PDA

View Full Version : Alas...



OldPhiKap
01-11-2016, 01:52 PM
Duke #6 in coach's poll:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

FerryFor50
01-11-2016, 01:53 PM
About stinkin time

53n206
01-11-2016, 02:07 PM
Why is SMU not listed in the coaches poll?

duke blue brewcrew
01-11-2016, 02:17 PM
Duke #6 in coach's poll:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

It's nice to see. I like how each member of the team has shown some growth since the beginning of the year. It's exciting to watch happen, and makes me curious about the continued growth potential between now and tourney time. LGD!

Ichabod Drain
01-11-2016, 02:30 PM
Why is SMU not listed in the coaches poll?

I'm guessing it has to do with their post season ban this season.

CameronDuke
01-11-2016, 02:36 PM
Very interesting to see that Virginia, losers of two straight at Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech, didn't slide too terribly far. At 12-3, 1-2, Virginia is still 13th in the AP Poll and 11th in the USA Today Poll. The Miami at Virginia game tomorrow is huge as Miami is 13-1, 2-0 and ranked 8th/9th. Miami is a veteran laden team, starting four seniors (two of which are redshirt seniors) and a junior their last time out at home against FSU. They also brought another senior off the bench. Should be an entertaining game tomorrow night at the John Paul Jones Arena in Charlottesville, Virginia.

FerryFor50
01-11-2016, 02:56 PM
Very interesting to see that Virginia, losers of two straight at Virginia Tech and Georgia Tech, didn't slide too terribly far. At 12-3, 1-2, Virginia is still 13th in the AP Poll and 11th in the USA Today Poll. The Miami at Virginia game tomorrow is huge as Miami is 13-1, 2-0 and ranked 8th/9th. Miami is a veteran laden team, starting four seniors (two of which are redshirt seniors) and a junior their last time out at home against FSU. They also brought another senior off the bench. Should be an entertaining game tomorrow night at the John Paul Jones Arena in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Yea, pretty weird considering how far Duke fell after losing to Utah, which is a considerably better team than VT and probably better than Clemson.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
01-11-2016, 03:07 PM
Oh, thank goodness. I'll bet Coach K is really excited about this.

Wahoo2000
01-11-2016, 04:27 PM
Yea, pretty weird considering how far Duke fell after losing to Utah, which is a considerably better team than VT and probably better than Clemson.

I think our wins over Villanova, WVU, and Cal had something to do with that. Just depends on what priority you give to "how you're playing right now" vs "season as a whole". I probably would have put us about 16th to 18th.

Olympic Fan
01-11-2016, 05:07 PM
Just to clarify a couple of things:

-- Duke was actually a top 10 team last week in the coaches' poll (No. 10). They did re-enter the AP top 10 (and move up to No. 6 in the coaches)

-- SMU is not in the coaches' poll because the coaches' association decided about a decade ago not to rank any team that was on probation and with a postseason ban.

-- Interesting that for the most part, the Coaches think more of the ACC teams than the AP voters. UNC is No. 5 in both polls and Miami is one spot higher in the AP (No. 8 vs. No. 9 in the coaches poll). But Duke is four spots higher in the coaches (No. 6 vs. No. 10), Virginia is two spots higher in the coaches (No. 11 vs. No. 13), Pitt is three places higher in the coaches (No. 17 vs. No. 20) and Louisville is one spot higher (No. 20 vs. No. 21). For the time being, let's all go with the coaches' poll, okay?

-- Indiana cracked the Coaches' poll at No. 25 -- that gives Duke one current top 25 victim. The Hoosiers just missed the AP top 25. No other Duke victim is even getting votes in either poll.

-- Interesting that Oklahoma stayed at No. 2 after losing (in 3 OT) to No. 1 Kansas. I mean, it makes sense (it was after all, a great game), but it's still surprising that the voters would do something sensible.

uh_no
01-11-2016, 05:30 PM
I think our wins over Villanova, WVU, and Cal had something to do with that. Just depends on what priority you give to "how you're playing right now" vs "season as a whole". I probably would have put us about 16th to 18th.

yeah....people are focusing on losses when UVA has a few very good wins....indiana is only borderline a good win. you could argue UVA has 4 wins about as good as duke's best.

jhmoss1812
01-11-2016, 06:37 PM
I think our wins over Villanova, WVU, and Cal had something to do with that. Just depends on what priority you give to "how you're playing right now" vs "season as a whole". I probably would have put us about 16th to 18th.

Yeah the quality wins are why we're still ranked as high as we are. We should probably be in the 15-20 range imo though.

Troublemaker
01-11-2016, 06:46 PM
yeah...people are focusing on losses when UVA has a few very good wins...indiana is only borderline a good win. you could argue UVA has 4 wins about as good as duke's best.

Well, I would say beating by 20 a team projected by kenpom to go 13-5 in the Big Ten is a good win, period.

That said, as you and others have covered, UVA unquestionably has a better resume of wins. And due to Duke's backloaded ACC schedule, we won't even have an opportunity to try to match that until February. Hopefully Amile will be back by then to help.

I'm impressed with how UVA beefed up their non-conf schedule this season and how they performed against it.

CameronDuke
01-11-2016, 06:53 PM
Yeah the quality wins are why we're still ranked as high as we are. We should probably be in the 15-20 range imo though.

The quality wins are impressive (Villanova and West Virginia), but the one loss to Virginia Tech was terrible RPI wise, as Virginia Tech is 131 in RPI right now. It was on the road and is a rivalry game, so maybe that's what the pollsters are thinking. The Georgia Tech game wasn't the worst loss ever as they're 40 in RPI and that was on the road as was at George Washington who is having a good season at 34 in RPI. Duke's two losses weren't as bad as Virginia's, although on neutral courts both games, Kentucky is currently 9 in RPI and Utah 21. The Miami game is as close to a must win as it can get this early in the season for Virginia tomorrow if they want to three peat as regular season champions. Not that doing that is Tony Bennett's goal, but starting 1-3 in the league would be near disastrous for Virginia with home and homes with Louisville and Clemson on the slate as well as trips still to FSU, Wake Forest, Pitt, Duke, and Miami, while still having to face UNC and Syracuse in Charlottesville.

jhmoss1812
01-11-2016, 06:53 PM
Well, I would say beating by 20 a team projected by kenpom to go 13-5 in the Big Ten is a good win, period.

That said, as you and others have covered, UVA unquestionably has a better resume of wins. And due to Duke's backloaded ACC schedule, we won't even have an opportunity to try to match that until February. Hopefully Amile will be back by then to help.

I'm impressed with how UVA beefed up their non-conf schedule this season and how they performed against it.

Which makes the losses to GT and particularly VT even more surprising. Very proud of the non-conference scheduling and results though. There's no reason not to test your self in the non-conference especially when you have an experienced roster. I'm hoping the losses are just a bump in the road but I've witnessed some fundamental flaws in our defense, particularly in our close outs and rebounding position. Also, the offense has been a lot more stagnant these past two games with a lot of one-on-one and settling for jump shots. Just not what I've come to expect from a Tony Bennett coached team.

jhmoss1812
01-11-2016, 06:57 PM
The quality wins are impressive (Villanova and West Virginia), but the one loss to Virginia Tech was terrible RPI wise, as Virginia Tech is 131 in RPI right now. It was on the road and is a rivalry game, so maybe that's what the pollsters are thinking. The Georgia Tech game wasn't the worst loss ever as they're 40 in RPI and that was on the road as was at George Washington who is having a good season at 34 in RPI. Duke's two losses weren't as bad as Virginia's, although on neutral courts both games, Kentucky is currently 9 in RPI and Utah 21. The Miami game is as close to a must win as it can get for Virginia tomorrow if they want to three peat as regular season champions. Not that doing that is Tony Bennett's goal, but starting 1-3 in the league would be near disastrous for Virginia with home and homes with Louisville and Clemson on the slate as well as trips still to FSU, Wake Forest, Pitt, Duke, and Miami, while still having to face UNC and Syracuse in Charlottesville.

