PDA

View Full Version : Welcome to Duke, Javin Delaurier!!



conmanlhughes
09-27-2015, 01:37 PM
http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/story/1591683-javin-delaurier-commits-duke

Olympic Fan
09-27-2015, 01:38 PM
Top 50 power forward Javin DeLaurier just committed to Duke:

http://www.scout.com/college/basketball/recruiting/story/1591683-javin-delaurier-commits-duke

The 6-9, 205 pounder is No. 44 on ESPN's 2016 list. He's from Charlottesville, Va.

He joins No. 2 Jayson Tatum and No. 14 Frank Jackson in Duke's 2016 class. Now, if we can just add No. 1 Harry Giles, it will be complete. He visits Duke on Halloween.

PS No inside info, but I would guess this makes it less likely that Duke adds Gabriel, unless we miss on Giles.

Native
09-27-2015, 02:00 PM
Seems like we got a great multi-year guy with lots of upside and a great head on his shoulders.

He scored a 32 on his ACT and apparently wants to be a Pre-Med at Duke.

No big press conference or Skype call necessary — a simple Tweet and that's that. Love this kid's style.

Welcome, Javin!

DukeDevil
09-27-2015, 02:06 PM
Exciting stuff! I'm definitely in the "don't pay much attention until they commit" camp...time to bring up some highlight videos!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPo5Pq6IpR8

BluePanda
09-27-2015, 02:15 PM
Now, if we can just add No. 1 Harry Giles and Marques Bolden, it will be complete.

FTFY.

MChambers
09-27-2015, 02:16 PM
Isn't this board devoted to Duke Football?

Seriously, seems like a great kid. Nice to have some basketball news!

Des Esseintes
09-27-2015, 02:21 PM
Not saying anything new here, but K and the staff are straight up murdering the recruiting game these days. This very, very good player will likely be a footnote in his incoming class. Extraordinary.

And thank you for matriculating, Mr. DeLaurier! We already love you.

MarkD83
09-27-2015, 02:33 PM
This is awesome news.

I do have a scholarship limit question that I know has been answered a million times but it is good to hear the explanation again from those that are knowledgeable.

By my count the 2016-17 bball team COULD include

Seniors: Jones and Pagliuca
Juniors: Allen and Obi
Sophomores: Kennard, Thornton, Ingram, Robinson, Jeter, Vrankovic
Freshmen: Jackson, Tatum, DeLaurier and.....

Without any other commitments that is 13 players. So if Duke gets additional commitments from Giles and Bolden we should expect a few folks on the team listed above to not have scholarships in 2016-17?

(I am trying to state that without affecting team karma.)

Chillduck
09-27-2015, 02:40 PM
Walk-ons with a scholarship are always year to year. Pagiluca and Robinson can always go back to walk-on status. Their daddy's can afford it. That being said, the coaches are expecting some to go pro.

Troublemaker
09-27-2015, 02:48 PM
This is awesome news.

I do have a scholarship limit question that I know has been answered a million times but it is good to hear the explanation again from those that are knowledgeable.

By my count the 2016-17 bball team COULD include

Seniors: Jones and Pagliuca
Juniors: Allen and Obi
Sophomores: Kennard, Thornton, Ingram, Robinson, Jeter, Vrankovic
Freshmen: Jackson, Tatum, DeLaurier and.....

Without any other commitments that is 13 players. So if Duke gets additional commitments from Giles and Bolden we should expect a few folks on the team listed above to not have scholarships in 2016-17?

(I am trying to state that without affecting team karma.)

Robinson and Pagliuca, being walk-ons, should only expect scholarships when Duke doesn't have 13 recruited players on the roster. Brandon Ingram is also 99% 1-and-done.

Welcome to Duke, Javin! I like that we're striking while the iron is hot and trying to land a big class, possibly 6 players if all of Giles, Bolden, and Gabriel commit. Recruiting analysts love the depth of this 2016 class, so a DeLaurier who is ranked 40-ish in this class might've been a top-25 player in another class. It makes sense to go deep into the scholarship allotment for this class, imo.

OldPhiKap
09-27-2015, 03:06 PM
Welcome Javin!

MarkD83
09-27-2015, 03:38 PM
Robinson and Pagliuca, being walk-ons, should only expect scholarships when Duke doesn't have 13 recruited players on the roster. Brandon Ingram is also 99% 1-and-done.

Welcome to Duke, Javin! I like that we're striking while the iron is hot and trying to land a big class, possibly 6 players if all of Giles, Bolden, and Gabriel commit. Recruiting analysts love the depth of this 2016 class, so a DeLaurier who is ranked 40-ish in this class might've been a top-25 player in another class. It makes sense to go deep into the scholarship allotment for this class, imo.

Thanks Chillduck (previous post) and Troublemaker for the info.....

Troublemaker
09-27-2015, 03:50 PM
No problem, Mark.

I'm sure this young man's "motor" has been mentioned before, but just in case:

Evan Daniels ‏@EvanDaniels (https://twitter.com/EvanDaniels) 2h2 hours ago (https://twitter.com/EvanDaniels/status/648199148592869376)
In early August I asked more than 100 D1 college coaches who had the best motor in high school hoops. Javin DeLaurier finished No. 1.

gurufrisbee
09-27-2015, 04:29 PM
WELCOME!!!

A championship decision. Well done.

JPtheGame
09-27-2015, 04:56 PM
I see lance thomas and to quote my favorite felon.."And that's a good thing."

Furniture
09-27-2015, 05:17 PM
“You never really know because I had thought that before, but the moment I knew I was going to go was on Friday night,” he said. “I had dinner and they took me to Cameron. The lights were dimmed and I knew I wanted to go to Duke.

moonpie23
09-27-2015, 05:49 PM
WELCOME to DUKE!!!!!!!

NYBri
09-27-2015, 06:44 PM
Never tire of hearing about quality players coming to the best school in the land.

Go Devils!

9F!

Duke95
09-27-2015, 06:58 PM
Very happy with the fact that Javin is a Blue Devil. He's going to be a great representative for Duke!

flyingdutchdevil
09-28-2015, 10:44 AM
Congrats Javin, and congrats coaching staff for once again crushing it.

I really like this player: smart, raw, long, mobile, and clearly a huge Duke fan.

I didn't know a lot about him, so I did some reading (some premium stuff, some web stuff, some highlight reels). I can't believe he's only top 50 given that he didn't miss any of his highlight reel shots! Jokes aside, he is a really unique player.

I don't agree with the Lance Thomas comparisons as LT was one of the most versatile defenders to ever play at Duke. Javin certainly has the potential to be a great defender at Duke, but it'll take something else to get him to LT levels. Also, Javin is both mobile below the rim and above the rim whereas LT was only mobile below the rim. LT wasn't athletic, but Javin certainly is. Another big difference is that LT was very limited offensively. He was decent at scoring around the rim, but LT's jumpshot was never a legitimate tool. Javin, apparently, has jumpshot (including a 3pt shot), but clearly needs improvement everywhere offensively.

I'm not sure who the best comp for Javin is. He's a high energy guy with potential defensive gifts and a basic but versatile offensive set (ie score around the rim and a decent jumpshot). Regardless, looking forward to watching him develop!

superdave
09-28-2015, 10:45 AM
Welcome, Javin! I look forward to breaking down your projected minutes for the next several years on DBR!

DarkstarWahoo
09-28-2015, 11:05 AM
My brother-in-law was on the staff at Old Dominion until making a career switch recently. Back when UVA still had Sacha Killeya-Jones in the fold, he was adamant that he didn't get why they had taken SKJ over JMD* and that JMD was going to be a big-time player. From everything I've read, it sounds like JMD is a motor/character guy who should be a productive college player no matter what. I think Amile Jefferson is his floor.

*Although with the hyphenated names, both players will have the WNBA to fall back on.

tux
09-28-2015, 12:05 PM
Didn't see anyone else comment on this up thread:

I wonder why UVA wasn't even on his list of final schools?

Did they not offer him? Just sorta weird, given the fact he's from Charlottesville and also that he seems to be ranked in what is probably UVA's sweet spot --- really good but not a 1-and-done elite-level talent...

Does anyone have the story on this?

jimsumner
09-28-2015, 12:20 PM
Congrats Javin, and congrats coaching staff for once again crushing it.

