for experience than game play.

Our rotation, IMO, was pretty experienced. Our best players may have been 2 sophs (Hood and Sulaimon) and a frosh (Parker), but everyone else had a decent amount of experience. I agree with CDu - I don't think we were as young as many think we were.

[jamesfrommaiden]

The thing is, at age 63, Coach K won a national championship. At age 66, he put together another very strong Final Four contender in the 2013 team. Do you even make this post if Ryan Kelly and Seth Curry didn't get injured and/or Duke was placed in a different bracket from Louisville last season?

Obviously his age 67 season was disappointing. I'm pretty darn confident that his age 68 season will be terrific, though.

I couldn't have said it better myself Troublemaker.

[jv001]

The thing is, at age 63, Coach K won a national championship. At age 66, he put together another very strong Final Four contender in the 2013 team. Do you even make this post if Ryan Kelly and Seth Curry didn't get injured and/or Duke was placed in a different bracket from Louisville last season?

Obviously his age 67 season was disappointing. I'm pretty darn confident that his age 68 season will be terrific, though.

I don't think age has anything to do with it. Maybe adaptability comes into play, but I still believe the tragedy of Coach K's brother's sudden passing had more to do with the improvement or lack of improvement of this team. I know he had to be hurting. God bless him. GoDuke!

[LobstersPinchPinch]

The thing is, at age 63, Coach K won a national championship. At age 66, he put together another very strong Final Four contender in the 2013 team. Do you even make this post if Ryan Kelly and Seth Curry didn't get injured and/or Duke was placed in a different bracket from Louisville last season?

Obviously his age 67 season was disappointing. I'm pretty darn confident that his age 68 season will be terrific, though.

Hi Troublemaker. Appreciate the thoughtful response. In answer to your question, yes, I believe I'd make the same post, here's why.

For a company (team, etc.) in a stable environment, there's often little need to make significant adjustments to strategies. Little tweaks are all that's necessary, in which case, the need for adaptability, high energy, etc. is low. A turbulent environment (e.g., sudden and major rule changes, inexperienced players playing large roles, etc.) requires a hands-on leader who is able to dispassionately analyze the environment and make quick adjustments. I would argue that the two years you mention - 2010 and 2013 - more closely fit a stable environment, whereas this past year was clearly turbulent by comparison.

I've seen CEOs who are stars for years get overwhelmed when their external/internal environment changes significantly and unexpectedly. Most CEOs in this position simply can't adapt quickly enough, because their "way of doing things" has worked for so long. Circumstantially that's the position I think Coach K is in right now.

Now timeframe is important. After this year's performance, many CEOs would, at the very least, be on a very short leash with their Boards. In Duke's case, Coach K isn't under that type of pressure. But my hope is that he behaves like he is.

[OldSchool]

According to Pomeroy, since Creighton's clunker against Baylor, Duke now possesses the #1 ranked offense in the nation. I hear everyone that our offense was boring and not particularly pretty and may have contributed to our opponents being fresher at the end of games, etc., but compared to our defense, our offense was not the problem.

This argument would be more persuasive to me if I thought we had reached our potential offensively. We had, in my view, an amazing array of offensive weaponry on this team. The point for me is not whether we were ranked #1 in offense, but whether we achieved what was reasonably possible offensively for this team, given its potential.

Which is not to say that our defense wasn't woeful and in need of vast improvement. Obviously, it was.

But it is possible that with this collection of players making the offense even better was a more realistic possibility than getting them to play the traditional style of aggressive Duke perimeter defense well.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

All this discussion about what's going on with Coach K, when he'll retire, what went on this year (or didn't go on) has not included consideration of the role of a major player: Mickie Krzyzewski. She and Coach K live and work as a team. Mickie is very astute. When it's time for the next stage of life, she'll know it and guide him to make a change if need be. He'll announce it, but it will be a joint decision.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

Maybe our players are not as talented as they appeared to be when they were recruited. They may work very hard at improving, but can't excel in college as they did in HS. It happens all the time ... some guys get much better each year after HS; others don't. Some become very good (or great) college team players; others don't. Even the best coaching can't always help some players improve significantly at this level.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

All this discussion about what's going on with Coach K, when he'll retire, what went on this year (or didn't go on) has not included consideration of the role of a major player: Mickie Krzyzewski. She and Coach K live and work as a team. Mickie is very astute. When it's time for the next stage of life, she'll know it and guide him to make a change if need be. He'll announce it, but it will be a joint decision.