One of the big reasons Duke got and deserved a 1-seed over UVA last year is they had better wins (including a H2H win) than UVA did last year despite having worse losses. I think the committee really values the ability to beat good teams and doesn't punish teams for a few bad losses. I definitely agree that a 1-3 hole to start the ACC would pretty much make winning the ACC a longshot though. If I'm being completely honest, this season is all about the postseason for UVA. We've won the ACC regular season in consecutive years with one tournament championship and flamed out in the NCAAs too early both years. To be taken as a legitimate program, we need to break through in the NCAAs.

Jeffrey
01-11-2016, 06:59 PM
Damn computer, I tried to log on to Duke Basketball.

jhmoss1812
01-11-2016, 07:01 PM
Damn computer, I tried to log on to Duke Basketball.

LOL sorry man. I'll shut up now.

BigWayne
01-11-2016, 07:09 PM
Damn computer, I tried to log on to Duke Basketball.

Well I am still working through the 70+ Twilight Zone episodes I DVR'd from the New years marathon. Seemed kinda normal to me.

CameronDuke
01-11-2016, 07:15 PM
One of the big reasons Duke got and deserved a 1-seed over UVA last year is they had better wins (including a H2H win) than UVA did last year despite having worse losses. I think the committee really values the ability to beat good teams and doesn't punish teams for a few bad losses. I definitely agree that a 1-3 hole to start the ACC would pretty much make winning the ACC a longshot though. If I'm being completely honest, this season is all about the postseason for UVA. We've won the ACC regular season in consecutive years with one tournament championship and flamed out in the NCAAs too early both years. To be taken as a legitimate program, we need to break through in the NCAAs.

I agree with you there. In my mind, Virginia is knocking on the door of being a perennial elite team. A regional final birth or final four gets them to elite status this year and finally gets Tony Bennett past the sweet 16. He deserves it.

Reilly
01-11-2016, 07:52 PM
Duke is #7 per SRS:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/2016-ratings.html

duke4ever19
01-18-2016, 01:58 PM
Down to #20 in AP.

Doria
01-18-2016, 02:06 PM
Fell out of top 25, along with KY, in the CBS poll.

devildeac
01-18-2016, 02:13 PM
#12 Coaches Poll:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings

duke4ever19
01-18-2016, 02:20 PM
Fell out of top 25, along with KY, in the CBS poll.

Parrish has been consistently ranking us in his "power rankings" around around six-to- eight spots lower than the AP and Coaches poll.

Yes, I know . . . Parish rankings and Lunardi bracketology are more-or-less meaningless, especially this time of year, but I rather enjoy observing how the media thinks Duke and other ACC schools stack up to compared to the rest of the competition.

Doria
01-18-2016, 02:24 PM
Oh, absolutely. I was just throwing it in for completion's sake. Also, while I disagree with their general rankings, I always like looking at the teams on the bottom of top 25 lists, just because sometimes it draws a team to my attention I hadn't made a point of following. And their list tends to be, as you say, significantly different.

weezie
01-18-2016, 02:46 PM
Won't it be fun at the ky-Duke championship game in Phoenix? Argh, the experts will tear themselves in two :p

gumbomoop
01-18-2016, 03:37 PM
Won't it be fun at the ky-Duke championship game in Phoenix? Argh, the experts will tear themselves in two :p

I think the 2016 FF is in Houstonapolis. UK may not be there.

Duke-UK in Phoenixapolis in 2017?

Olympic Fan
01-18-2016, 04:38 PM
Down to #20 in AP.

This is the important one -- it keeps Duke's streak of AP polls alive. It's now 166 straight, tied for the fifth longest streak in college basketball history.

I do think the streak is in jeopardy with the schedule coming up ... I will be very, VERY worried next Monday if Duke doesn't go 2-0 this week.

As for Gary Parrish and CBS Sports ... so what?

weezie
01-18-2016, 05:28 PM
I think the 2016 FF is in Houstonapolis. UK may not be there.

Duke-UK in Phoenixapolis in 2017?

Oh yeah, duh, I'm a dope. Guess it's the cold weather that has me Phoenix dreaming....

Tom B.
01-19-2016, 11:17 AM
This is the important one -- it keeps Duke's streak of AP polls alive. It's now 166 straight, tied for the fifth longest streak in college basketball history.

I do think the streak is in jeopardy with the schedule coming up ... I will be very, VERY worried next Monday if Duke doesn't go 2-0 this week.


Yeaahhh, never mind.

So, when's the last time that Duke's men's and women's teams were unranked? I thought it would be sometime in 1995, so I looked it up and found that I was correct, but only in the most technical sense.

The men were ranked early in the season, but fell out of the AP rankings with the poll that was released on January 16, 1995, after losing a double OT game at home to Virginia. (You may recall this as the game in which Duke led by 21 at halftime and by 23 early in the second half, only to watch Virginia come all the way back. That's when it became evident that the season was collapsing.)

The women were unranked early in the season, but broke into the AP rankings with the poll that was released on January 17, 1995 (for some reason, back then, the AP released its men's polls on Mondays and its women's polls on Tuesdays), and stayed there through the end of the season.

So yes, for exactly one day in 1995, both the Duke men's and women's teams were unranked.

Before that, you have to go all the way back to December 29, 1986. The men were unranked to start the 1986-87 season, but climbed into the polls in late December and stayed there until January of 1995.

devildeac
01-24-2016, 10:17 PM
I'm guessing we stay top 25 for another week. Barely. #22 Purdue loses to #9 Iowa and unranked OSU (aka the Beavers) pound #21 USC (aka the Trojans).

NYBri
01-24-2016, 10:38 PM
Tread water until Amile comes back and hope we can make a run.

CDu
01-25-2016, 08:43 AM
I'm guessing we stay top 25 for another week. Barely. #22 Purdue loses to #9 Iowa and unranked OSU (aka the Beavers) pound #21 USC (aka the Trojans).

An ironic result for sure in that USC/OSU matchup.

Indoor66
01-25-2016, 09:13 AM
I'm guessing we stay top 25 for another week. Barely. #22 Purdue loses to #9 Iowa and unranked OSU (aka the Beavers) pound #21 USC (aka the Trojans).

I thought we already had this conversation: Everyone pounds the trojans. :confused:

devildeac
01-25-2016, 11:12 AM
An ironic result for sure in that USC/OSU matchup.

I felt the urge to clarify that, not wanting anyone here to think there were any out of conference hook-ups going at this time of the season with Cowboys or Treenuts and Gamecocks.