I really like this player: smart, raw, long, mobile, and clearly a huge Duke fan.

I didn't know a lot about him, so I did some reading (some premium stuff, some web stuff, some highlight reels). I can't believe he's only top 50 given that he didn't miss any of his highlight reel shots! Jokes aside, he is a really unique player.

I don't agree with the Lance Thomas comparisons as LT was one of the most versatile defenders to ever play at Duke. Javin certainly has the potential to be a great defender at Duke, but it'll take something else to get him to LT levels. Also, Javin is both mobile below the rim and above the rim whereas LT was only mobile below the rim. LT wasn't athletic, but Javin certainly is. Another big difference is that LT was very limited offensively. He was decent at scoring around the rim, but LT's jumpshot was never a legitimate tool. Javin, apparently, has jumpshot (including a 3pt shot), but clearly needs improvement everywhere offensively.

I'm not sure who the best comp for Javin is. He's a high energy guy with potential defensive gifts and a basic but versatile offensive set (ie score around the rim and a decent jumpshot). Regardless, looking forward to watching him develop!

I loved Lance as a high-energy guy, a versatile defender and a player who could be happy contributing to championship-level basketball without having plays called for him.

But DeLaurier projects to be Thomas' superior in one very important area. Thomas was never much of a rebounder, not even in high school, a curious gap for a 6-8 power forward. By all accounts DeLaurier attacks the glass.

It's good to have rebounders.

gam7
09-28-2015, 01:48 PM
Congrats Javin, and congrats coaching staff for once again crushing it.

I really like this player: smart, raw, long, mobile, and clearly a huge Duke fan.

I didn't know a lot about him, so I did some reading (some premium stuff, some web stuff, some highlight reels). I can't believe he's only top 50 given that he didn't miss any of his highlight reel shots! Jokes aside, he is a really unique player.

I don't agree with the Lance Thomas comparisons as LT was one of the most versatile defenders to ever play at Duke. Javin certainly has the potential to be a great defender at Duke, but it'll take something else to get him to LT levels. Also, Javin is both mobile below the rim and above the rim whereas LT was only mobile below the rim. LT wasn't athletic, but Javin certainly is. Another big difference is that LT was very limited offensively. He was decent at scoring around the rim, but LT's jumpshot was never a legitimate tool. Javin, apparently, has jumpshot (including a 3pt shot), but clearly needs improvement everywhere offensively.

I'm not sure who the best comp for Javin is. He's a high energy guy with potential defensive gifts and a basic but versatile offensive set (ie score around the rim and a decent jumpshot). Regardless, looking forward to watching him develop!

I think Lance is a reasonable comp (in terms of playing style and role over time) for Javin, and let's not sell Lance's athleticism short. I just found some Lance high school footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWauKtDxkZQ), and he seems more athletic than what I've seen from Javin (though in the same ballpark), and even showed a jump shot. But, in fairness to Javin, he still has a senior year's worth of highlights to add after having made a big leap recently. Even so, I see Lance's level of athleticism to be about what we'll see from Javin.

As for the jump shot, I did watch some of an AAU game between DeLaurier's team and Wenyen Gabriel's team that was televised on ESPN over the summer. I didn't see the jump shot from DeLaurier, but I did see him miss six straight free throws. That's my first impression, so I'm not holding my breath on his shooting until I see more.

Kedsy
09-28-2015, 02:04 PM
LT wasn't athletic...

I disagree with this. Lance wasn't a great leaper, but he was very athletic. Quick hands, quick feet, good speed.

yancem
09-28-2015, 02:16 PM
I think Lance is a reasonable comp (in terms of playing style and role over time) for Javin, and let's not sell Lance's athleticism short. I just found some Lance high school footage (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWauKtDxkZQ), and he seems more athletic than what I've seen from Javin (though in the same ballpark), and even showed a jump shot. But, in fairness to Javin, he still has a senior year's worth of highlights to add after having made a big leap recently. Even so, I see Lance's level of athleticism to be about what we'll see from Javin.

As for the jump shot, I did watch some of an AAU game between DeLaurier's team and Wenyen Gabriel's team that was televised on ESPN over the summer. I didn't see the jump shot from DeLaurier, but I did see him miss six straight free throws. That's my first impression, so I'm not holding my breath on his shooting until I see more.

tony Lang may be a decent comparison. A little more athletic than Thomas with a little more rounded offensive game. Also a very good defender.

Steven43
09-28-2015, 02:26 PM
Looks like Duke beat UNC yet again for a recruit. Major trend at this point.

From what I see Delaurier is a better leaper than Lance Thomas was. The lack of a strong vertical might explain why Thomas was not a better rebounder, though being 10th on Duke's all-time offensive rebounding list is certainly not bad.

JPtheGame
09-28-2015, 02:40 PM
I disagree with this. Lance wasn't a great leaper, but he was very athletic. Quick hands, quick feet, good speed.

Call it gottlieb's error; if you can't put your elbows on the rim, you don't get to be called athletic. In fact, you may be called alarmingly unathletic if all you can do is dribble, pass, shoot, defend, rebound, and win national championships.

jimsumner
09-28-2015, 02:55 PM
Call it gottlieb's error; if you can't put your elbows on the rim, you don't get to be called athletic. In fact, you may be called alarmingly unathletic if all you can do is dribble, pass, shoot, defend, rebound, and win national championships.

I hope you're not suggesting that Lance Thomas could pass. He had 64 assists in 140 games at Duke. Wasn't much of a shooter or rebounder, either.

But he was pretty good at that whole winning national championship thingee. :)

Troublemaker
09-28-2015, 03:02 PM
I loved Lance as a high-energy guy, a versatile defender and a player who could be happy contributing to championship-level basketball without having plays called for him.

Lance was high-energy, too, but DeLaurier's much-lauded "motor" produces 1.21 gigawatts of power, I've heard.

duke blue brewcrew
09-28-2015, 04:28 PM
I don't agree with the Lance Thomas comparisons as LT was one of the most versatile defenders to ever play at Duke. Javin certainly has the potential to be a great defender at Duke, but it'll take something else to get him to LT levels. Also, Javin is both mobile below the rim and above the rim whereas LT was only mobile below the rim. LT wasn't athletic, but Javin certainly is. Another big difference is that LT was very limited offensively. He was decent at scoring around the rim, but LT's jumpshot was never a legitimate tool. Javin, apparently, has jumpshot (including a 3pt shot), but clearly needs improvement everywhere offensively.

First, Welcome to Duke Javin...exciting news for sure!

Secondly, FDD - I think you and I watched very different LT careers. Great defender and hustle player, I absolutely agree. However, until his Sr. year, LT had a panic attack anytime he came close to the ball. Whenever he got the ball around the rim, there was a 90% chance he was going to spazz, dribble it off his foot, knee or otherwise watch it mysteriously squirt out of his hands in a turnover of some fashion. What LT and Zoubs did their Sr. years is the epitome of what maturation and hard work for 4 years is capable of producing under Coach K. Before then, I think we can all agree that fingers were crossed and prayers were said anytime they took the floor.

NSDukeFan
09-28-2015, 04:46 PM
I think you and I watched very different LT careers. Great defender and hustle player, I absolutely agree. However, until his Sr. year, LT had a panic attack anytime he came close to the ball. Whenever he got the ball around the rim, there was a 90% chance he was going to spazz, dribble it off his foot, knee or otherwise watch it mysteriously squirt out of his hands in a turnover of some fashion. What LT and Zoubs did their Sr. years is the epitome of what maturation and hard work for 4 years is capable of producing under Coach K. Before then, I think we can all agree that fingers were crossed and prayers were said anytime they took the floor.

