PDA

View Full Version : Ranking the title teams



em0526
04-21-2015, 07:55 PM
I saw a video on the ACC Network ranking the Duke title teams. Their order was:
1) 2001
2) 1992
3) 2010
4) 2015
5) 1991

I love all 5 of these teams. I thought 1992 would be the clear winner in this argument, but the announcer said that a 2001 Battier could contain a 1992 Laettner. Maybe - but who from 2001 guards Grant Hill? A 2010 v 2015 game would also be fun to watch. Could Smith/Scheyer contain Cook/Jones? How would Singler match up with Winslow?

NM Duke Fan
04-21-2015, 08:06 PM
I saw a video on the ACC Network ranking the Duke title teams. Their order was:
1) 2001
2) 1992
3) 2010
4) 2015
5) 1991

I love all 5 of these teams. I thought 1992 would be the clear winner in this argument, but the announcer said that a 2001 Battier could contain a 1992 Laettner. Maybe - but who from 2001 guards Grant Hill? A 2010 v 2015 game would also be fun to watch. Could Smith/Scheyer contain Cook/Jones? How would Singler match up with Winslow?

Some very tough calls to make there, that is for sure! I don't have much time right now, but my order would be more like this roughly:

1 92
2 01
3 15
3 91
5 10

What jumps out at me is the difficulty of guarding Jah and Winslow for most anybody. but maybe this is what is known in the trading world as the "recency factor."

OldPhiKap
04-21-2015, 08:18 PM
Until someone shows me that they can beat Hurley, Grant and Christian -- they win.

But love all five equally.

Edouble
04-21-2015, 09:13 PM
I saw a video on the ACC Network ranking the Duke title teams. Their order was:
1) 2001
2) 1992
3) 2010
4) 2015
5) 1991

I love all 5 of these teams. I thought 1992 would be the clear winner in this argument, but the announcer said that a 2001 Battier could contain a 1992 Laettner. Maybe - but who from 2001 guards Grant Hill? A 2010 v 2015 game would also be fun to watch. Could Smith/Scheyer contain Cook/Jones? How would Singler match up with Winslow?

LOL, Battier had trouble containing Loren Woods. Are you kidding me?

flagellaman
04-22-2015, 12:43 AM
2001....1992....2001.....1992.....ooooo, hard to say.

If you will, examine the rotation of the two teams:

1992 - Laettner, Davis, G Hill, T Hill, Hurley, Parks and Lang were the top seven rotation players, Clark the 8th.

2001 - Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, Williams, Duhon, James, and by necessity, Sanders and Love and Christensen.

Many remember the 1992 team going wire-to-wire ranked #1 in the polls, which in itself, is an outstanding achievement. The 1992 team had 5 players averaging double figures, Davis 11.2, Hurley 13.2, G Hill 14, T Hill 14.6 and Laettner 21.5.

The 2001 team also had 5 players average double-figures, James 12.3, Dunleavy, 12.6, Boozer 13.3, Battier 19.9 and Williams 21.6. Duhon averaged 7.2, but with 4.5 assists and 2 steals per game.

Both teams averaged 18-ish assists per game. 2001 averaged 38 rebounds to 34 for 1992. Even though 1992 averaged 43.4% on 3's, 2001 shot 2.5 times more 3's at a 38.5% clip. 2001 FG% was 48.1%, but 1992 blistered at 53.6%.

2001 averaged way more blocks and steals than 1992. And 2001 average 90.7 points per game, 1992 averaged 88.0.

If I were deciding based on both inside and outside firepower (whatever firepower means), I think I would go with 2001. 5 players on the 2001 team attempted at least 122 3's, while 1992 only had one exceed 100 3's (Hurley's 140, while T Hill 97 and Laettner 91 were the only other significant threats from 3's). How do you night in and night out defend a team that kills you both inside and outside?

But if my angle is efficiency, I think I would go with 1992. 1992 had 100 more made free-throws (and a higher percentage) as well higher percentage shooting in general.

In case you forgot, 2001 bounced around the top 4 all season, starting at 2 and ending at 1.

I think if you rolled the names of the top seven/eight in the rotation to a random sample of sports fan, there's more name recognition of the 2001 roster making it to the NBA than the 1992 team.

gurufrisbee
04-22-2015, 08:16 AM
92
91
01
15
10
16

ice-9
04-22-2015, 08:38 AM
92
91
01
15
10
16

I don't know, that 2016 team is awful good. First team to go undefeated since Indiana. Beat all opponents in the NCAA tournament by double digits too -- including 20 points over the Cheats in the championship game.

duke blue brewcrew
04-22-2015, 08:59 AM
2001....1992....2001.....1992.....ooooo, hard to say.