:o

devildeac
01-25-2016, 11:14 AM
I thought we already had this conversation: Everyone pounds the trojans. :confused:

Well, the Trojans succumbing certainly appeared to be relevant to our possible departure from the top 25.;)

FerryFor50
01-25-2016, 11:18 AM
Well, the Trojans succumbing certainly appeared to be relevant to our possible departure from the top 25.;)

The teenager in me giggled when you said the Beavers pounded the Trojans.

devildeac
01-25-2016, 11:31 AM
The teenager in me giggled when you said the Beavers pounded the Trojans.

The teenager (several times over) in me giggled when I posted it :o .

And, as I posted a bit earlier this am, I certainly didn't want any readers to become confused over OSU and OSU and tOSU and the real, non-cheating Carolina. ;)

luburch
01-25-2016, 02:03 PM
24th in AP, 20th in USA Today.

FerryFor50
01-25-2016, 02:05 PM
24th in AP, 20th in USA Today.

Phew. That was close.

Better win this week! :cool:

pfrduke
01-25-2016, 03:46 PM
Phew. That was close.

Better win this week! :cool:

We'll know tonight whether we'll be ranked next week - Miami's our only game and it seems extremely unlikely that we would either a) stay ranked with a loss or b) fall out with a win.

Olympic Fan
01-25-2016, 04:25 PM
In itself, the polls at this point are meaningless. But I pay attention because I do think Duke's streak of top 25 appearances is significant --- it stands as historical proof of the program's consistency. This week's No. 24 ranking is Duke's 167th straight week in the rankings (dating back to the final 2007 poll). That's he fifth longest streak in AP history. Next up is UNC at 171 straight weeks (1972-82). I'm hoping we can hang on -- which means beating Miami tonight -- until Amile comes back. At that point, I don't think Duke has a problem staying in the top 25.

This week's AP poll is fascinating in a couple of ways. Duke is about where I expected after looking a the other teams in the 20-25 range last week, but:

-- Oklahoma stayed ahead of UNC, even though the Heels had a perfect week at No. 2 and the Sooners lost?
-- Okay, I can understand Kentucky jumping from No. 23 to No. 20 after a 2-0 week, considering the teams ahead of them. But how does Indiana jump from No. 25 to No. 19 with a 2-0 week against two so-so teams (Illinois and Northwestern)? I can see the Hoosiers jumping Duke, but why did they jump Kentucky?
-- How does Purdue move up, despite a loss Sunday at Iowa?
-- I'm not really sure how Wichita State got so popular all of a sudden. From unranked (No. 28 with just 38 votes) -- all the way up to No. 22 after beating Northern Iowa and Bradley? Their overall record is worse than Duke's (14-5 vs. 15-5). They have won nine straight, but just one was a top 100 opponent (according to Pomeroy).
-- Interesting that the AP voters moved Notre Dame into the top 25 and almost totally ignored Pitt. In the coaches poll, they ranked Pitt and almost totally ignored Notre Dame.

Not saying these things matter -- or are even wrong -- just that it looks odd to me.

Overall, six ACC teams in the AP poll -- No. 2 UNC, No. 11 Virginia, No. 15 Miami, No. 16 Louisville, No. 24 Duke and No. 25 Notre Dame. Six ACC teams also ranked in the coaches poll, although (except for Virginia) a bit higher -- No. 1 UNC, No. 12 Virginia, No. 13 Miami, No. 14 Louisville, No. 20 Duke and No. 23 Pitt.

pfrduke
01-25-2016, 04:30 PM
-- Oklahoma stayed ahead of UNC, even though the Heels had a perfect week at No. 2 and the Sooners lost?


This strikes me as sensible voting. Both teams have 2 losses. Oklahoma's have come on the road at Kansas (barely, in many overtimes) and Iowa State, two high-level teams with difficult home court environments. UNC's have been to Northern Iowa and Texas. UNC's best win is at home against Maryland - the next best is some toss up of Kansas State, Syracuse, or Florida State. Oklahoma disemboweled Villanova and has wins over Iowa State, West Virginia, and Baylor. I'm not saying you have to vote OU 1 and UNC 2, but the total resume seems more relevant than whether Oklahoma's loss happened to be in the past week.

JPtheGame
01-25-2016, 05:08 PM
Rankings dont mean much but Id like to see Duke's climb a bit before selection sunday. Right now, lunardi has us as a 6 seed playing monmouth and then maryland. No thanks

CDu
01-25-2016, 09:07 PM
Well... streak over.

FerryFor50
01-25-2016, 09:10 PM
Well... streak over.

Well, if they beat GT and NCSU this week, and other teams at the back of the top 25 lose, it's still possible to stay in.

Losing to Miami wasn't unexpected or embarrassing, despite the "overrated" chants by the Miami student section. They were higher ranked, at home and the game was much closer than the final result where Miami got some easy baskets on overplays on defense (and running it up a bit by dunking with 5 seconds left).

freshmanjs
01-25-2016, 09:11 PM
Well, if they beat GT and NCSU this week

those games aren't this week.

CDu
01-25-2016, 09:14 PM
Well, if they beat GT and NCSU this week, and other teams at the back of the top 25 lose, it's still possible to stay in.

Losing to Miami wasn't unexpected or embarrassing, despite the "overrated" chants by the Miami student section. They were higher ranked, at home and the game was much closer than the final result where Miami got some easy baskets on overplays on defense (and running it up a bit by dunking with 5 seconds left).


those games aren't this week.

Yep, those games might get us back in the Top-25 two weeks from now, but we are done with games before the next poll, and we are basically assured of dropping out for next week (even though Miami was favored).

eddiehaskell
01-25-2016, 09:14 PM
After what Miami did to us, I don't feel too bad about dropping out. We are without a doubt NOT a top 25 team right now. If we played decent defense and lost on a buzzer beater I'd be a little sad, but seeing back door after back door after back door makes for a satisfying loss.

FerryFor50
01-25-2016, 09:20 PM
Yep, those games might get us back in the Top-25 two weeks from now, but we are done with games before the next poll, and we are basically assured of dropping out for next week (even though Miami was favored).

Yea my bad on that. Read the dates wrong.

Oh well. At least they get a week off to rest. :)

Jeffrey
01-26-2016, 09:56 AM
After what Miami did to us, I don't feel too bad about dropping out. We are without a doubt NOT a top 25 team right now.

I certainly agree, we're not top 25 material until Amile's return. IMO, losing to Cuse at home is a much better illustration than losing to Miami at Miami.

freshmanjs
01-26-2016, 11:13 AM
I certainly agree, we're not top 25 material until Amile's return. IMO, losing to Cuse at home is a much better illustration than losing to Miami at Miami.

I'm fine with the rankings being whatever they are. The way the polls work, we should and will drop out. Let's keep in mind, though, that even after the last 5 games, we are a top-20 team in KenPom. With a couple of breaks, we'd still be easily ranked. I think this situation appears worse than it actually is and things will turn around.

CDu
01-26-2016, 11:58 AM
I'm fine with the rankings being whatever they are. The way the polls work, we should and will drop out. Let's keep in mind, though, that even after the last 5 games, we are a top-20 team in KenPom. With a couple of breaks, we'd still be easily ranked. I think this situation appears worse than it actually is and things will turn around.

Oh for sure. Our losses have, for the most part, been very close. It was a 1pt game at Clemson with under 2 minutes to go, and we had an open shot to tie with 6 seconds left. It was 1pt game under a minute to go against Notre Dame, and we had a shot to take the lead with under 30 seconds left. We missed a layup with under 10 seconds to go that would have given us the lead against Syracuse. If two of those three go differently, we're sitting at 6-2 in the conference and probably in the teens in the rankings. We just had bad luck in losing all three of those toss-up games (not to mention bad luck in losing the Utah game).