I was not nervous when Lance was on the floor before his senior year. He had some turnovers but did lots of good things offensively as well. He couldn't have been a most of the time starter for a teams that won 115 games by only being a very good defensive player. He contributed offensively as well.
I am very excited that Javin will be coming to Duke (as I am when any top recruit makes that decision) and I will be cheering for him this year before he even starts at Duke. But, I think some on the board (this is not directed solely at the above post) get shiny new recruitatosis and forget that Duke has had excellent players before. I can guarantee you that LT had a great mixtape when he was in high school, had no trouble scoring in high school and was far more athletic than most of the players he went up against. Playing top level division 1 basketball at Duke is a whole different ball game. Wasn't Amile the leading scorer in some of his AAU tournaments? I am looking forward to seeing Javin play and hope he has a great career at Duke (I am also excited that he is likely to be around for a few years). I don't think we can say at this point that his floor is as a most of the time starter for 30 win teams who wins a national championship like Lance or Amile. They are and were very good players for Duke.
I don't want to knock people's enthusiasm for Javin as much as want to defend Lance and Amile, two players I have loved watching play.

robobevan
09-28-2015, 05:33 PM
Also Lance and Amile were both top 20 (or close to that) recruits while Javin is at #40. Maybe expectations should be different. Sounds like a great kid and great addition to Duke team and community.

duke blue brewcrew
09-28-2015, 05:36 PM
I was not nervous when Lance was on the floor before his senior year. He had some turnovers but did lots of good things offensively as well. He couldn't have been a most of the time starter for a teams that won 115 games by only being a very good defensive player. He contributed offensively as well.
I am very excited that Javin will be coming to Duke (as I am when any top recruit makes that decision) and I will be cheering for him this year before he even starts at Duke. But, I think some on the board (this is not directed solely at the above post) get shiny new recruitatosis and forget that Duke has had excellent players before. I can guarantee you that LT had a great mixtape when he was in high school, had no trouble scoring in high school and was far more athletic than most of the players he went up against. Playing top level division 1 basketball at Duke is a whole different ball game. Wasn't Amile the leading scorer in some of his AAU tournaments? I am looking forward to seeing Javin play and hope he has a great career at Duke (I am also excited that he is likely to be around for a few years). I don't think we can say at this point that his floor is as a most of the time starter for 30 win teams who wins a national championship like Lance or Amile. They are and were very good players for Duke.
I don't want to knock people's enthusiasm for Javin as much as want to defend Lance and Amile, two players I have loved watching play.

I'll take you at your word that your comments regarding the "shiny new recruitatosis" weren't directed at me. I've been following Duke basketball and Blue Devils sports in general since the 70s, and as a member of the media in the mid to late 90s. So I've seen a lot, if not all of the talent I'm sure you're referring to. I'm do not feel that I'm guilty of adding gloss to shiny new toys while forgetting about past greatness. In fact, I might suggest you are doing this in reverse for LT. If you remember the LT recruitment, he committed very late to Duke, and only after de-committing from Rutgers...YES that Rutgers. He was a reasonably athletic 4* recruit that filled a late void for Duke with some recruiting misses that year on the trail. I give full credit to Lance as a hustler, defender, rebounder, energy and team guy...top marks and gold stars across the board there. However, to say that LT was an offensive contributor makes me scratch my head. The guy averaged 4.6 pts per game for his Duke career. If by contribute, you mean he occasionally put the ball in the basket which was reflected on the scoreboard...then OK, fair enough. Even at the free throw line, he barely did that his first three years, where he posted a less than robust - Freshman: 59.3%; Sophomore: 52.1% and Junior: 55.3% before getting things together his Senior campaign: 74.3%. I cheered like crazy for Lance, and am thrilled that he's found some success after a long hard road to the NBA. Where was that J when he was at Duke? Clearly LT has talent, he's earning an NBA paycheck. That said, to say he was one of the all time greats at Duke is WAY off base IMHO.

Steven43
09-28-2015, 05:47 PM
I'll take you at your word that your comments regarding the "shiny new recruitatosis" weren't directed at me. I've been following Duke basketball and Blue Devils sports in general since the 70s, and as a member of the media in the mid to late 90s. So I've seen a lot, if not all of the talent I'm sure you're referring to. I'm do not feel that I'm guilty of adding gloss to shiny new toys while forgetting about past greatness. In fact, I might suggest you are doing this in reverse for LT. If you remember the LT recruitment, he committed very late to Duke, and only after de-committing from Rutgers...YES that Rutgers. He was a reasonably athletic 4* recruit that filled a late void for Duke with some recruiting misses that year on the trail. I give full credit to Lance as a hustler, defender, rebounder, energy and team guy...top marks and gold stars across the board there. However, to say that LT was an offensive contributor makes me scratch my head. The guy averaged 4.6 pts per game for his Duke career. If by contribute, you mean he occasionally put the ball in the basket which was reflected on the scoreboard...then OK, fair enough. Even at the free throw line, he barely did that his first three years, where he posted a less than robust - Freshman: 59.3%; Sophomore: 52.1% and Junior: 55.3% before getting things together his Senior campaign: 74.3%. I cheered like crazy for Lance, and am thrilled that he's found some success after a long hard road to the NBA. Where was that J when he was at Duke? Clearly LT has talent, he's earning an NBA paycheck. That said, to say he was one of the all time greats at Duke is WAY off base IMHO.
Cannot think of any of your points with which a Duke fan could disagree.

luvdahops
09-28-2015, 05:47 PM
Congrats Javin, and congrats coaching staff for once again crushing it.

I really like this player: smart, raw, long, mobile, and clearly a huge Duke fan.

I didn't know a lot about him, so I did some reading (some premium stuff, some web stuff, some highlight reels). I can't believe he's only top 50 given that he didn't miss any of his highlight reel shots! Jokes aside, he is a really unique player.

I don't agree with the Lance Thomas comparisons as LT was one of the most versatile defenders to ever play at Duke. Javin certainly has the potential to be a great defender at Duke, but it'll take something else to get him to LT levels. Also, Javin is both mobile below the rim and above the rim whereas LT was only mobile below the rim. LT wasn't athletic, but Javin certainly is. Another big difference is that LT was very limited offensively. He was decent at scoring around the rim, but LT's jumpshot was never a legitimate tool. Javin, apparently, has jumpshot (including a 3pt shot), but clearly needs improvement everywhere offensively.

I'm not sure who the best comp for Javin is. He's a high energy guy with potential defensive gifts and a basic but versatile offensive set (ie score around the rim and a decent jumpshot). Regardless, looking forward to watching him develop!

I would offer up Tony Lang as a good comp. Solid 4-year contributor, came up big as a senior (3rd team All-ACC) and had some stints in the NBA. The Grant Hill/Brian Davis/Tony Lang forward trio in 1992 was about as good as it gets defensively.

OZZIE4DUKE
09-28-2015, 05:52 PM
Welcome to Duke, Javin! Hope you have a great 4 years here! :cool:

NSDukeFan
09-28-2015, 07:06 PM
I'll take you at your word that your comments regarding the "shiny new recruitatosis" weren't directed at me. I've been following Duke basketball and Blue Devils sports in general since the 70s, and as a member of the media in the mid to late 90s. So I've seen a lot, if not all of the talent I'm sure you're referring to. I'm do not feel that I'm guilty of adding gloss to shiny new toys while forgetting about past greatness. In fact, I might suggest you are doing this in reverse for LT. If you remember the LT recruitment, he committed very late to Duke, and only after de-committing from Rutgers...YES that Rutgers. He was a reasonably athletic 4* recruit that filled a late void for Duke with some recruiting misses that year on the trail. I give full credit to Lance as a hustler, defender, rebounder, energy and team guy...top marks and gold stars across the board there. However, to say that LT was an offensive contributor makes me scratch my head. The guy averaged 4.6 pts per game for his Duke career. If by contribute, you mean he occasionally put the ball in the basket which was reflected on the scoreboard...then OK, fair enough. Even at the free throw line, he barely did that his first three years, where he posted a less than robust - Freshman: 59.3%; Sophomore: 52.1% and Junior: 55.3% before getting things together his Senior campaign: 74.3%. I cheered like crazy for Lance, and am thrilled that he's found some success after a long hard road to the NBA. Where was that J when he was at Duke? Clearly LT has talent, he's earning an NBA paycheck. That said, to say he was one of the all time greats at Duke is WAY off base IMHO.

I have only been following Duke basketball since the 90s and not that intently until the 2000s. I have never been part of the media and haven't played a media member on TV or stayed recently at a Holiday Inn Express. You have likely seen more of the talented Duke players than I have. In fact, I don't remember the LT recruitment and have only read about it on this board. I'm not sure that because he was recruited by Rutgers, that affected his chance of success at Duke, much like I am happy Duke got a commitment from Frank Jackson, even though he had previously committed to Utah (granted a better program than Rutgers) and would have been happy to see Adonal Foyle at Duke, even though he was recruited by and went to Colgate.