I will confess, there's a nagging voice in the back of my head that's been wondering how long it will be... Unquestionably, this season took its toll on K. I want him to go out on top. Of course, I want that to be 20 years from now too, but I'm a bit more realistic than that.

Anyways, I will stick my fingers in my ears when there's any speculation about such things...

[Julio]

Ben, you are welcome to your opinions of course, but I think it's wildly inappropriate for a mod to call out a poster and urge people to boycott him. The mods, as you well know, have the authority to ban any user who gets out of line and some have been permanently booted. That's fine. But since these comments were approved and posted, the idea that a mod would urge a boycott of a duly accepted poster isn't democratic, it's closer to bullying.
Wheat has been posting here as long as anyone. He does at times provoke, but in my experience, he's been reasonable. I don't pull for Carolina, obviously, but everybody has their flaws. And I really don't care.
What I do care about is his behavior. If it's egregious and the mods decide to ban him, I won't object. But if he's allowed to post like anyone else, then by definition he's not particularly offensive and I must object to an effort to ostracize him. That's not what you are here to do.




I want to speak to my fellow Duke fans.

I think the most democratic method of dealing with this poster is to simply stop responding to him. He posts solely to get a rise out of people. Carolina people enjoy being nasty to us. When we react to him, we are giving him exactly what he wants. You can starve this sort of person by ignoring him. I'd sing the "just don't look" song from Treehouse of Horror VI, but my voice isn't as cute as Yeardly Smith's. If we don't give him the reactions he's trolling for, he'll go away, eventually.

We have had respectable UNC posters in the past, such as DBS, ClosetHurleyFan, and Chris13. I have respect for them. I am not posting this out of disrespect for UNC-Chapel Hill. This is not a poster we should ever respond to, ever again. Cut him off.

[Kfanarmy]

Duke had some games this year where their offensive efficiency must have been off-the-charts good. Being ranked number one in AdjO at the end of a season in which most of their nine losses seemed to include long scoring droughts baffles me though.



… And, as many of the old guard have noted on DBR, practice goes a much longer way for experience than game play…Our rotation, IMO, was pretty experienced. Our best players may have been 2 sophs (Hood and Sulaimon) and a frosh (Parker), but everyone else had a decent amount of experience. I agree with CDu - I don't think we were as young as many think we were.
I see it somewhat differently. Practice goes a long way toward preparation, but you can only get collegiate-level experience playing the game. Duke may not have been that young, but was inexperienced at the start of the season.

[AnotherNYCDukeFan]

What's your basis for saying we're on a "decade long decline"? Especially if you use the standard definition of "decline," there's no discernible trend that I can see that shows a decline from the beginning of the decade to the end. If instead you mean this decade hasn't been as good as previous decades, then really the only basis I can see is based on two games. I'll grant that losing in the first round of the NCAAs this year and in 2012 was disappointing, but it can hardly be the basis for so grand a statement as "decade long decline."

I read this last night but it was too late to do the research and I just got to it today. Perhaps this has been discussed since the original posting, but I think if one looks at the 10-year trailing average of NCAA tournament wins, it's pretty clear that Duke just completed the worst 10-year stretch since K arrived. I'm not suggesting any of the "game has passed him by" themes, but I do think it's worth noting that tournament performance as measured by wins is not what it used to be.

Tournament Year Wins Trailing 10 Year Average
2014 0 1.8
2013 3 2.2
2012 0 2.1
2011 2 2.3
2010 6 2.7
2009 2 2.3
2008 1 2.6
2007 0 2.8
2006 2 2.9
2005 2 2.7
2004 4 2.5
2003 2 2.6
2002 2 2.5
2001 6 2.9
2000 2 2.9
1999 5 3.2
1998 3 3.1
1997 1 3.2
1996 0 3.3
1995 0 3.8
1994 5 3.9
1993 1 3.4
1992 6 3.3
1991 6 2.7
1990 5 2.1
1989 4 1.8
1988 4 1.4
1987 2 1.4
1986 5 1.2
1985 1 0.7
1984 0 0.6
1983 0 0.6
1982 0 0.6
1981 0 0.6

[CDu]

I read this last night but it was too late to do the research and I just got to it today. Perhaps this has been discussed since the original posting, but I think if one looks at the 10-year trailing average of NCAA tournament wins, it's pretty clear that Duke just completed the worst 10-year stretch since K arrived. I'm not suggesting any of the "game has passed him by" themes, but I do think it's worth noting that tournament performance as measured by wins is not what it used to be.