FerryFor50
01-26-2016, 12:00 PM
Oh for sure. Our losses have, for the most part, been very close. It was a 1pt game at Clemson with under 2 minutes to go, and we had an open shot to tie with 6 seconds left. It was 1pt game under a minute to go against Notre Dame, and we had a shot to take the lead with under 30 seconds left. We missed a layup with under 10 seconds to go that would have given us the lead against Syracuse. If two of those three go differently, we're sitting at 6-2 in the conference and probably in the teens in the rankings. We just had bad luck in losing all three of those toss-up games (not to mention bad luck in losing the Utah game).

Bad luck and bad execution. It happens.

I think with Amile, those games are wins for Duke without needing to be last minute possessions.

CDu
01-26-2016, 12:03 PM
Bad luck and bad execution. It happens.

I think with Amile, those games are wins for Duke without needing to be last minute possessions.

Agreed. Absolutely so in the Clemson game (where we lost in large part because we had so much foul trouble for Ingram and Plumlee). Almost certainly so in the Notre Dame game (where Ingram couldn't guard Colson). And probably in the Syracuse game (where Jefferson would have given us another option in terms of offense). Heck, probably the Utah game too.

The only one that might still have been a loss was the Miami game, as Miami is just a really good team. It would have been closer, but I'm not sure Jefferson would have been enough to definitely secure the win last night.

But, still, 4 of our 5 losses without Jefferson would almost assuredly been wins. We'd still be a top-10 team (probably top-5) with him even after the loss to Miami.

DevilBen02
01-26-2016, 12:06 PM
We just had bad luck in losing all three of those toss-up games (not to mention bad luck in losing the Utah game).

In this regard, our Kenpom "luck" rating as of today is -0.090, which is 329th in the country. In other words, only 22 teams in all of D1 have been more "unlucky." I'll believe that this team is better than its record and will hope to start seeing things bounce its way more often going forward.

FerryFor50
01-26-2016, 12:07 PM
Agreed. Absolutely so in the Clemson game (where we lost in large part because we had so much foul trouble for Ingram and Plumlee). Almost certainly so in the Notre Dame game (where Ingram couldn't guard Colson). And probably in the Syracuse game (where Jefferson would have given us another option in terms of offense). Heck, probably the Utah game too.

The only one that might still have been a loss was the Miami game, as Miami is just a really good team. It would have been closer, but I'm not sure Jefferson would have been enough to definitely secure the win last night.

But, still, 4 of our 5 losses without Jefferson would almost assuredly been wins. We'd still be a top-10 team (probably top-5) with him even after the loss to Miami.

I'd wager that in the Syracuse game, Roberson doesn't grab 20 boards.

In the Miami game, I'd argue that Jefferson could have helped reduce the 2nd chance points Miami had (12), as well as help sure up that defense with his communication. Plus, with Amile, Duke can play more aggressively from the start of the game rather than biding time with a soft zone in the first half.

Jefferson also would have added some inside offense that was sorely lacking.

Still could have been a loss, but considering that Duke was within 6 points with around 3 min left in the game, I think Amile could have helped push them to a close win.

kAzE
01-26-2016, 12:19 PM
We don't win all 5 of these games with Amile, but I think we could have reasonably won 4 of them. Miami on the road would have been a tough game even with Amile. Without him, we were outmatched.

CDu
01-26-2016, 12:29 PM
I'd wager that in the Syracuse game, Roberson doesn't grab 20 boards.

In the Miami game, I'd argue that Jefferson could have helped reduce the 2nd chance points Miami had (12), as well as help sure up that defense with his communication. Plus, with Amile, Duke can play more aggressively from the start of the game rather than biding time with a soft zone in the first half.

Jefferson also would have added some inside offense that was sorely lacking.

Still could have been a loss, but considering that Duke was within 6 points with around 3 min left in the game, I think Amile could have helped push them to a close win.

Oh I definitely didn't mean to say it was definitely a loss. Just that it was far from a likely win, unlike the others where he very clearly changes a particular dynamic that was critical in a coin-flip loss. I think that the Miami game becomes a coin-flip game with Jefferson. I'm willing to conservatively concede that coinflip game in assessing the 5 losses, though.

With Jefferson, we're very likely still a top-10 team right now.

Olympic Fan
01-26-2016, 12:43 PM
And if Jahlil, Tyus and Justise had come back, we'd be undefeated and No. 1 ...

You can play the "what-if" game all day. The only thing all the Jefferson speculation means is that Duke will be "a top-10 quality" team when and if he returns (and I keep hearing that he's close to coming back).

We are what we are. This can still be a national championship contender -- with Amile. Even without him, this can be a better team than we've played recently.

But to get back to this thread, it would take a miracle for Duke to be in the rankings next week. Our streak is going to end at 167 weeks.

johnb
01-26-2016, 02:49 PM
Oh I definitely didn't mean to say it was definitely a loss. Just that it was far from a likely win, unlike the others where he very clearly changes a particular dynamic that was critical in a coin-flip loss. I think that the Miami game becomes a coin-flip game with Jefferson. I'm willing to conservatively concede that coinflip game in assessing the 5 losses, though.

With Jefferson, we're very likely still a top-10 team right now.

It's great that Amile is getting this kind of love, though it will be nice when we can say the same nice thing when he's actually wearing a uniform.

Tripping William
02-01-2016, 02:27 PM
Our streak is going to end at 167 weeks.

It's official (http://collegebasketball.ap.org/poll).

Wander
02-01-2016, 03:10 PM
Oh I definitely didn't mean to say it was definitely a loss. Just that it was far from a likely win, unlike the others where he very clearly changes a particular dynamic that was critical in a coin-flip loss. I think that the Miami game becomes a coin-flip game with Jefferson. I'm willing to conservatively concede that coinflip game in assessing the 5 losses, though.

With Jefferson, we're very likely still a top-10 team right now.

I think you (and many others here) are being way too generous to what Duke would have done with Jefferson. You guys realize that if you give Duke the Miami win, Duke would be the nearly unanimous #1 team in the country right now, right? Jefferson helps us a lot, but I think that is way overboard.

I'd say it's likely that with Jefferson, we still lose at Miami, and we still lose one or maybe two of the Syracuse/ND/Clemson/Utah games as well. Yes, they were close games, so it's easy to say "Jefferson is obviously worth a few points" - but sports are not that simple. Jefferson is ON AVERAGE worth enough points to turn each of those games into wins, but there is so much variance in individual performances that is more likely he doesn't play well enough in 1 of those 4 to turn it into a win. For example, maybe if he plays against Syracuse, Marshall Plumlee doesn't play as many minutes and doesn't have a 19pts-17rbds-4blks game.

I'd say the most likely scenario with Jefferson is 18-3 and a ranking in the Top 10 but not the Top 5.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-01-2016, 03:20 PM
I think you (and many others here) are being way too generous to what Duke would have done with Jefferson. You guys realize that if you give Duke the Miami win, Duke would be the nearly unanimous #1 team in the country right now, right? Jefferson helps us a lot, but I think that is way overboard.