There is certainly the possibility that I am using playedforDukesoIOverratehimitis. I agree completely that he was a reasonably athletic recruit at a time when Duke was not having as much success on the recruiting trail as right now, though they had recently had the #1 ranked Paulus - McRoberts class. I, of course also give LT top marks for hustle, defending almost every position, communicating on defence, team play and leadership. I also give him marks for starting on a team with the best offense in the country, even if scoring wasn't his role and screening, spacing, talking, moving the ball and being selective with his scoring opportunities were his roles.

Although Lance would have scored a bunch in high school, he was never a big scorer at Duke. Like you, that didn't stop me from cheering like crazy for him when he was at Duke and I expect we both hope he continues to have success as a pro. I don't remember saying that he was one of the all-time greats at Duke, but I believe he was a very good player who won a championship at Duke. I also feel it is not fair to his career to say that an incoming recruit ranked lower than he was will be as good as him in a worse case scenario. I, of course, hope Javin achieves more than Lance did. I just happen to believe he was successful, though he didn't score much. I tend to have defendthemalignedplayeratosis, whether past or present.

jimsumner
09-28-2015, 07:43 PM
I'll take you at your word that your comments regarding the "shiny new recruitatosis" weren't directed at me. I've been following Duke basketball and Blue Devils sports in general since the 70s, and as a member of the media in the mid to late 90s. So I've seen a lot, if not all of the talent I'm sure you're referring to. I'm do not feel that I'm guilty of adding gloss to shiny new toys while forgetting about past greatness. In fact, I might suggest you are doing this in reverse for LT. If you remember the LT recruitment, he committed very late to Duke, and only after de-committing from Rutgers...YES that Rutgers. He was a reasonably athletic 4* recruit that filled a late void for Duke with some recruiting misses that year on the trail. I give full credit to Lance as a hustler, defender, rebounder, energy and team guy...top marks and gold stars across the board there. However, to say that LT was an offensive contributor makes me scratch my head. The guy averaged 4.6 pts per game for his Duke career. If by contribute, you mean he occasionally put the ball in the basket which was reflected on the scoreboard...then OK, fair enough. Even at the free throw line, he barely did that his first three years, where he posted a less than robust - Freshman: 59.3%; Sophomore: 52.1% and Junior: 55.3% before getting things together his Senior campaign: 74.3%. I cheered like crazy for Lance, and am thrilled that he's found some success after a long hard road to the NBA. Where was that J when he was at Duke? Clearly LT has talent, he's earning an NBA paycheck. That said, to say he was one of the all time greats at Duke is WAY off base IMHO.

Nit to pick. I'm pretty sure Thomas never committed to Rutgers.

Duke's primary power forward target in that recruiting class was Brandan Wright and Duke thought they had him locked up. But he picked UNC instead and signed with them in the fall. Duke had looked at Thomas earlier and turned up the heat that spring. But Thomas did indeed take his time. Louisville was probably his second choice, so yes, he was well thought of.

And probably a bit overrated by the recruitniks, as sometimes happens with the last guy(s) standing, especially if major powers are after them. But Thomas only averaged around 14 ppg as a high-school senior and about half that many rebounds per game. He was never a stat stuffer. Duke got about what they expected from him, which was a strong defender and contributor to championship-level teams.

BD80
09-28-2015, 10:34 PM
Also Lance and Amile were both top 20 (or close to that) recruits while Javin is at #40. ...

Wait until the rankings refresh, and Javin gets his Duke bump

brlftz
09-28-2015, 11:59 PM
side note re the whole "alarmingly unathletic" comment. I sometimes feel like i'm the only duke fan that watched that game and was alarmed as well. I can't remember how close it was at the end, but the way I remember it we looked slooooow and earthbound, and got our butts kicked. am I recalling that wrong? I've never held that comment against gottlieb, since at the time I thought he was right.

duke blue brewcrew
09-29-2015, 12:08 AM
Nit to pick. I'm pretty sure Thomas never committed to Rutgers.

Duke's primary power forward target in that recruiting class was Brandan Wright and Duke thought they had him locked up. But he picked UNC instead and signed with them in the fall. Duke had looked at Thomas earlier and turned up the heat that spring. But Thomas did indeed take his time. Louisville was probably his second choice, so yes, he was well thought of.

And probably a bit overrated by the recruitniks, as sometimes happens with the last guy(s) standing, especially if major powers are after them. But Thomas only averaged around 14 ppg as a high-school senior and about half that many rebounds per game. He was never a stat stuffer. Duke got about what they expected from him, which was a strong defender and contributor to championship-level teams.

As always, I humbly accept your corrections Jim :) My point remains though, Lance was a heart player, glue guy and played that role incredibly well. However, for his first 3 years, anytime Duke had the ball, I found myself quoting that famous line from Necessary Roughness, "DON'T THROW IT TO STONE HANDS!"

tbyers11
09-29-2015, 07:35 AM
side note re the whole "alarmingly unathletic" comment. I sometimes feel like i'm the only duke fan that watched that game and was alarmed as well. I can't remember how close it was at the end, but the way I remember it we looked slooooow and earthbound, and got our butts kicked. am I recalling that wrong? I've never held that comment against gottlieb, since at the time I thought he was right.

Yes, I think you are remembering it slightly wrong. Gottlieb made those comments at halftime of a Nov 2009 preseason NIT game against Arizona State. Link here. (http://www.dukechronicle.com/blog/blue-zone/2009/11/coach-k-fires-back-gottliebs-remarks)

I remember ASU looking awful and we didn't look much better in the first half so yes we didn't look like world beaters at the time Gottlieb uttered the famous phrase. Research shows that we were only up 34-30 at half.

However, we went on to win 64-53 and beat a very athletic UConn in the final 68-59 two nights later.

yancem
09-29-2015, 10:15 AM
I was not nervous when Lance was on the floor before his senior year. He had some turnovers but did lots of good things offensively as well. He couldn't have been a most of the time starter for a teams that won 115 games by only being a very good defensive player. He contributed offensively as well.
I am very excited that Javin will be coming to Duke (as I am when any top recruit makes that decision) and I will be cheering for him this year before he even starts at Duke. But, I think some on the board (this is not directed solely at the above post) get shiny new recruitatosis and forget that Duke has had excellent players before. I can guarantee you that LT had a great mixtape when he was in high school, had no trouble scoring in high school and was far more athletic than most of the players he went up against. Playing top level division 1 basketball at Duke is a whole different ball game. Wasn't Amile the leading scorer in some of his AAU tournaments? I am looking forward to seeing Javin play and hope he has a great career at Duke (I am also excited that he is likely to be around for a few years). I don't think we can say at this point that his floor is as a most of the time starter for 30 win teams who wins a national championship like Lance or Amile. They are and were very good players for Duke.
I don't want to knock people's enthusiasm for Javin as much as want to defend Lance and Amile, two players I have loved watching play.

Billy King says hi.

flyingdutchdevil
09-29-2015, 10:35 AM
Yes, I think you are remembering it slightly wrong. Gottlieb made those comments at halftime of a Nov 2009 preseason NIT game against Arizona State. Link here. (http://www.dukechronicle.com/blog/blue-zone/2009/11/coach-k-fires-back-gottliebs-remarks)

I remember ASU looking awful and we didn't look much better in the first half so yes we didn't look like world beaters at the time Gottlieb uttered the famous phrase. Research shows that we were only up 34-30 at half.

However, we went on to win 64-53 and beat a very athletic UConn in the final 68-59 two nights later.

The funny thing is that team wasn't athletic. "Alarmingly unathletic" is indeed an insult, but calling that team "unathletic" is pretty accurate. Of our starting five of Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek, Smith, and Thomas, only Singler, Smith, and Thomas can be considered at least somewhat athletic. Scheyer and Zoubs weren't athletic, and that's perfectly fine, because Scheyer didn't turn the ball over and Zoubek was one of the best offensive rebounders in the country (they added a lot of other value as well). Plus, both were competent defenders. I feel Singler had average athleticism for a college 3. Thomas was decently athletic but he had zero ups for a 6'8". I know Kedsy and I disagree on Thomas's athleticism, and I would never use the word "athletic" to describe Thomas. Smith, IMO, was the most athletic starter on that team. He was deceptively quick, had ups, and very agile. He certainly had above-average athleticism in college, but he was athletically subpar in the NBA (which led to his short stay in the league).