If you will, examine the rotation of the two teams:

1992 - Laettner, Davis, G Hill, T Hill, Hurley, Parks and Lang were the top seven rotation players, Clark the 8th.

2001 - Battier, Boozer, Dunleavy, Williams, Duhon, James, and by necessity, Sanders and Love and Christensen.

Many remember the 1992 team going wire-to-wire ranked #1 in the polls, which in itself, is an outstanding achievement. The 1992 team had 5 players averaging double figures, Davis 11.2, Hurley 13.2, G Hill 14, T Hill 14.6 and Laettner 21.5.

The 2001 team also had 5 players average double-figures, James 12.3, Dunleavy, 12.6, Boozer 13.3, Battier 19.9 and Williams 21.6. Duhon averaged 7.2, but with 4.5 assists and 2 steals per game.

Both teams averaged 18-ish assists per game. 2001 averaged 38 rebounds to 34 for 1992. Even though 1992 averaged 43.4% on 3's, 2001 shot 2.5 times more 3's at a 38.5% clip. 2001 FG% was 48.1%, but 1992 blistered at 53.6%.

2001 averaged way more blocks and steals than 1992. And 2001 average 90.7 points per game, 1992 averaged 88.0.

If I were deciding based on both inside and outside firepower (whatever firepower means), I think I would go with 2001. 5 players on the 2001 team attempted at least 122 3's, while 1992 only had one exceed 100 3's (Hurley's 140, while T Hill 97 and Laettner 91 were the only other significant threats from 3's). How do you night in and night out defend a team that kills you both inside and outside?

But if my angle is efficiency, I think I would go with 1992. 1992 had 100 more made free-throws (and a higher percentage) as well higher percentage shooting in general.

In case you forgot, 2001 bounced around the top 4 all season, starting at 2 and ending at 1.

I think if you rolled the names of the top seven/eight in the rotation to a random sample of sports fan, there's more name recognition of the 2001 roster making it to the NBA than the 1992 team.

I loved this post, brings back some great memories of the past! For me, I think the deciding factor here is Christian Laettner. Arguably the greatest college basketball career of the modern era. To your point about efficiency, Laettner would be hell do deal with both inside and out. I think he would get Boozer in foul trouble pretty quickly inside, and Battier would have a hard time stopping him outside. Hill I believe wins the battle against Dunleavy and everything else is potentially a wash. There is an interesting discussion to be had about the '91 v. '15 teams. I would love to see an analysis of that match-up.

My thoughts on how to rank the five are (wow this is hard!)

1. '92
2. '01
3. '15
4. '91
5. '10

NM Duke Fan
04-22-2015, 09:06 AM
I loved this post, brings back some great memories of the past! For me, I think the deciding factor here is Christian Laettner. Arguably the greatest college basketball career of the modern era. To your point about efficiency, Laettner would be hell do deal with both inside and out. I think he would get Boozer in foul trouble pretty quickly inside, and Battier would have a hard time stopping him outside. Hill I believe wins the battle against Dunleavy and everything else is potentially a wash. There is an interesting discussion to be had about the '91 v. '15 teams. I would love to see an analysis of that match-up.

My thoughts on how to rank the five are (wow this is hard!)

1. '92
2. '01
3. '15
4. '91
5. '10

I see we have the same order! And in my case I also felt Christian was just too much, and Grant also would have been a challenge. The 91-15 matchup indeed is intriguing, and it was so difficult to call that I called it a tie with both listed as 3 in my list posted above. If strongly pressed on the issue, I guess I would give a very slight edge to 15, due to Jah and Winslow being a bit physically stronger/more muscular.

duke blue brewcrew
04-22-2015, 09:26 AM
I see we have the same order! And in my case I also felt Christian was just too much, and Grant also would have been a challenge. The 91-15 matchup indeed is intriguing, and it was so difficult to call that I called it a tie with both listed as 3 in my list posted above. If strongly pressed on the issue, I guess I would give a very slight edge to 15, due to Jah and Winslow being a bit physically stronger/more muscular.

Agreed. Jah would be defenseless on the perimeter against Laettner, so the '15 defense would really have to attack the passing lanes to prevent Christian from getting the ball as much as possible. Christian has shown he can beat big physical players like Jah - see LSU's Shaquille O'Neal. Hill v Winslow is a VERY interesting match-up. Hurley/McCaffery v. Jones/Cook also incredibly intriguing. That leaves the 4 match-up which is a variable. Davis for the '91 team, and does '15 go small with M. Jones or traditional with Jefferson? I can only assume that bench depth is another factor to consider.