I'd say it's likely that with Jefferson, we still lose at Miami, and we still lose one or maybe two of the Syracuse/ND/Clemson/Utah games as well. Yes, they were close games, so it's easy to say "Jefferson is obviously worth a few points" - but sports are not that simple. Jefferson is ON AVERAGE worth enough points to turn each of those games into wins, but there is so much variance in individual performances that is more likely he doesn't play well enough in 1 of those 4 to turn it into a win. For example, maybe if he plays against Syracuse, Marshall Plumlee doesn't play as many minutes and doesn't have a 19pts-17rbds-4blks game.

I'd say the most likely scenario with Jefferson is 18-3 and a ranking in the Top 10 but not the Top 5.

As long as we are indulging this mental... er... self-gratification... let me play the devil's advocate. What we miss with Amile is more than just points and rebounds. It's an extra man on the floor, which means more rest for MP3. It allows Ingram to move to his more natural 3 position on defense. It makes defenses play us more honest on the perimeter, hedging back to Amile underneath. It gives us an experienced veteran leader on a VERY young team. Also, Amile's production at the beginning of the year was such a pleasant surprise - much better than we would have had any reason to expect. His trajectory was very impressive and was turning into something special.

Having said all that, our team has had a VERY long time to adjust to his absence, and hasn't been able to close out games that were well within reach. They don't put two sets of records up at espn.com - "actual record" and "record they probably would have had with Jefferson."

Folks are writing the eulogy for this team pretty danged early. I'm really looking forward to the next ten conference games. From there, let's see where we stand and reevaluate our expectations for March.

CDu
02-01-2016, 03:29 PM
As long as we are indulging this mental... er... self-gratification... let me play the devil's advocate. What we miss with Amile is more than just points and rebounds. It's an extra man on the floor, which means more rest for MP3. It allows Ingram to move to his more natural 3 position on defense. It makes defenses play us more honest on the perimeter, hedging back to Amile underneath. It gives us an experienced veteran leader on a VERY young team. Also, Amile's production at the beginning of the year was such a pleasant surprise - much better than we would have had any reason to expect. His trajectory was very impressive and was turning into something special.

Having said all that, our team has had a VERY long time to adjust to his absence, and hasn't been able to close out games that were well within reach. They don't put two sets of records up at espn.com - "actual record" and "record they probably would have had with Jefferson."

Folks are writing the eulogy for this team pretty danged early. I'm really looking forward to the next ten conference games. From there, let's see where we stand and reevaluate our expectations for March.

Not just what you've said, but also the versatility it provides. With Jefferson, we can go super-small (with Jefferson at the 5) or pretty big (with Plumlee, Jefferson, and Ingram). And both Plumlee and Ingram can play more aggressively/freely, because neither is required to play 40 minutes for us to win.

I tend to think that without Jefferson our chances are toast unless Jeter or Obi (or both) suddenly emerge as useful contributors. Even then, I'm skeptical. But when Jefferson returns, I think this team can be a true championship contender, regardless of Jeter or Obi's development.

FerryFor50
02-01-2016, 03:36 PM
As long as we are indulging this mental... er... self-gratification... let me play the devil's advocate. What we miss with Amile is more than just points and rebounds. It's an extra man on the floor, which means more rest for MP3. It allows Ingram to move to his more natural 3 position on defense. It makes defenses play us more honest on the perimeter, hedging back to Amile underneath. It gives us an experienced veteran leader on a VERY young team. Also, Amile's production at the beginning of the year was such a pleasant surprise - much better than we would have had any reason to expect. His trajectory was very impressive and was turning into something special.

Having said all that, our team has had a VERY long time to adjust to his absence, and hasn't been able to close out games that were well within reach. They don't put two sets of records up at espn.com - "actual record" and "record they probably would have had with Jefferson."

Folks are writing the eulogy for this team pretty danged early. I'm really looking forward to the next ten conference games. From there, let's see where we stand and reevaluate our expectations for March.

This is what I was talking about above.

It's not just Jefferson, but having more depth, flexibility and versatility.

Tripping William
02-01-2016, 03:40 PM
It's not just Jefferson, but having more depth, flexibility and versatility.

Including (maybe even "especially") in practices. The statement that really jumped out at me from K's post-Miami presser was when he emphasized (paraphrasing) that we just cannot simulate, in our practices, how physical Miami is.

FerryFor50
02-01-2016, 03:44 PM
we just cannot simulate, in our practices, how physical Miami is.

Probably because they actually call fouls in practice. :cool:

CDu
02-01-2016, 04:08 PM
I think you (and many others here) are being way too generous to what Duke would have done with Jefferson. You guys realize that if you give Duke the Miami win, Duke would be the nearly unanimous #1 team in the country right now, right? Jefferson helps us a lot, but I think that is way overboard.

I'd say it's likely that with Jefferson, we still lose at Miami, and we still lose one or maybe two of the Syracuse/ND/Clemson/Utah games as well. Yes, they were close games, so it's easy to say "Jefferson is obviously worth a few points" - but sports are not that simple. Jefferson is ON AVERAGE worth enough points to turn each of those games into wins, but there is so much variance in individual performances that is more likely he doesn't play well enough in 1 of those 4 to turn it into a win. For example, maybe if he plays against Syracuse, Marshall Plumlee doesn't play as many minutes and doesn't have a 19pts-17rbds-4blks game.

I'd say the most likely scenario with Jefferson is 18-3 and a ranking in the Top 10 but not the Top 5.

First of all, I didn't "give" us the Miami win. I, in fact, gave that win to Miami. I think it becomes a coin flip game.

As for the "a couple of points difference" thing, I think you oversimplified anything I have said. I'll break it down:

1. Clemson: With Jefferson, Ingram and Plumlee don't pick up their fourth fouls early in the second half. Heck, they might not even get their 3rd fouls until mid/late second half because Coach K could bench them much sooner without penalty. And we don't have to suffer through Jeter's atrocious seconds. For no other reasons than that, I think we win that game if Jefferson plays, even if he scores 0 and rebounds 0. He keeps Ingram and Plumlee available, and keeps us from having to switch to a soft zone, which is when we lost the game.

2. Notre Dame: If Jefferson plays, there's no way Colson blows up quite that much. And without Colson blowing up like that, we win. And again, I think Ingram got in foul trouble and had to sit more than usual, which wouldn't have happened if Jefferson played.

3. Syracuse: Plumlee probably plays a bit less. But Jefferson helps us a ton on the boards (we gave up 26 offensive rebounds). And on offense, as a senior he could help with breaking down the zone and/or sneaking in for putbacks (a weakness of Syracuse's zone). I think we win that game.

4. Utah: We lost by a basket in overtime. We were outrebounded 56-38. Jefferson is our best rebounder. I think he makes the difference in that game and we win.

As I said, I think we likely lose the Miami game without Jefferson. I think it's closer, but I'd probably give the nod to Miami. And yes, I realize that if we were to win all five of those games we'd be #1. Not that I think we'd be the #1 team (it would be entirely schedule-driven, as this was the easy part of our schedule). But I think that with Jefferson we are sitting at 19-2 right now and in the top-5.

FerryFor50
02-01-2016, 04:12 PM
First of all, I didn't "give" us the Miami win. I, in fact, gave that win to Miami. I think it becomes a coin flip game.