On the bench, MP1 and MP2 are crazy athletic, and they did combine for 30 min a game. And whilst they were an important part of the team, it's face to say that our 5 starters were by far the most important 5 players.

I think it's safe to say that no one on the starting 5 would ever be called "athletic" on a NBA scale. And I think that's why I really loved that team moreso than most teams: they somehow won AS a team with players who perfectly understood their roles. I can't think of a Duke team where everyone bought into their roles as much as this team did. Hell, there wasn't a lottery pick on this team! That's pretty amazing.

ChillinDuke
09-29-2015, 10:44 AM
The funny thing is that team wasn't athletic. "Alarmingly unathletic" is indeed an insult, but calling that team "unathletic" is pretty accurate. Of our starting five of Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek, Smith, and Thomas, only Singler, Smith, and Thomas can be considered at least somewhat athletic. Scheyer and Zoubs weren't athletic, and that's perfectly fine, because Scheyer didn't turn the ball over and Zoubek was one of the best offensive rebounders in the country (they added a lot of other value as well). Plus, both were competent defenders. I feel Singler had average athleticism for a college 3. Thomas was decently athletic but he had zero ups for a 6'8". I know Kedsy and I disagree on Thomas's athleticism, and I would never use the word "athletic" to describe Thomas. Smith, IMO, was the most athletic starter on that team. He was deceptively quick, had ups, and very agile. He certainly had above-average athleticism in college, but he was athletically subpar in the NBA (which led to his short stay in the league).

On the bench, MP1 and MP2 are crazy athletic, and they did combine for 30 min a game. And whilst they were an important part of the team, it's face to say that our 5 starters were by far the most important 5 players.

I think it's safe to say that no one on the starting 5 would ever be called "athletic" on a NBA scale. And I think that's why I really loved that team moreso than most teams: they somehow won AS a team with players who perfectly understood their roles. I can't think of a Duke team where everyone bought into their roles as much as this team did. Hell, there wasn't a lottery pick on this team! That's pretty amazing.

I agree with you, FDD.

To my eye the difference of opinion on calling someone "athletic" is one of denominator. Some people consider athleticism relative to your average Joe that you eat at the diner with. Based on that denominator, someone like Jon Scheyer is certainly in the top X% in terms of athleticism. But you and I appear to look at it relative to people playing college hoops. Based on that denominator, I agree that Jon Scheyer is not what I would call "athletic."

Sorry for the quick sidenote.

- Chillin

ETA: Oh, and welcome, Javin!!!

gumbomoop
09-29-2015, 01:00 PM
My opinion here is possibly a minority of one. I think Scheyer's athleticism was much underrated. He made 3 of the most "athletic" -- and I guess unappreciated -- plays I've seen: (1) the going-out-of-bounds-flat-on-the-money-jump-pass to David McClure to beat Clemson; (2) the going way-out-of-bounds-behind-the-back-save-pass v. Texas; (3) a bobbling spin shot, right-handed from the left side, hard-banked in from below the rim on the road (can't remember opponent) his senior year. The last was unimportant to the result, but an intuitive shot requiring physical skills way beyond ordinary. At some point I need to try to track that one down, to watch it and see if I remember it correctly. I'm pretty sure it happened with 7:32 left in the second half.

Not to trying to do the impossible and persuade anyone that Scheyer's athleticism is underappreciated, but it is. I would entertain the notion that Scheyer combined solid-enough athleticism so that, when combined with an unusual, intuitive court sense, he made terrifically athletic plays on occasion.

brlftz
09-29-2015, 01:24 PM
Yes, I think you are remembering it slightly wrong. Gottlieb made those comments at halftime of a Nov 2009 preseason NIT game against Arizona State. Link here. (http://www.dukechronicle.com/blog/blue-zone/2009/11/coach-k-fires-back-gottliebs-remarks)

I remember ASU looking awful and we didn't look much better in the first half so yes we didn't look like world beaters at the time Gottlieb uttered the famous phrase. Research shows that we were only up 34-30 at half.

However, we went on to win 64-53 and beat a very athletic UConn in the final 68-59 two nights later.

ahh, thanks for looking that up. my perception of how bad we looked playing a team we probably didn't expect to struggle against is what lasted, not the actual details. I definitely remember at the time feeling like Gottlieb was saying what I was at least fearing deep down.

sagegrouse
09-29-2015, 01:52 PM
I agree with you, FDD.

To my eye the difference of opinion on calling someone "athletic" is one of denominator. Some people consider athleticism relative to your average Joe that you eat at the diner with. Based on that denominator, someone like Jon Scheyer is certainly in the top X% in terms of athleticism. But you and I appear to look at it relative to people playing college hoops. Based on that denominator, I agree that Jon Scheyer is not what I would call "athletic."

Sorry for the quick sidenote.

- Chillin

ETA: Oh, and welcome, Javin!!!

Let me put it differently. Jon Scheyer is the most unathletic person ever to score 20 points in 41 seconds. Of course, he also may be the most athletic person to do so.

You guys are tending to equate being "athletic" with running fast and jumping high. This is not track and field and coordination and vision are more important than running and jumping.

ChillinDuke
09-29-2015, 04:58 PM
Let me put it differently. Jon Scheyer is the most unathletic person ever to score 20 points in 41 seconds. Of course, he also may be the most athletic person to do so.

You guys are tending to equate being "athletic" with running fast and jumping high. This is not track and field and coordination and vision are more important than running and jumping.

I agree with you in spirit. But we're talking about basketball, and the terminology of those who "speak" basketball generally associates the term "athletic" with running fast and jumping high. Every industry has its own terminology; fighting the status quo is something you can absolutely do if you choose. I choose to subscribe to it and not fight it.

Again, as an example, some people consider darts a sport. As such, an argument could be made for professional dart players to be considered athletic. I wouldn't subscribe to it, but the argument could be made.

This is all to say that I completely agree that coordination and vision are very important attributes for a basketball player. 100% agreement. That doesn't change the presumed fact that most pundits, fans, casual observers, and even coaches wouldn't use the term "athletic" to describe someone whose primary basketball advantages are those attributes.

- Chillin

ETA: "Athleticism" =/= winning.

jimsumner
09-29-2015, 05:29 PM
Why wouldn't hand-eye co-ordination be considered an athletic variable? Why wouldn't balance be considered an athletic variable? Or vision? All are important at high-level basketball.

I've used Casey Sanders as an example. As a run-jump athlete, he was pretty darn good. But he had trouble catching passes, holding on to rebounds or maintaining his balance in traffic.

Was he a great athlete? A good athlete?

And I remember Scheyer's ability to get into traffic, weave, spin, maintain balance and control and finish with positive results.

It seems to me that is athleticism.

Pghdukie
09-29-2015, 06:02 PM
Scheyer wasn't a Liability on defense either.

phaedrus
09-29-2015, 06:07 PM
Why wouldn't hand-eye co-ordination be considered an athletic variable? Why wouldn't balance be considered an athletic variable? Or vision? All are important at high-level basketball.

I've used Casey Sanders as an example. As a run-jump athlete, he was pretty darn good. But he had trouble catching passes, holding on to rebounds or maintaining his balance in traffic.

Was he a great athlete? A good athlete?

And I remember Scheyer's ability to get into traffic, weave, spin, maintain balance and control and finish with positive results.

It seems to me that is athleticism.

Why not three-point shooting ability? Passing? Handle? If every basketball skill or attribute is an athletic variable, then all similarly talented basketball players are similarly athletic.

Olympic Fan
09-29-2015, 06:18 PM
The funny thing is that team wasn't athletic. "Alarmingly unathletic" is indeed an insult, but calling that team "unathletic" is pretty accurate. Of our starting five of Scheyer, Singler, Zoubek, Smith, and Thomas, only Singler, Smith, and Thomas can be considered at least somewhat athletic. Scheyer and Zoubs weren't athletic, and that's perfectly fine, because Scheyer didn't turn the ball over and Zoubek was one of the best offensive rebounders in the country (they added a lot of other value as well). Plus, both were competent defenders. I feel Singler had average athleticism for a college 3. Thomas was decently athletic but he had zero ups for a 6'8". I know Kedsy and I disagree on Thomas's athleticism, and I would never use the word "athletic" to describe Thomas. Smith, IMO, was the most athletic starter on that team. He was deceptively quick, had ups, and very agile. He certainly had above-average athleticism in college, but he was athletically subpar in the NBA (which led to his short stay in the league).