Edouble
04-22-2015, 02:45 PM
Agreed. Jah would be defenseless on the perimeter against Laettner, so the '15 defense would really have to attack the passing lanes to prevent Christian from getting the ball as much as possible. Christian has shown he can beat big physical players like Jah - see LSU's Shaquille O'Neal. Hill v Winslow is a VERY interesting match-up. Hurley/McCaffery v. Jones/Cook also incredibly intriguing. That leaves the 4 match-up which is a variable. Davis for the '91 team, and does '15 go small with M. Jones or traditional with Jefferson? I can only assume that bench depth is another factor to consider.

Winslow wins this matchup easily, with Hill believing that Justise is the greatest defender ever at Duke. Grant fails to score or get a rebound in the game.

NM Duke Fan
04-22-2015, 02:53 PM
Winslow wins this matchup easily, with Hill believing that Justise is the greatest defender ever at Duke. Grant fails to score or get a rebound in the game.

Very funny! I guess that would be Justise for his enthusiastic comment during the moment, one which he will never be able to live down...

MCFinARL
04-22-2015, 05:03 PM
I don't know, that 2016 team is awful good. First team to go undefeated since Indiana. Beat all opponents in the NCAA tournament by double digits too -- including 20 points over the Cheats in the championship game.

Yet another poster who got lost on the way to the Optimist thread. I like the way you think, though.

fuse
04-22-2015, 05:23 PM
Any list that does not have the 1991 team as first is flawed.
I pull the Star Wars / Empire Strikes Back correlary as you can't have the second without the first.

sagegrouse
04-22-2015, 05:46 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but I have a question: "Do you rank your children or grandchildren?"

Reilly
04-22-2015, 06:18 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but I have a question: "Do you rank your children or grandchildren?"

All the time. And I don't think they care for it all that much, but like I tell them: "sometimes the truth hurts."

Kdogg
04-22-2015, 06:23 PM
Honestly, I can not see how 1992 isn't number one on everybody's list. That team was a machine and would wipe the floor with 2015, 2010 and 1991. The 2001 team would give them a game but 92 wins. I have to agree with previously post order of:
1) 1992
2) 2001
3) 2015
4) 1991
5) 2010 - I love this team but the gap is pretty big between them and the next on the list.

-jk
04-22-2015, 09:01 PM
Honestly, I can not see how 1992 isn't number one on everybody's list. That team was a machine and would wipe the floor with 2015, 2010 and 1991. The 2001 team would give them a game but 92 wins. I have to agree with previously post order of:
1) 1992
2) 2001
3) 2015
4) 1991
5) 2010 - I love this team but the gap is pretty big between them and the next on the list.

I like your '92 story. Not so sure about your '10 basement... Those guys were solid. Clutch, even. (If not glamorous...)

-jk

weezie
04-22-2015, 09:25 PM
^^^ what jk said. Clutch is the word. That's why I think Kyle could have defended Winslow very effectively. Kyle was such a superb blanket defender, just a tormenter. Justise would have had to work pretty hard for his shots. But on talent I'll take hhhmmmm 2001-2015 toss up.

Isn't this a fun thread?!!!!!

wilson
04-22-2015, 09:39 PM
^^^ what jk said. Clutch is the word. That's why I think Kyle could have defended Winslow very effectively. Kyle was such a superb blanket defender, just a tormenter. Justise would have had to work pretty hard for his shots. But on talent I'll take hhhmmmm 2001-2015 toss up.

Isn't this a fun thread?!!!!!Here's another fun question...what if we gave "at large bids" to the three best non-title teams and played an 8-team tournament? I'd be willing to bet that consensus for the at-large teams would be '99, '86, and '66 (or maybe '78), but how do you seed it?

MarkD83
04-22-2015, 09:45 PM
Here's another fun question...what if we gave "at large bids" to the three best non-title teams and played an 8-team tournament? I'd be willing to bet that consensus for the at-large teams would be '99, '86, and '66 (or maybe '78), but how do you seed it?

Well the 99 team would have to be seeded on the opposite side of the 01 team and the 91 and 92 teams would also have to be on opposite sides. Otherwise, we would have a universal paradox that would tear apart the space time continuum when Nate tries to shut down Nate, Shane on Shane, Bobby on Bobby, Christian on Christian etc.....

DukeandMdFan
04-23-2015, 12:21 AM
92
91
01
15
10
16

NOTE: Rankings influenced by my belief that the quality of play in college has steadily declined as fewer and fewer stars play for four years.