As for the "a couple of points difference" thing, I think you oversimplified anything I have said. I'll break it down:

1. Clemson: With Jefferson, Ingram and Plumlee don't pick up their fourth fouls early in the second half. Heck, they might not even get their 3rd fouls until mid/late second half because Coach K could bench them much sooner without penalty. And we don't have to suffer through Jeter's atrocious seconds. For no other reasons than that, I think we win that game if Jefferson plays, even if he scores 0 and rebounds 0. He keeps Ingram and Plumlee available, and keeps us from having to switch to a soft zone, which is when we lost the game.

2. Notre Dame: If Jefferson plays, there's no way Colson blows up quite that much. And without Colson blowing up like that, we win. And again, I think Ingram got in foul trouble and had to sit more than usual, which wouldn't have happened if Jefferson played.

3. Syracuse: Plumlee probably plays a bit less. But Jefferson helps us a ton on the boards (we gave up 26 offensive rebounds). And on offense, as a senior he could help with breaking down the zone and/or sneaking in for putbacks (a weakness of Syracuse's zone). I think we win that game.

4. Utah: We lost by a basket in overtime. We were outrebounded 56-38. Jefferson is our best rebounder. I think he makes the difference in that game and we win.

As I said, I think we likely lose the Miami game without Jefferson. I think it's closer, but I'd probably give the nod to Miami. And yes, I realize that if we were to win all five of those games we'd be #1. Not that I think we'd be the #1 team (it would be entirely schedule-driven, as this was the easy part of our schedule). But I think that with Jefferson we are sitting at 19-2 right now and in the top-5.

I was the one that thought we'd win at Miami with Jefferson. That had to do with the following thinking:

- We win the rebounding battle instead of being even
- We don't have to play a wonky zone most of the game and get killed by alley oops and mid-range jumpers
- If we did play zone, Amile's communication would have paid off
- We actually get some inside scoring outside of MP3's one dimensional dunks
- The team would have potentially been fresher at that point of the schedule, given the fact that they've gone 7 weeks without Amile, having to play only 6 guys.

Wander
02-01-2016, 04:37 PM
Folks are writing the eulogy for this team pretty danged early. I'm really looking forward to the next ten conference games. From there, let's see where we stand and reevaluate our expectations for March.

I'm not writing a eulogy for the team. I think we'll probably make the tournament even if Jefferson never comes back, and worse teams than Jefferson-less Duke have gone deep into the tournament. I think with Jefferson, we are definitely a top 15 team, probably a top 10 team. I am just adding some caution to some of the statements in this thread, because they effectively translate to arguing that Duke is the #1 team in the country if Jefferson had been healthy all year. Which I think is an overstatement.

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
02-01-2016, 04:44 PM
I'm not writing a eulogy for the team. I think we'll probably make the tournament even if Jefferson never comes back, and worse teams than Jefferson-less Duke have gone deep into the tournament. I think with Jefferson, we are definitely a top 15 team, probably a top 10 team. I am just adding some caution to some of the statements in this thread, because they effectively translate to arguing that Duke is the #1 team in the country if Jefferson had been healthy all year. Which I think is an overstatement.

That I agree with. Playing without Amile is a challenge that this team has not (yet) learned how to meet.

CDu
02-01-2016, 04:47 PM
I'm not writing a eulogy for the team. I think we'll probably make the tournament even if Jefferson never comes back, and worse teams than Jefferson-less Duke have gone deep into the tournament. I think with Jefferson, we are definitely a top 15 team, probably a top 10 team. I am just adding some caution to some of the statements in this thread, because they effectively translate to arguing that Duke is the #1 team in the country if Jefferson had been healthy all year. Which I think is an overstatement.

No, the statements don't necessarily translate to saying Duke would be the #1 team in the nation. I think we would be 18-2 right now with Jefferson. Possibly 19-1. That does NOT mean I think we're the #1 team in the nation with Jefferson. We might have reached the #1 spot in the polls, but I consider the polls meaningless. To a large degree, they simply reflect who has lost the least recently at the top. I think we would be a top 5-10 team if Jefferson hadn't gotten hurt. Our schedule to this point (if we were fully healthy all season) hasn't had much competition. All of our upper-tier ACC opponents are still to come. I think we would lose some of those (anywhere from 2 to 4 of them) with a healthy Jefferson. And that would put us right in the 5-10 range in the rankings most likely.

sagegrouse
02-01-2016, 05:49 PM
No, the statements don't necessarily translate to saying Duke would be the #1 team in the nation. I think we would be 18-2 right now with Jefferson. Possibly 19-1. That does NOT mean I think we're the #1 team in the nation with Jefferson. We might have reached the #1 spot in the polls, but I consider the polls meaningless. To a large degree, they simply reflect who has lost the least recently at the top. I think we would be a top 5-10 team if Jefferson hadn't gotten hurt. Our schedule to this point (if we were fully healthy all season) hasn't had much competition. All of our upper-tier ACC opponents are still to come. I think we would lose some of those (anywhere from 2 to 4 of them) with a healthy Jefferson. And that would put us right in the 5-10 range in the rankings most likely.
Just to pick a fight, I suppose, but we are right now the worst Duke defensive team I have seen in 30 years. With Amile, I don't think we are 19-2, although I'D guess our conference record might be 6-2.

CDu
02-01-2016, 06:05 PM
Just to pick a fight, I suppose, but we are right now the worst Duke defensive team I have seen in 30 years. With Amile, I don't think we are 19-2, although I'D guess our conference record might be 6-2.

We can certainly agree to disagree with regards to what our record would be. I personally think we win the Utah game, the Clemson game, and the Notre Dame game for sure with Jefferson, in spite of being a weak defensive team. It the the cases for those wins are straightforward. That, even assuming a Syracuse loss, would put us at 18-3. And I don't think it is all incongruous to have an awful defense and be 18-3 or 19-2. Heck, we are arguably just 4-5 made Duke shots from that right now in spite of what has been an awful defense. Add those five makes and we are 19-2 without any real adjustment to our defensive efficiency. So, yeah, I think adding back our best defender (not to mention our only ready depth inside) would stand a really good chance of getting us to 19-2. The reality is that the schedule we have played up to now is not nearly on par with our typical schedule entering February. Usually we have an additional top-tier team or two in our non-con schedule (we got robbed of that by our tourney being a lackluster field this year) and we typically have faced at least one more top-tier team in conference. This year our conference schedule just happens to be incredibly backloaded, so we have managed to not face many really good teams yet. Just Miami and UK so far, and they would still be losses in my 19-2 scenario.

jv001
02-01-2016, 06:36 PM
One thing to remember, with Amile we ran the 1-3-1 Zone Defense pretty well. Amile and Ingram are both long and quick and that particular defense looked pretty good to me. But without Amile, our zone defense has been very bad. So I'm hoping Amile comes back in time to get back to game speed. As Sage said this Duke team(without Amile) is about as bad as I've seen on the defensive end of the court. GoDuke!

Wahoo2000
02-01-2016, 06:59 PM
We can certainly agree to disagree with regards to what our record would be. I personally think we win the Utah game, the Clemson game, and the Notre Dame game for sure with Jefferson, in spite of being a weak defensive team. It the the cases for those wins are straightforward. That, even assuming a Syracuse loss, would put us at 18-3. And I don't think it is all incongruous to have an awful defense and be 18-3 or 19-2. Heck, we are arguably just 4-5 made Duke shots from that right now in spite of what has been an awful defense. Add those five makes and we are 19-2 without any real adjustment to our defensive efficiency. So, yeah, I think adding back our best defender (not to mention our only ready depth inside) would stand a really good chance of getting us to 19-2. The reality is that the schedule we have played up to now is not nearly on par with our typical schedule entering February. Usually we have an additional top-tier team or two in our non-con schedule (we got robbed of that by our tourney being a lackluster field this year) and we typically have faced at least one more top-tier team in conference. This year our conference schedule just happens to be incredibly backloaded, so we have managed to not face many really good teams yet. Just Miami and UK so far, and they would still be losses in my 19-2 scenario.