On the bench, MP1 and MP2 are crazy athletic, and they did combine for 30 min a game. And whilst they were an important part of the team, it's face to say that our 5 starters were by far the most important 5 players.

Well, at the time Gottlieb made his remarks (at halftime of the Duke-Arizona State game), Zoubek was a role player (he played just 13 minutes of that game ... most of it late after the issue was decided). The starting center that night was Miles Plumlee, who was -- as you admit -- "crazy athletic". MP2 was still out with a broken wrist, but a knowledgeable college commentator -- which Gottlieb was not -- would have known Mason -- also "crazy athletic" was due to return and factored that into his comment.

Still, the point is that Duke's starting frontcourt that night -- that Gottlieb described as "alarmingly unathletic" was Miles Plumlee, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas ... funny that such an unathletic trio would play multiple years in the NBA. We'll have to disagree about Thomas' athleticism -- he did not have huge hops, but he combined above average quickness and strength. Singler is another story -- Gottlieb was always underrating him -- before the NCAA Baylor game, he suggested that Duke's biggest weakness was Singler's defense -- when, in fact, down the stretch that season, Singler was a shutdown defender on the wing, whose defense was a key factor in Duke's NCAA title run (ask Gordon Hayward -- 2-11 against Singler).

Frankly, I remember Gottlieb's "alarmingly unathletic" comment as directed against Duke's frontcourt ... even if I remember it wrong, it's hard to argue that the backcourt of Scheyer and Nolan Smith was unathletic. It was, in fact, an idiotic comment that earned the contempt that it deserved.

ChillinDuke
09-29-2015, 06:49 PM
Why wouldn't hand-eye co-ordination be considered an athletic variable? Why wouldn't balance be considered an athletic variable? Or vision? All are important at high-level basketball.

I've used Casey Sanders as an example. As a run-jump athlete, he was pretty darn good. But he had trouble catching passes, holding on to rebounds or maintaining his balance in traffic.

Was he a great athlete? A good athlete?

And I remember Scheyer's ability to get into traffic, weave, spin, maintain balance and control and finish with positive results.

It seems to me that is athleticism.

Agree in spirit.

I think you (or I) would have a hard time getting a majority of any sample size to agree at face, unfortunately. Actually, if you could anywhere, maybe it would be on this Board.

When I played basketball in high school, I had excellent hand-eye coordination. Decent balance. And superb vision.

But I was 5'6" 160. If you put me in a line-up (prison style; not basketball), I doubt anyone would have ever assumed I was a good "athlete". I certainly didn't consider myself one. And I probably would have laughed at anyone calling me one.

But I could play ball. They chose me to play varsity in 9th grade. One of only two ninth graders chosen.

The term "athlete" is in the eye of the beholder. I think people get peeved at the perceived negativity of not deeming one of our players a good "athlete" as opposed to staying open minded to the fact that most people (for a variety of reasons) don't take the time to consider an "athlete" in terms of balance and hand-eye coordination.

Jon Scheyer was one heck of a (college) basketball player. Period. My or anyone else's view on his "athleticism" doesn't change that fact. And I would bet, if faced with the choice, Jon himself would prefer to be labeled the former rather than the latter.

Cheers,
- Chillin

sagegrouse
09-29-2015, 08:06 PM
Why not three-point shooting ability? Passing? Handle? If every basketball skill or attribute is an athletic variable, then all similarly talented basketball players are similarly athletic.

Hand-eye coordination and the timing it implies are the essence of basketball and far more important than running and jumping. However, when everyone has good-to-excellent hand-eye coordination, running and jumping become much more important.

But to prolong the argument, I would say that running and jumping per se are less important than size and strength -- that's when everyone has equal hand-eye coordination.

I would say that "passing" and "handle" are skills that are the products of hand-eye coordination and a hell-of-a-lot of practice.

Now, is it personally objectionable to me that when someone is called "athletic" in basketball, it's a shorthand for running and jumping? Not really, but then when players are dismissed as being unathletic, that is ridiculous when they are, in fact, really good players who don't jump so high.

jimsumner
09-29-2015, 08:40 PM
Why not three-point shooting ability? Passing? Handle? If every basketball skill or attribute is an athletic variable, then all similarly talented basketball players are similarly athletic.

Nature versus nurture. Some things are more genetically encoded than others. Some people are born with better hand-eye coordination than others the same way some people are born with better leaping ability than others. This natural ability can be enhanced but only to an extent.

When I was 20, no amount of training would have enabled me to run a 10-second 100-yard dash or turn me into a world-class jumper. I simply didn't have the DNA for it.

By the same token, no amount of work would have turned me into a world-class gymnast. I simply did not have the natural gifts for it.

So, was I athletically deficient in the first instance but not the second?

If 3-point shooting can be taught, then why doesn't everyone do it well? Why doesn't everyone pass well?

Practice and competent coaching/teaching certainly are necessary to maximize these skills in those who possess the natural ability. But not everyone has that natural ability and many of those natural abilities can be termed part of an athletic spectrum.

Let me throw another wrinkle in here. People who follow golf argue that some golfers are better athletes than other golfers. But golfers don't have to run fast or jump high. Is Jordan Spieth a better athlete than me? Darn tooting. But how so, if we don't include other variables as athletic?

I just think defining athleticism as nothing more than running short distances and jumping straight up is limiting.

brevity
09-29-2015, 08:55 PM
There are many pointless questions in sports, but here are the Top 3:

1. Is [insert NFL player, usually white] an elite quarterback?*
2. Is [insert anyone, usually in hoops] athletic?
3. Is [popular pastime, usually golf] a sport?

Each is annoying for the same reason: everyone has a different answer, and almost everyone thinks their personal opinion should be universal. (That's also the problem with Internet comments.)

This is every conversation about athleticism summed up in a few lines.

Q: Is Jon Scheyer athletic?
A1: He's more athletic than me, so yes.
A2: He's less athletic than LeBron, so no.

So, is athleticism worth discussing at all? Sure, but be specific about the skills the player has that inform your decision. And be prepared to have no one agree with you.

* This is the worst because media outlets, especially ESPN, waste the most time trying to build a definitive master list.

elvis14
09-29-2015, 09:57 PM
Interesting discussion about athleticism. I see it this way, athletes (at any level) generally have two things going for them, athleticism and skill. Some guys max out one or the other. Some guys have lots of some and a good bit of the other. Some guys like LeBron or Kobe pretty much max out both. A guy like Jon Scheyer had a very high skill level and an OK level of athleticism. I think of Tyus Jones the same way. As I've gotten older, my athleticism has decreased but my skill level has actually increased.

So when someone says to me that a player is a great athlete. That's cool, it usually means that they are high on the athleticism scale. Now that same player may be somewhat low on the skill scale (and might find themselves on the bench behind a less athletic and more skilled player). Of course there's some overlap between the athletic scale and the skill scale. One other thing that comes into play with basketball, in particular, is size. Generally size gives a player an advantage. A bigger player generally needs less on both scales to succeed. If you have a SF, for example, who's 6'8" tall and another who's 6'5" tall and they are even on both the athleticism and skill scales, most of the time the 6'8" guy will be better.

Just my $.02

brlftz
09-30-2015, 01:08 AM
Interesting discussion about athleticism. I see it this way, athletes (at any level) generally have two things going for them, athleticism and skill. Some guys max out one or the other. Some guys have lots of some and a good bit of the other. Some guys like LeBron or Kobe pretty much max out both. A guy like Jon Scheyer had a very high skill level and an OK level of athleticism. I think of Tyus Jones the same way. As I've gotten older, my athleticism has decreased but my skill level has actually increased.

So when someone says to me that a player is a great athlete. That's cool, it usually means that they are high on the athleticism scale. Now that same player may be somewhat low on the skill scale (and might find themselves on the bench behind a less athletic and more skilled player). Of course there's some overlap between the athletic scale and the skill scale. One other thing that comes into play with basketball, in particular, is size. Generally size gives a player an advantage. A bigger player generally needs less on both scales to succeed. If you have a SF, for example, who's 6'8" tall and another who's 6'5" tall and they are even on both the athleticism and skill scales, most of the time the 6'8" guy will be better.