I go with
'92
'91
'01
'10
'15

Coach K has improved over the years, but I think the earlier teams had more talent and experience. Reliance on freshmen is the main reason that I would rank the '15 team fifth. I think Okafor could defend Boozer a lot better than he could defend Laettner. The 2010 team had seniors, but no super star whose jersey is hanging from the rafters. There probably won't be any jersey retirements from the '15 team either, but there would have been if they had stayed four years.


Until someone shows me that they can beat Hurley, Grant and Christian -- they win.

I think the best players from the Championship Teams (at the times they won their Championships) are Laettner and Hill. The '01 team couldn't cover both of them with Shane Battier. JWill might be slightly better than Hurley, but it is very close.

The '92 and '91 teams also had more Final Four experience than the '01 team.


2001....1992....2001.....1992.....ooooo, hard to say.

I think if you rolled the names of the top seven/eight in the rotation to a random sample of sports fan, there's more name recognition of the 2001 roster making it to the NBA than the 1992 team.

That may be, but the top two/three from the '92 teams were much better known to anyone familiar with pop culture.

gep
04-23-2015, 02:04 AM
I like your '92 story. Not so sure about your '10 basement... Those guys were solid. Clutch, even. (If not glamorous...)

-jk

Interesting... I would have never thought of a NC team as "in the basement"...:cool: I guess that's why us DUKE fans are VERY LUCKY and FORTUNATE!!!!

Wander
04-23-2015, 02:10 AM
Other than going undefeated, what are all the things that one can accomplish in a season?

National title
ACC regular season championship
ACC tournament championship
Sweep UNC
Go undefeated at home
Win the early season tournament

What's the only Duke team to accomplish all of these goals?

duke blue brewcrew
04-23-2015, 08:22 AM
Other than going undefeated, what are all the things that one can accomplish in a season?

National title
ACC regular season championship
ACC tournament championship
Sweep UNC
Go undefeated at home
Win the early season tournament

What's the only Duke team to accomplish all of these goals?

2010 Team. Very scrappy squad for sure! They are still #5 on my list though. It comes down to match-ups, not historical accomplishments IMO.

vick
04-23-2015, 09:54 AM
I'm really confused how anyone could rank the '01 team below '91. The entire '01 starting lineup (except Williams) were long-time NBA starters (as of right now, Boozer has 775 starts, Battier 705, Dunleavy 553, Duhon 319). That is a really incredible concentration of talent. The "experience" issue seems like a red herring as well, as 1991 started a freshman, two sophomores, a junior, and a senior in the championship game, not exactly an "old" team. Stats obviously support '01's superiority as well. A seven-loss team that beat by 22 in the ACC finals and isn't even a #1 seed ranks above that?

BigZ
04-23-2015, 12:47 PM
The 1999 team would beat them all.

CDu
04-23-2015, 01:11 PM
I'm really confused how anyone could rank the '01 team below '91. The entire '01 starting lineup (except Williams) were long-time NBA starters (as of right now, Boozer has 775 starts, Battier 705, Dunleavy 553, Duhon 319). That is a really incredible concentration of talent. The "experience" issue seems like a red herring as well, as 1991 started a freshman, two sophomores, a junior, and a senior in the championship game, not exactly an "old" team. Stats obviously support '01's superiority as well. A seven-loss team that beat by 22 in the ACC finals and isn't even a #1 seed ranks above that?

First, let me say that this is like choosing among my children (well, I only have one, but among my child and my hypothetical other four). Almost unfair as I love them all!

However, I like this game, so I'll play too. In matchups, I'd say:
1991 vs 1992: 1992 wins, thanks to more experience and more depth up front, which offsets the loss of McCaffrey.
1991 vs 2001: man, what an interesting matchup. Williams versus Hurley. James and Duhon vs Billy McCaffrey and Thomas Hill. Dunleavy vs Davis. Grant Hill versus Battier. Laettner vs Boozer. I think the 2001 team wins the matchup here due to experience and Battier's brilliance.
1991 vs 2010: I'd take the 1991 team. Laettner is just too good for Zoubek, and Grant Hill too good for Thomas. Too many weapons for the 1991 squad, and Davis and the Hills could handle Singler and Scheyer.
1991 vs 2015: Interesting matchup. I kind of think sophomore Hurley and freshman Jones are a wash - maybe even an edge to Jones. I'll give the edge to Duke's backcourt though with Cook a clear favorite over sophomore McCaffrey. On the wing, THill/Davis versus Matt Jones is an edge to 1991. The frontcourt is where it is really tricky. Winslow versus freshman Grant Hill is SUCH an interesting battle, and junior Laettner versus Okafor is really interesting as well. I kind of see junior Laettner and senior Kaminsky as pretty comparable both in terms of length and skills. I'm going to take 2015 here, but in a battle (not unlike the game against Wisconsin). I think the 2015 team brings more off the bench in Allen, Plumlee, and Jefferson, and that makes the difference.