But aren't you assuming that Jefferson being healthy and playing many more minutes would not negatively impact the team's offensive efficiency? I'd argue that with Jefferson totally healthy it's possible that Ingram and Kennard don't develop in the same way they have, as they may have been much more deferential with a Senior leader on the floor (just in terms of aggressiveness, I'm not saying Jefferson would be demanding a lot of offensive usage).

You guys may be glad at season's end that Jefferson's injury really forced Ingram and Kennard to step up into bigger/more prominent roles (in terms of leadership for Ingram and minutes for Kennard). If Jefferson is back in time for the team to find a rhythm playing with him, you'll be as dangerous as any team in the country come the postseason - maybe even better than if he'd never been injured at all.

sagegrouse
02-01-2016, 07:04 PM
We can certainly agree to disagree with regards to what our record would be. I personally think we win the Utah game, the Clemson game, and the Notre Dame game for sure with Jefferson, in spite of being a weak defensive team. It the the cases for those wins are straightforward. That, even assuming a Syracuse loss, would put us at 18-3. And I don't think it is all incongruous to have an awful defense and be 18-3 or 19-2. Heck, we are arguably just 4-5 made Duke shots from that right now in spite of what has been an awful defense. Add those five makes and we are 19-2 without any real adjustment to our defensive efficiency. So, yeah, I think adding back our best defender (not to mention our only ready depth inside) would stand a really good chance of getting us to 19-2. The reality is that the schedule we have played up to now is not nearly on par with our typical schedule entering February. Usually we have an additional top-tier team or two in our non-con schedule (we got robbed of that by our tourney being a lackluster field this year) and we typically have faced at least one more top-tier team in conference. This year our conference schedule just happens to be incredibly backloaded, so we have managed to not face many really good teams yet. Just Miami and UK so far, and they would still be losses in my 19-2 scenario.

I know, CDu, I know. We can't just take all our wins as given and then just move some close losses into the win column. We might have lost some of the other games -- not because we are worse with Amile, but because hoops is a funny game -- maybe Ingram or Kennard or Grayson have bad nights while Amile is in the lineup.

CDu
02-01-2016, 07:57 PM
But aren't you assuming that Jefferson being healthy and playing many more minutes would not negatively impact the team's offensive efficiency? I'd argue that with Jefferson totally healthy it's possible that Ingram and Kennard don't develop in the same way they have, as they may have been much more deferential with a Senior leader on the floor (just in terms of aggressiveness, I'm not saying Jefferson would be demanding a lot of offensive usage).

You guys may be glad at season's end that Jefferson's injury really forced Ingram and Kennard to step up into bigger/more prominent roles (in terms of leadership for Ingram and minutes for Kennard). If Jefferson is back in time for the team to find a rhythm playing with him, you'll be as dangerous as any team in the country come the postseason - maybe even better than if he'd never been injured at all.


I know, CDu, I know. We can't just take all our wins as given and then just move some close losses into the win column. We might have lost some of the other games -- not because we are worse with Amile, but because hoops is a funny game -- maybe Ingram or Kennard or Grayson have bad nights while Amile is in the lineup.

Anything is possible. But considering that all but one of the losses in that stretch were incredibly close, whereas all of the wins were double-digit wins (not to mention that none of the trams we beat were NEARLY as good as us), I think my scenario (Amile gets us those extra wins without adding any new losses) is the much more likely scenario. To be honest, I think you would have a better argument saying that we would still lose those close losses than that we would lose to the bottom feeders of the conference.

JPtheGame
02-01-2016, 08:30 PM
http://deadspin.com/how-are-you-celebrating-duke-being-unranked-for-the-fir-1756465600

havent seen the hate this blatant in awhile

devildeac
02-01-2016, 09:38 PM
http://deadspin.com/how-are-you-celebrating-duke-being-unranked-for-the-fir-1756465600

havent seen the hate this blatant in awhile

Glad you warned me. Didn't even bother to click on the link. Not worth my time.

killerleft
02-01-2016, 10:38 PM
http://deadspin.com/how-are-you-celebrating-duke-being-unranked-for-the-fir-1756465600

havent seen the hate this blatant in awhile

Eh, Coach K always seems to have the last laugh on these guys. Let 'em hate. It's evidently all they got.

Reilly
02-02-2016, 10:18 AM
Just to pick a fight, I suppose, but we are right now the worst Duke defensive team I have seen in 30 years ...

My mind immediately went to 2012 and Austin Rivers …

Per the defensive SRS at sports-reference.com, 2012 was worse.

2016: #83 in the country, 5.00

2012: #101 in the country, 3.30

2000: #104 in the country, 2.90

1990: #93 in the country, 3.54

And the best defense of the past 30 years (again, just per this one number)? No surprise ....

2010: #6 in the country, 12.04

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/1987-ratings.html

sagegrouse
02-02-2016, 10:40 AM
My mind immediately went to 2012 and Austin Rivers …

Per the defensive SRS at sports-reference.com, 2012 was worse.

2016: #83 in the country, 5.00

2012: #101 in the country, 3.30

2000: #104 in the country, 2.90

1990: #93 in the country, 3.54

And the best defense of the past 30 years (again, just per this one number)? No surprise ...

2010: #6 in the country, 12.04

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/seasons/1987-ratings.html

It's probably the zone, but I have never seen so many cases of matador defense from a Duke team in the K era.

oldnavy
02-02-2016, 10:54 AM
It's probably the zone, but I have never seen so many cases of matador defense from a Duke team in the K era.

Don't you think that it has something to do with the FOM rules and our lack of a bench? Think of how bad off we would be if Grayson got 3 fouls in the first half? We saw this already this year with Brandon...

You might argue that they could be more aggressive, but with how inconsistent the refs are with what they allow from possession to possession, the safe play is to back off.

We have the inexperience issue as well, so it is almost the perfect storm for non-aggressive (matador) defense...

I believe that Amile helps with this as well when he comes back.

Hurry Amile, hurry!! :p

freshmanjs
02-02-2016, 11:07 AM
Don't you think that it has something to do with the FOM rules and our lack of a bench? Think of how bad off we would be if Grayson got 3 fouls in the first half? We saw this already this year with Brandon...

You might argue that they could be more aggressive, but with how inconsistent the refs are with what they allow from possession to possession, the safe play is to back off.

We have the inexperience issue as well, so it is almost the perfect storm for non-aggressive (matador) defense...

I believe that Amile helps with this as well when he comes back.

Hurry Amile, hurry!! :p

Wouldn't blame the refs here. All teams are dealing with the same ref situation and 143 of them have managed to play better defense (according to Kenpom). I do think the depth and need to avoid foul trouble is a major factor (and some of the matador D is intentional). Still, there are other teams with depth problems playing better D also.

oldnavy
02-02-2016, 11:35 AM
Wouldn't blame the refs here. All teams are dealing with the same ref situation and 143 of them have managed to play better defense (according to Kenpom). I do think the depth and need to avoid foul trouble is a major factor (and some of the matador D is intentional). Still, there are other teams with depth problems playing better D also.