Tournament Year Wins Trailing 10 Year Average
2014 0 1.8
2013 3 2.2
2012 0 2.1
2011 2 2.3
2010 6 2.7
2009 2 2.3
2008 1 2.6
2007 0 2.8
2006 2 2.9
2005 2 2.7
2004 4 2.5
2003 2 2.6
2002 2 2.5
2001 6 2.9
2000 2 2.9
1999 5 3.2
1998 3 3.1
1997 1 3.2
1996 0 3.3
1995 0 3.8
1994 5 3.9
1993 1 3.4
1992 6 3.3
1991 6 2.7
1990 5 2.1
1989 4 1.8
1988 4 1.4
1987 2 1.4
1986 5 1.2
1985 1 0.7
1984 0 0.6
1983 0 0.6
1982 0 0.6
1981 0 0.6

And that trailing average approach means the data for the last four years are very much buoyed by the 2010 season. If you made this an average of a dichotomous variable (e.g., made it past sweet-16, or made it to Final Four), the results become a bit more stark. I don't see any real way to argue against the statement that this has been the worst 10-year stretch since pre-1986.

Of course, that is largely because Duke was absolutely ridiculous from 1986-2004, making 10 final fours and missing the sweet-16 just 4 times over a 19 year span. By comparison, most 10-year stretches would look like a decline. But the fact that we have missed the sweet-16 (4 times) and the elite-8 (8 times) as many times in the last 10 years as we did in the previous 19 suggests we have been in a decline (at least with regard to the NCAA tourney).

[fuse]

I'm no expert, and I don't play one on TV, either.
Someone suggested earlier in the season that the pack line defense that UVa and Arizona play may have helped us.
I am sure we want to be innovators, not imitators, but there seems to be some merit in that type of defense given our struggles.

I did think the platooning showed a willingness to listen and change. Everyone always says Coach K's greatest strength is adapting his system to his personnel. I am hopeful we'll see the fruits of that adaptability next season.

[Nugget]

Regarding coaching and Duke's offense, a very smart friend of mine and long-time Duke fan made the following observation this morning, which I found extremely apt:

"In thinking about our offense further, what I kept coming around to (other than the just pure aesthetic shortcomings) was that we made it pretty easy for people to defend us. I was struck in watching almost every minute of the Thursday and Friday games last week how it seemed like every other team, from one seed to 16 seed, moved much, much more on offense - both players and the ball.

We were content to just pass the ball around the perimeter or stand around and wait to see if Parker or Hood was going to drive. We seemed to have very little off-the-ball movement, very little of the multiple screen-setting, and very little that required our opponent to spend a lot of energy chasing our players or the ball.

The less energy they spend having to defend constant movement on offense, the more energy they have at the end of games. I suspect - but have no way of proving - that this was a factor in our inability to close teams out. We used to wear teams out, wear them down, and put them away. This year, it felt like we were content to either shoot ourselves to victory or rely on the superb offensive talents of our two stars to win one-on-one battles.

While having interior size is one way to get easy baskets at crunch time, so is wearing an opponent out until they are too tired to keep up with ball and player movement. I recall seeing very little of this in 2013-2014."

I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the relationship between the relative ease of defending our offensive schemes and Duke's late-game woes on both ends of the court.

I think these are all excellent points. While the defensive troubles of this team were I think ultimately more of the problem (and, I, too, don't understand why the staff never seemed to adjust to the need to back off of the pressure defense and play more like we did in 2010 when it became clear over the course of the season that our PGs couldn't stop penetration, we weren't generating TOs, we were fouling too much, the charge/block rule wasn't going our way and Jabari due to his youth wasn't able to cover defensive mistakes like we've come to expect from Duke 4s), I had similar observations about our offense.

We were just too easy to guard this year and far too often had people either driving 1 on 4, or taking late possession 3s. I don't know if it was entirely due to lack of movement of players/ball, though that was part of it. I could also have been that we often only had three perceived offensive threats on the floor. But, whatever it was, we (subjectively) seemed much less likely to consistently get good shots down the stretch than our opponents did.

One other possibility is that it also seemed like Jabari and Rodney were both almost always in foul trouble in late game situations but that our opponents' key players weren't. That too could contribute to late game scoring droughts and our comparative inability to generate good shots late in the game -- our key players couldn't defend as aggressively as other teams' players could.