1992 vs 2001:TBD
1992 vs 2010: I picked 1991 over 2010 and 1992 over 1991, so I take 1992 over 2010 as well. Especially because 1992 added Cherokee Parks, which offsets some of 2010's depth advantage in the post.
1992 vs 2015: I think a senior year Laettner is better than Kaminsky, so he wins that matchup with Okafor soundly. I think junior year Hurley is better than T. Jones. I think a sophomore year Grant Hill is better than Winslow. And I think Parks is better than Plumlee. And I think sophomore Lang is close enough to Jefferson that it isn't a problem. Cook is better than Thomas Hill, but not enough so to make up for the other spots. So 1992 wins.

2001 vs 2010: 2010 has a decided advantage in depth inside. But 2001 has a huge advantage on the perimeter. And 2001 has the "4-out, 1-in" type of team that gave the 2010 team fits, not to mention elite talent. Bad matchup talentwise, bad matchup schematically for the 2010 team. The 2001 team wins.
2001 vs 2015:Great matchup at center with Boozer versus Okafor. I'd give Okafor the edge here. Great matchup at PF with Battier against Winslow. I give Battier the edge only based on experience and guile. Great matchup at PG in Duhon and Tyus Jones. I'm going to call this a slight edge to Jones: Duhon was terrific defensively and limited offensively; Jones was terrific offensively and limited defensively. Jones wins the battle, but not dramatically so. Great matchup at the SG/other-PG spot. I'd take Williams in a pretty comfortable margin over Cook, though. Dunleavy versus Matt Jones is a slight edge to Dunleavy. Jones would be pesky on Dunleavy and make him uncomfortable, but Dunleavy's length and skill would give him the edge here. Off the bench, nobody messes with Nate James. End of story. Sorry, Grayson: you lose this matchup decidedly. Jefferson has an edge over Reggie Love, but really this is Jefferson versus Battier (because Battier will play all 40 minutes and not be in foul trouble). Battier wins this easily. Sanders and Plumlee are a wash. So I take 2001, because I think Williams is such a difference maker.

2010 vs 2015: The 2010 team has a big edge in experience and a big edge in depth inside. However, they have no ability to cause concern for Okafor defensively, as the Plumlees and Zoubek just don't have the outside-inside game to get Okafor in foul trouble. On the other end, they'll absorb fouls but Okafor will get his. At PF, I'd expect some cross matchups here: Matt Jones and Jefferson would get paired with Lance Thomas. And that's a wash. At SF, we'd see Singler versus Winslow. Singler was an animal, but I just don't know that he could dominate against Winslow. That's a toss-up for me. At guard, I think we'd see Cook vs Scheyer and Smith versus Tyus Jones. I'm calling a draw here. And off the bench, I'd favor the 2015 frosh Allen over the 2010 frosh Dawkins. Especially because if Jones and Cook get either Scheyer or Smith in foul trouble, it's a huge dropoff to Dawkins. I'd favor 2015.

So based on that, I'd go with:
5th: 2010
4th: 1991
3rd: 2015

So that leaves 1992 and 2001. Man, what a matchup! Laettner vs Boozer, Hill vs Battier, Hurley vs Williams. In this case, I give the edge to the slightly more veteran 1992 squad, with the added depth of frontcourt quality with Cherokee Parks and Antonio Lang coming off the bench and providing more quality depth in case of big man foul trouble than Duke can bring with Sanders and Love. Junior year Hurley will (like Kirk Hinrich and Steve Blake did) frustrate Williams just enough that he doesn't completely dominate. Laettner will outclass Boozer. And Hill will more than offset Battier.

So I go with:

1. 1992
2. 2001
3. 2015
4. 1991
5. 2010

Wander
04-23-2015, 01:31 PM
2010 Team. Very scrappy squad for sure! They are still #5 on my list though. It comes down to match-ups, not historical accomplishments IMO.

Considering match-ups is fine, but actual results of the team has to count for something too, and I'll continue my crusade to convince people that the 2010 team is still underrated, even by Duke fans. I'd go: 2001, 1992, 2010, 2015, 1991.

NSDukeFan
04-23-2015, 02:08 PM
First, let me say that this is like choosing among my children (well, I only have one, but among my child and my hypothetical other four). Almost unfair as I love them all!