Just my $.02

was getting ready to post something similar. if you want to include all the things that make someone good at basketball in the definition of "athletic", then it stops being a useful term for describing a player. things like dribbling, shooting, and passing are usually described as skills rather than athletic abilities, so when we talk about a player that is a great athlete but raw from a skill standpoint, we understand what that means.

gep
09-30-2015, 01:22 AM
Hand-eye coordination and the timing it implies are the essence of basketball and far more important than running and jumping. However, when everyone has good-to-excellent hand-eye coordination, running and jumping become much more important.

I think Larry Bird "fits" into this... without being able to "jump". But he could dunk.. :cool:

gumbomoop
09-30-2015, 01:46 AM
Interesting discussion about athleticism. I see it this way, athletes (at any level) generally have two things going for them, athleticism and skill.... A guy like Jon Scheyer had a very high skill level and an OK level of athleticism.

Yes, this makes sense, and makes me rethink my defense of Scheyer's athleticism in post #48. Maybe Jon was "athletic enough" but way more than "skilled enough." I might still argue that the 3 plays I referenced in that post were "athletic." They were all certainly "very highly skilled." But plenty of players whom I wouldn't label "athletic" do make impressive, even spectacular plays. Jon was such a smart player, blessed with a highly developed intuitive feel (court sense, location of players, game situation) combined with hand-eye coordination that was at times striking.

Indoor66
09-30-2015, 08:14 AM
I think Larry Bird "fits" into this... without being able to "jump". But he could dunk.. :cool:

But starting with a 6'9" platform helps the dunk ability - no matter how high he jumps! :D:cool:

Bluedevil114
09-30-2015, 08:35 AM
Welcome to Duke, Javin. Another great piece from the 2016 class. Somehow this thread went sideways. We have pages on Lance Thomas not being athletic and not being abe to catch a basketball. Lance was an integral part of Duke winning a National Championship in 2010. He deserves our appreciation. He has nothing to do with Javin coming to Duke and the comparisons to Javin. Congrats Javin on the best college choice playing for the best basketball coach in the world. Next up Bolden and Giles.

mattman91
09-30-2015, 09:25 AM
Welcome to Duke, Javin. Another great piece from the 2016 class. Somehow this thread went sideways. We have pages on Lance Thomas not being athletic and not being abe to catch a basketball. Lance was an integral part of Duke winning a National Championship in 2010. He deserves our appreciation. He has nothing to do with Javin coming to Duke and the comparisons to Javin. Congrats Javin on the best college choice playing for the best basketball coach in the world. Next up Bolden and Giles.

Thanks for redirecting the focus to Javin. Can we all just agree that some people have a different idea of what "athleticism" means?

Happy to have Javin as a future Blue Devil!

flyingdutchdevil
09-30-2015, 10:22 AM
Welcome to Duke, Javin. Another great piece from the 2016 class. Somehow this thread went sideways. We have pages on Lance Thomas not being athletic and not being abe to catch a basketball. Lance was an integral part of Duke winning a National Championship in 2010. He deserves our appreciation. He has nothing to do with Javin coming to Duke and the comparisons to Javin. Congrats Javin on the best college choice playing for the best basketball coach in the world. Next up Bolden and Giles.

LT does have our appreciation. Scheyer does have our appreciation. Redick has our appreciation. Every basketball player who is low on the athleticism scale (NCAA standards) who produced results at Duke has our appreciation. You don't need athleticism to be successful in college ball. You can make up for it with intelligence and skill.

From what I've read, Javin already has a decent combination of athleticism (below and above the rim) and intelligence, and he's working really hard on the skill. And that will ultimately make him successful in college ball.

I'm sure that, when all is said and done, Javin will have our appreciation.

jimsumner
09-30-2015, 02:29 PM
I've never talked to DeLaurier but know people who have.

So, hearsay, inadmissible in court.

But I am told that he is a classic "Duke kid," bright, engaging and articulate, an outstanding student and team-first player.

So, yes, those Amile Jefferson comparisons might be accurate in a number of respects.

flyingdutchdevil
09-30-2015, 02:42 PM
I've never talked to DeLaurier but know people who have.

So, hearsay, inadmissible in court.

But I am told that he is a classic "Duke kid," bright, engaging and articulate, an outstanding student and team-first player.

So, yes, those Amile Jefferson comparisons might be accurate in a number of respects.

Yeah, Amile represents our school in an awesome way. He doesn't possess the humor of MP3 or the fun-loving attitude of Nolan, but he is so polished in front of the camera. Tough to find 25 year olds who are that polished in public. He reminds me of a young, tall, politician.

BD80
09-30-2015, 03:06 PM
I've never talked to DeLaurier but know people who have.

So, hearsay, inadmissible in court.

But I am told that he is a classic "Duke kid," bright, engaging and articulate, an outstanding student and team-first player.

...

Sounds like an excited utterance. Admissible.

JPtheGame
09-30-2015, 08:01 PM
Welcome to Duke, Javin. Another great piece from the 2016 class. Somehow this thread went sideways. We have pages on Lance Thomas not being athletic and not being abe to catch a basketball. Lance was an integral part of Duke winning a National Championship in 2010. He deserves our appreciation. He has nothing to do with Javin coming to Duke and the comparisons to Javin. Congrats Javin on the best college choice playing for the best basketball coach in the world. Next up Bolden and Giles.

Using past players as a basis for comparison is a way of talking about Javin coming to Duke. Its basically shorthand as we speculate about he will fit in and contribute. Pro scouts do it and I know the Duke coaches do it. How many times have we heard a recruit say something like, "They told me I would come in and fill the role that _______ did." We are all thrilled about every player Duke signs and using the names of past legends demonstrates that respect. By the way, I think Vrankovic has a chance to be a late blooming rebounding machine like Zoubek. I have no idea about whether he will match Zoubs in # of foot injuries.

Bluedevil114
10-01-2015, 01:48 AM
Using past players as a basis for comparison is a way of talking about Javin coming to Duke. Its basically shorthand as we speculate about he will fit in and contribute. Pro scouts do it and I know the Duke coaches do it. How many times have we heard a recruit say something like, "They told me I would come in and fill the role that _______ did." We are all thrilled about every player Duke signs and using the names of past legends demonstrates that respect. By the way, I think Vrankovic has a chance to be a late blooming rebounding machine like Zoubek. I have no idea about whether he will match Zoubs in # of foot injuries.

I agree 100%. We use comparisons all the time to give us an idea of who a player is, where we think they will play and how they will fit in the Duke system. Oh and of course how many minutes they will play their first year. My issue was not the comparison but how Lance was getting trashed in a Welcome to Duke, Javin thread. Lance Thomas played a pivotal role that was vital to Duke winning it's fourth National Championship. He was a tremendous defender and that is all we needed from him that season.

flyingdutchdevil
10-01-2015, 08:45 AM
I agree 100%. We use comparisons all the time to give us an idea of who a player is, where we think they will play and how they will fit in the Duke system. Oh and of course how many minutes they will play their first year. My issue was not the comparison but how Lance was getting trashed in a Welcome to Duke, Javin thread. Lance Thomas played a pivotal role that was vital to Duke winning it's fourth National Championship. He was a tremendous defender and that is all we needed from him that season.

Seriously? No one is throwing Lance under the bus. We're merely commenting on his athleticism. EVERYONE knows the value that LT brought to the championship team.

The season can't start soon enough.

OldPhiKap
10-01-2015, 09:04 AM
Sounds like an excited utterance. Admissible.

res gestae is so old school. I am an FRE 405(a) man m'self. Maybe shoehorn under 406.

Indoor66
10-01-2015, 09:16 AM
res gestae is so old school. I am an FRE 405(a) man m'self. Maybe shoehorn under 406.

Federal this and Federal that, pretty soon you have a 1,000,000 word tome.

duke blue brewcrew
10-01-2015, 10:44 AM
I agree 100%. We use comparisons all the time to give us an idea of who a player is, where we think they will play and how they will fit in the Duke system. Oh and of course how many minutes they will play their first year. My issue was not the comparison but how Lance was getting trashed in a Welcome to Duke, Javin thread. Lance Thomas played a pivotal role that was vital to Duke winning it's fourth National Championship. He was a tremendous defender and that is all we needed from him that season.