However, I like this game, so I'll play too. In matchups, I'd say:
1991 vs 1992: 1992 wins, thanks to more experience and more depth up front, which offsets the loss of McCaffrey.
1991 vs 2001: man, what an interesting matchup. Williams versus Hurley. James and Duhon vs Billy McCaffrey and Thomas Hill. Dunleavy vs Davis. Grant Hill versus Battier. Laettner vs Boozer. I think the 2001 team wins the matchup here due to experience and Battier's brilliance.
1991 vs 2010: I'd take the 1991 team. Laettner is just too good for Zoubek, and Grant Hill too good for Thomas. Too many weapons for the 1991 squad, and Davis and the Hills could handle Singler and Scheyer.
1991 vs 2015: Interesting matchup. I kind of think sophomore Hurley and freshman Jones are a wash - maybe even an edge to Jones. I'll give the edge to Duke's backcourt though with Cook a clear favorite over sophomore McCaffrey. On the wing, THill/Davis versus Matt Jones is an edge to 1991. The frontcourt is where it is really tricky. Winslow versus freshman Grant Hill is SUCH an interesting battle, and junior Laettner versus Okafor is really interesting as well. I kind of see junior Laettner and senior Kaminsky as pretty comparable both in terms of length and skills. I'm going to take 2015 here, but in a battle (not unlike the game against Wisconsin). I think the 2015 team brings more off the bench in Allen, Plumlee, and Jefferson, and that makes the difference.

1992 vs 2001:TBD
1992 vs 2010: I picked 1991 over 2010 and 1992 over 1991, so I take 1992 over 2010 as well. Especially because 1992 added Cherokee Parks, which offsets some of 2010's depth advantage in the post.
1992 vs 2015: I think a senior year Laettner is better than Kaminsky, so he wins that matchup with Okafor soundly. I think junior year Hurley is better than T. Jones. I think a sophomore year Grant Hill is better than Winslow. And I think Parks is better than Plumlee. And I think sophomore Lang is close enough to Jefferson that it isn't a problem. Cook is better than Thomas Hill, but not enough so to make up for the other spots. So 1992 wins.

2001 vs 2010: 2010 has a decided advantage in depth inside. But 2001 has a huge advantage on the perimeter. And 2001 has the "4-out, 1-in" type of team that gave the 2010 team fits, not to mention elite talent. Bad matchup talentwise, bad matchup schematically for the 2010 team. The 2001 team wins.
2001 vs 2015:Great matchup at center with Boozer versus Okafor. I'd give Okafor the edge here. Great matchup at PF with Battier against Winslow. I give Battier the edge only based on experience and guile. Great matchup at PG in Duhon and Tyus Jones. I'm going to call this a slight edge to Jones: Duhon was terrific defensively and limited offensively; Jones was terrific offensively and limited defensively. Jones wins the battle, but not dramatically so. Great matchup at the SG/other-PG spot. I'd take Williams in a pretty comfortable margin over Cook, though. Dunleavy versus Matt Jones is a slight edge to Dunleavy. Jones would be pesky on Dunleavy and make him uncomfortable, but Dunleavy's length and skill would give him the edge here. Off the bench, nobody messes with Nate James. End of story. Sorry, Grayson: you lose this matchup decidedly. Jefferson has an edge over Reggie Love, but really this is Jefferson versus Battier (because Battier will play all 40 minutes and not be in foul trouble). Battier wins this easily. Sanders and Plumlee are a wash. So I take 2001, because I think Williams is such a difference maker.

2010 vs 2015: The 2010 team has a big edge in experience and a big edge in depth inside. However, they have no ability to cause concern for Okafor defensively, as the Plumlees and Zoubek just don't have the outside-inside game to get Okafor in foul trouble. On the other end, they'll absorb fouls but Okafor will get his. At PF, I'd expect some cross matchups here: Matt Jones and Jefferson would get paired with Lance Thomas. And that's a wash. At SF, we'd see Singler versus Winslow. Singler was an animal, but I just don't know that he could dominate against Winslow. That's a toss-up for me. At guard, I think we'd see Cook vs Scheyer and Smith versus Tyus Jones. I'm calling a draw here. And off the bench, I'd favor the 2015 frosh Allen over the 2010 frosh Dawkins. Especially because if Jones and Cook get either Scheyer or Smith in foul trouble, it's a huge dropoff to Dawkins. I'd favor 2015.

So based on that, I'd go with:
5th: 2010
4th: 1991
3rd: 2015

So that leaves 1992 and 2001. Man, what a matchup! Laettner vs Boozer, Hill vs Battier, Hurley vs Williams. In this case, I give the edge to the slightly more veteran 1992 squad, with the added depth of frontcourt quality with Cherokee Parks and Antonio Lang coming off the bench and providing more quality depth in case of big man foul trouble than Duke can bring with Sanders and Love. Junior year Hurley will (like Kirk Hinrich and Steve Blake did) frustrate Williams just enough that he doesn't completely dominate. Laettner will outclass Boozer. And Hill will more than offset Battier.

So I go with:

1. 1992
2. 2001
3. 2015
4. 1991
5. 2010

I really enjoyed your hypothetical match ups and agree they're all great. In my pro-Singler opinion, I believe 2010 is better than the young lower seeded 1991 team. I am also not convinced they aren't as good as 2015, even though 1991 beat an epic team and 2015 beat the team that beat the team that beat a lot of SEC teams. I think junior Singler trumps freshman Winslow (though he might be my favourite frosh ever), Zoubek grabs every rebound vs. the 91 or 15 teams. I do concede 2015 playing 4 out may present difficulties which is why I am not sure about that matchup. Fun to think about, but I am going with the three S's and their stall. Unlike Wisconsin, they get up 9, it's over.

1992
2001
2010
2015
1991

DukeandMdFan
04-23-2015, 05:45 PM
I'm really confused how anyone could rank the '01 team below '91. The entire '01 starting lineup (except Williams) were long-time NBA starters (as of right now, Boozer has 775 starts, Battier 705, Dunleavy 553, Duhon 319). That is a really incredible concentration of talent. The "experience" issue seems like a red herring as well, as 1991 started a freshman, two sophomores, a junior, and a senior in the championship game, not exactly an "old" team. Stats obviously support '01's superiority as well. A seven-loss team that beat by 22 in the ACC finals and isn't even a #1 seed ranks above that?

It's the internet...I can learn....Battier and JWill were 1st Team AA in '01, while Laettner was 2nd Team AA and Hurley Honorable Mention in '91. Grant was robbed because he was awesome as a freshman. (Undoubtedly, Grant is over it by now, so I can be too.) I had thought that the Laettner & Hill advantage was enough to outweigh the other edges in '01 favor, but it probably wasn't as much of an advantage as I had originally thought.

Revised:
'92
'01
'91
'10
'15

_Gary
04-23-2015, 06:06 PM
Clutch always wins out in my book, and while I realize a case can be made for guys like Battier and JWill being "clutch", the picture in the dictionary next to the word is one of Mr. Christian Laettner. The tougher pick for me is actually who gets third place. Tyus was clearly a clutch guy, but since the '91 team still had Christian I have to rank them ahead of this year's team. But only by the slightest of margins. So for me the ranking has to be:

'92
'01
'91
'15
'10

No question the greatest non-title team was '99. Had that team won it all I'd be hard-pressed not to rank them the best of all Duke teams, even in spite of Laettner, Grant and Bobby. Heck, I thought we had the best team in '98 as well. But that's a discussion for another day.

-jk
04-23-2015, 06:34 PM
...

No question the greatest non-title team was '99. Had that team won it all I'd be hard-pressed not to rank them the best of all Duke teams, even in spite of Laettner, Grant and Bobby. Heck, I thought we had the best team in '98 as well. But that's a discussion for another day.

Your youth is showing... (c.f., Verga)

-jk

_Gary
04-24-2015, 10:34 AM
Your youth is showing... (c.f., Verga)

-jk

Admittedly, I am just a young, 50 something whippersnapper at that. :)

J_C_Steel
04-24-2015, 12:04 PM
Good thread. Here's my $.02:

1. 1992 -- Stacked with talent and experience. Just a great team.
2. 2001 -- Great leadership with Battier, along with great younger talents in Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy.
3. 2015 -- Young, but a team that matured into a defensive juggernaut that maintained its ruthless offensive efficiency in the tourney.
4. 1991 -- Younger, but still an incredibly talented team.
5. 2010 -- Great leadership, defense, and ball control. Plus, this team was tougher than woodpecker lips. I think 4/5 could be flipped. It's that close.

There you go.

duke blue brewcrew
04-24-2015, 12:46 PM
The 1999 team would beat them all.

I still have nightmares about Langdon dribbling that ball off of his foot as time expires. I love the talent on that team, they were incredible. However, I'm also still trying to figure out how Jake Voskuhl shut down Elton Brand in that game. I can't give them an automatic tip of the cap on anything due to that critical loss.

duke blue brewcrew
04-24-2015, 12:51 PM
Good thread. Here's my $.02:

1. 1992 -- Stacked with talent and experience. Just a great team.
2. 2001 -- Great leadership with Battier, along with great younger talents in Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy.
3. 2015 -- Young, but a team that matured into a defensive juggernaut that maintained its ruthless offensive efficiency in the tourney.
4. 1991 -- Younger, but still an incredibly talented team.
5. 2010 -- Great leadership, defense, and ball control. Plus, this team was tougher than woodpecker lips. I think 4/5 could be flipped. It's that close.