I think you're taking what was being said out of context. No one said they didn't like Lance Thomas, in fact everyone said (me included), that we cheered like crazy for LT. No one said or took anything away from what Lance did to help the 2010 team, he played a tremendous role for that team as a blue collar player doing all of the little things, and making all of the hustle plays. What WAS said, was in response to a poster who implied that Lance was a contributor on offense THROUGHOUT his career at Duke. LT's total career at Duke is a very different thing than his Sr. year at Duke. I stand by my comments, in response to that assertion, and believe them to be realistic and true. The stats back up everything I said.

Kedsy
10-01-2015, 11:21 AM
What WAS said, was in response to a poster who implied that Lance was a contributor on offense THROUGHOUT his career at Duke. LT's total career at Duke is a very different thing than his Sr. year at Duke. I stand by my comments, in response to that assertion, and believe them to be realistic and true. The stats back up everything I said.

Actually, the stats don't appear to back you up at all. While it's true that Lance's FT% was much better his senior year, by pretty much every other measure, 2009-10 was his worst offensive season at Duke. Worst FG% (by a lot), fewest points per 40 minutes (by a lot), fewest points per shot (by a lot), 2nd-most TO per 40 (freshman season was worse), even fewest shots per 40 minutes (so we can't blame the lower efficiency on taking more shots). I don't have tempo-free stats for those years, but if you think Lance was an offensive contributor his senior year, you almost have to admit he was a better offensive contributor before that.

Indoor66
10-01-2015, 11:36 AM
Actually, the stats don't appear to back you up at all. While it's true that Lance's FT% was much better his senior year, by pretty much every other measure, 2009-10 was his worst offensive season at Duke. Worst FG% (by a lot), fewest points per 40 minutes (by a lot), fewest points per shot (by a lot), 2nd-most TO per 40 (freshman season was worse), even fewest shots per 40 minutes (so we can't blame the lower efficiency on taking more shots). I don't have tempo-free stats for those years, but if you think Lance was an offensive contributor his senior year, you almost have to admit he was a better offensive contributor before that.

...And this matters how in 2015? To my knowledge, Lance is a National Champion in 2010. He did what the coaching staff and team required of him.

Kedsy
10-01-2015, 12:07 PM
...And this matters how in 2015? To my knowledge, Lance is a National Champion in 2010. He did what the coaching staff and team required of him.

Absolutely. And at the time I was a Lance supporter, while many on these boards denigrated him. National Champions come in many shapes and sizes. I suppose my point is our perceptions of Lance's (and many other Duke players') accomplishments are warped by the team's ultimate success or perceived failure.

To me, there's no point in comparing Javin Delaurier to Lance Thomas or Amile Jefferson or any other former Duke player. His resemblance in superficial areas like height and "motor" have little bearing to who he is and the impact he'll have on Duke basketball.

Kedsy
10-01-2015, 12:27 PM
...And this matters how in 2015?

And, incidentally, appearing on the same page as you posting about Larry Bird's dunking ability and the Federal Rules of Evidence, I find your above question to be somewhat puzzling.

duke blue brewcrew
10-01-2015, 06:12 PM
Actually, the stats don't appear to back you up at all. While it's true that Lance's FT% was much better his senior year, by pretty much every other measure, 2009-10 was his worst offensive season at Duke. Worst FG% (by a lot), fewest points per 40 minutes (by a lot), fewest points per shot (by a lot), 2nd-most TO per 40 (freshman season was worse), even fewest shots per 40 minutes (so we can't blame the lower efficiency on taking more shots). I don't have tempo-free stats for those years, but if you think Lance was an offensive contributor his senior year, you almost have to admit he was a better offensive contributor before that.

In truth, I've never thought of Lance as an offensive contributor. I loved his hustle, heart, teamwork and passion. He rebounded fiercely, and set picks all over the floor. Anytime the ball was passed in his direction, I closed my eyes and crossed my fingers. From a % reflection of the stats his Sr. year, how significant is the increase in PT and offensive opportunities impacting what the stats reveal? His FT% was the only thing to significantly increase his Sr. year IIRC. However, his PPG avg seemed to remain constant throughout his career, 4.(x) ppg depending on which year we are discussing. I'll take your word for it at the end of the day, I'll be the first to admit that math and I were never a good fit. However, the key stat to me was his career PPG Avg when considering the claim that Lance was a significant offensive contributor. He certainly hustled and did a lot of things that contributed to the flow of the offense as we've already discussed. When it comes to putting the ball in the basket, he did that to the tune of 4.6 PPG for his career...by what measure is that a significant contribution?

Kedsy
10-01-2015, 06:24 PM
From a % reflection of the stats his Sr. year, how significant is the increase in PT and offensive opportunities impacting what the stats reveal?

I don't think the increased playing time had much of an effect. He had a lot more minutes his senior year, but a lot fewer shots per minute, which implies fewer offensive opportunities. His usage% his senior year was very low (12.2%), but unfortunately I don't have those numbers in the prior years for a comparison.

Given his much lower shooting percentage, my guess is that his shots during his first three years were mostly near the basket, and in his senior year he ventured away to the midrange more often. So his opportunities were different in character. I don't think you can fairly say that he contributed more to the offense his senior year than his first three years, but beyond that I'm not sure it's worth getting into a debate about the definition of "contributing."

BD80
10-01-2015, 07:24 PM
I don't think the increased playing time had much of an effect. He had a lot more minutes his senior year, but a lot fewer shots per minute, which implies fewer offensive opportunities. His usage% his senior year was very low (12.2%), but unfortunately I don't have those numbers in the prior years for a comparison.

Given his much lower shooting percentage, my guess is that his shots during his first three years were mostly near the basket, and in his senior year he ventured away to the midrange more often. So his opportunities were different in character. I don't think you can fairly say that he contributed more to the offense his senior year than his first three years, but beyond that I'm not sure it's worth getting into a debate about the definition of "contributing."

I think its more an issue of whether he contributed athletically.

NSDukeFan
10-01-2015, 07:53 PM
I think you're taking what was being said out of context. No one said they didn't like Lance Thomas, in fact everyone said (me included), that we cheered like crazy for LT. No one said or took anything away from what Lance did to help the 2010 team, he played a tremendous role for that team as a blue collar player doing all of the little things, and making all of the hustle plays. What WAS said, was in response to a poster who implied that Lance was a contributor on offense THROUGHOUT his career at Duke. LT's total career at Duke is a very different thing than his Sr. year at Duke. I stand by my comments, in response to that assertion, and believe them to be realistic and true. The stats back up everything I said.

I disagree that your comments were realistic and true.
However, until his Sr. year, LT had a panic attack anytime he came close to the ball. Whenever he got the ball around the rim, there was a 90% chance he was going to spazz, dribble it off his foot, knee or otherwise watch it mysteriously squirt out of his hands in a turnover of some fashion.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding tone, but that doesn't sound like a guy who started more games than he didn't on teams that won 80 games before his senior year.

NSDukeFan
10-01-2015, 08:19 PM
I think you're taking what was being said out of context. No one said they didn't like Lance Thomas, in fact everyone said (me included), that we cheered like crazy for LT. No one said or took anything away from what Lance did to help the 2010 team, he played a tremendous role for that team as a blue collar player doing all of the little things, and making all of the hustle plays. What WAS said, was in response to a poster who implied that Lance was a contributor on offense THROUGHOUT his career at Duke. LT's total career at Duke is a very different thing than his Sr. year at Duke. I stand by my comments, in response to that assertion, and believe them to be realistic and true. The stats back up everything I said.

I generally like your posts on all kinds of topics. Sorry, if I got too defensive about Lance and Amile.

gam7
10-03-2015, 03:27 PM
Another issue on DeLaurier's name is whether he goes by DeLaurier or Montgomery-DeLaurier. I've seen it both ways on the recruiting websites and in media reports. If the latter, he will be the first Duke player ever with a hyphenated last name and will have by far the surname with the most characters in Duke basketball history - 20 characters. The leaders in the clubhouse in that regard are the great Wright Hollingsworth, an imposing 6'2", 165 lb forward who lettered for Duke in 1944, and a certain undersized point guard from the late 90s, each with 13 characters. I sincerely hope we get to see someone try to fit "Montgomery-DeLaurier" on the back of a jersey.