There you go.

We picked the exact same order, but I enjoyed your assessment for each team. The '10 comments are priceless and very true. That said, '91 gets the nod for me because of the nostalgia behind that moment. Duke's 1st Natty Banner, it got the monkey of K's back after having come so close so many times before. This was a very special moment for any Blue Devil fan. It hurts to not have it higher on the list for that reason IMO. That said, I believe '91 wins that head to head vs '10 and feel good about the order of this list.

Edouble
04-24-2015, 02:28 PM
I still have nightmares about Langdon dribbling that ball off of his foot as time expires. I love the talent on that team, they were incredible. However, I'm also still trying to figure out how Jake Voskuhl shut down Elton Brand in that game. I can't give them an automatic tip of the cap on anything due to that critical loss.

This is one of the reasons why I can't get on board with a lot of the Elton praise that goes on around here. He had a great year in '99, but IMO he's not the player that many make him out to be... ranking him in their top five Duke players above Laettner, Banks, Ferry, etc.

He was double teamed during a lot of that game though. Still, he wasn't dealing with LJ or Webber.

vick
04-24-2015, 03:13 PM
This is one of the reasons why I can't get on board with a lot of the Elton praise that goes on around here. He had a great year in '99, but IMO he's not the player that many make him out to be... ranking him in their top five Duke players above Laettner, Banks, Ferry, etc.

He was double teamed during a lot of that game though. Still, he wasn't dealing with LJ or Webber.

I'm not picking a dog in this fight, but one championship game seems like weak evidence. After all, Laettner himself played a shockingly terrible game in the 1992 championship.

CDu
04-24-2015, 03:32 PM
Your youth is showing... (c.f., Verga)

-jk

When considering record, average margin of victory, and eventual NBA production, I would agree with Gary.

sagegrouse
04-24-2015, 03:46 PM
This is one of the reasons why I can't get on board with a lot of the Elton praise that goes on around here. He had a great year in '99, but IMO he's not the player that many make him out to be... ranking him in their top five Duke players above Laettner, Banks, Ferry, etc.

He was double teamed during a lot of that game though. Still, he wasn't dealing with LJ or Webber.


I'm not picking a dog in this fight, but one championship game seems like weak evidence. After all, Laettner himself played a shockingly terrible game in the 1992 championship.

From the "cheap seats" in St. Pete that weekend, it looked to me that UConn was double and triple-teaming Elton, and he failed to pass to open players.

Laettner's "shockingly terrible" game in the 1992 finals resulted in 19 points (6-13, 2-4, 5-6) plus seven rebounds. Laettner had some problems against Indiana in the semis, scoring only eight points (2-8, 0-1, 4-7) but with 10 rebounds. Bobby, fortunately, had the hot hand in the semis with 26 points. Grant scored 14 against IU and 18 in the finals against the Fab whatever.

vick
04-24-2015, 03:57 PM
From the "cheap seats" in St. Pete that weekend, it looked to me that UConn was double and triple-teaming Elton, and he failed to pass to open players.

Laettner's "shockingly terrible" game in the 1992 finals resulted in 19 points (6-13, 2-4, 5-6) plus seven rebounds. Laettner had some problems against Indiana in the semis, scoring only eight points (2-8, 0-1, 4-7) but with 10 rebounds. Bobby, fortunately, had the hot hand in the semis with 26 points. Grant scored 14 against IU and 18 in the finals against the Fab whatever.

Plus seven turnovers in one half. I stand by my statement that that is a poor performance (though he was much better in the second half).

Really not trying to disparage the man, who deserves all the accolades he gets and more, but try to imagine the howls here if Okafor had a five-point, seven-turnover half against Wisconsin. My point is that even the best--Laettner, Brand, anyone--have weak games.

Edouble
04-24-2015, 04:24 PM
Plus seven turnovers in one half. I stand by my statement that that is a poor performance (though he was much better in the second half).

Really not trying to disparage the man, who deserves all the accolades he gets and more, but try to imagine the howls here if Okafor had a five-point, seven-turnover half against Wisconsin. My point is that even the best--Laettner, Brand, anyone--have weak games.

It's an excellent point. Again, it's among the reasons why I don't see Elton on the same level as some of the other players that I mentioned. You're right, everyone is entitled to a poor game. As Laettner noted himself though, "Winning cures all". For me, you get a pass if you push through and get the W. We put Michigan away by 20?, so Christian's first half is more easily forgotten.