My point wasn't to blame the refs, just to postulate a reason why we may not play as aggressive as in the past. I honestly think there are several reasons for our porous D.

However, the refs are horribly inconsistent... so if you have zero depth, you really can't play effective defense, hence our new found love affair with the zone...

If there are teams out there with true 6 man rotations with 3 Fr., 1 Soph., 1 Jr and 1 Sr. I'd like to look at some tape and see how they get away with it...

freshmanjs
02-02-2016, 11:36 AM
My point wasn't to blame the refs, just to postulate a reason why we may not play as aggressive as in the past. I honestly think there are several reasons for our porous D.

However, the refs are horribly inconsistent... so if you have zero depth, you really can't play effective defense, hence our new found love affair with the zone...

If there are teams out there with true 6 man rotations with 3 Fr., 1 Soph., 1 Jr and 1 Sr. I'd like to look at some tape and see how they get away with it...

Duke itself doesn't have a "true 6 man rotation" -- Do you think any of the 143 teams playing better defense than Duke have a 7th man that is not as good as Jeter?

Kedsy
02-02-2016, 12:10 PM
Duke itself doesn't have a "true 6 man rotation" -- Do you think any of the 143 teams playing better defense than Duke have a 7th man that is not as good as Jeter?

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here?

freshmanjs
02-02-2016, 12:15 PM
I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say here?

That depth and referees don't entirely explain why our defense is ranked 144th in kenpom.

oldnavy
02-02-2016, 12:22 PM
Duke itself doesn't have a "true 6 man rotation" -- Do you think any of the 143 teams playing better defense than Duke have a 7th man that is not as good as Jeter?


True Jeter is averaging 8mpg, but everyone else is over 24mpg.

I am not sure what your question about Jeter is asking, but I don't think Jeter is very good at this point... he has a ways to go before I would consider him anything other than a stop gap measure to buy minutes.

Hey, my only point is that we are very young, very thin, and the refs are inconsistent... these three facts IMO are the reason we are not a very good defensive team at this point.

Kedsy
02-02-2016, 12:30 PM
That depth and referees don't entirely explain why our defense is ranked 144th in kenpom.

OK, but we really have been playing a "true 6 man rotation" -- our 7th man has played 2, 1, 2, 2, and 4 minutes in our last five games. And if he's not playing, I don't understand what the comparison of other teams' 7th men to Chase Jeter has to do with anything.

Also, while it doesn't speak to your point, I'd point out that one year ago today, Notre Dame was #2 in Pomeroy's adjusted offensive rating and #151 in Pomeroy's adjusted defensive rating (#15 overall), a very similar profile to what Duke has now (#1, #144; #19 overall), and that Notre Dame team came within a whisker of the Final Four.

Finally, I'd point out that on December 4, 2015 (the day before Amile played his last game), Duke's defense was rated #35 by Pomeroy. And while it's not a true apples-to-apples comparison, our schedule strength on Dec 4 was rated #71, a fair bit better than our schedule strength today (#124), so it's probably more of an apples-to-apples comparison than one would think at first blush.

freshmanjs
02-02-2016, 01:10 PM
OK, but we really have been playing a "true 6 man rotation" -- our 7th man has played 2, 1, 2, 2, and 4 minutes in our last five games. And if he's not playing, I don't understand what the comparison of other teams' 7th men to Chase Jeter has to do with anything.

Also, while it doesn't speak to your point, I'd point out that one year ago today, Notre Dame was #2 in Pomeroy's adjusted offensive rating and #151 in Pomeroy's adjusted defensive rating (#15 overall), a very similar profile to what Duke has now (#1, #144; #19 overall), and that Notre Dame team came within a whisker of the Final Four.

Finally, I'd point out that on December 4, 2015 (the day before Amile played his last game), Duke's defense was rated #35 by Pomeroy. And while it's not a true apples-to-apples comparison, our schedule strength on Dec 4 was rated #71, a fair bit better than our schedule strength today (#124), so it's probably more of an apples-to-apples comparison than one would think at first blush.

Not sure how these points are relevant to what I said. You don't have to convince me that our team can have a great outcome this season. I'm excited about the potential. Our offense is good enough to carry us and the defense can improve. I just also think our defense has been bad recently (even after accounting for depth and referees) and that some other teams with less talent have played better D.

COYS
02-02-2016, 01:47 PM
Finally, I'd point out that on December 4, 2015 (the day before Amile played his last game), Duke's defense was rated #35 by Pomeroy. And while it's not a true apples-to-apples comparison, our schedule strength on Dec 4 was rated #71, a fair bit better than our schedule strength today (#124), so it's probably more of an apples-to-apples comparison than one would think at first blush.

Last year's Irish squad is the team I have been looking at when I'm imagining an optimistic take on Duke's projections. I think that we all agree that, even without Amile, Duke is capable of at least playing marginally better defense. The Miami game, in particular, stands out as one where we had guys completely blow assignments to give up easy oops without Miami even having to run much offense.

Our youth also plays a big role. One can hope that our young players have at least a little room for growth THIS year. Given that we've seen the team perform at a MUCH higher level this season with Amile and that we can reasonably think it likely that our freshman can still improve, I don't think it's unreasonable to still be optimistic that a run like Notre Dame's last season is certainly possible. Even if we see no major improvements and Amile is out for even longer than we expect, I still think that we are capable of playing better than we did over this past two-week stretch of games and am optimistic that we still have a lot of winning left to do this season, even with our schedule tightening up, a bit.

oldnavy
02-02-2016, 02:31 PM
Not sure how these points are relevant to what I said. You don't have to convince me that our team can have a great outcome this season. I'm excited about the potential. Our offense is good enough to carry us and the defense can improve. I just also think our defense has been bad recently (even after accounting for depth and referees) and that some other teams with less talent have played better D.

I agree with the bolded above.

I do think that our "talent" is as good as - or better than the majority of teams this year.

Our major issues are depth and lack of experience.

The referring issue isn't a Duke issue, every team has to deal with that, it is just hard to play in your face defense when you have zero margin for error with foul trouble. We simply cannot afford for any of our 6 rotation guys to get into foul trouble.

brevity
02-08-2016, 03:38 PM
The streak continues. Duke is #30 in the AP and #28 by coaches. Villanova is #1 in both, the highest of a plurality. 6 teams in the AP poll have at least one first place vote, 7 in the coaches poll. (Who gave Carolina a first place vote?)

I failed to mention that I saw a bit of last week's SportsCenter, where the big basketball rankings story was about the famous program suddenly not in the Top 25. The ESPN hosts tried to be cute and explained what the world was like in 2007, the last time Duke was unranked. But what followed was some weak, uninspired research that provided no sense of historical change or context. They pointed out that way back then Beyoncé had the #1 song (Remember her? From yesterday?) and average gas prices were almost a dollar more per gallon. Wow.

moonpie23
02-08-2016, 04:02 PM
UK back in....

smvalkyries
02-08-2016, 04:10 PM
I agree it is not all the 6 man rotation or the refs inxonsistancy. IMHO it is where we lack the depth that is killing us. FOM has changed defense from requiring good perimeter pressure to requiring rim protectors because no one (Thornton's job on Cat notwithstanding) can guard a perimeter penetrator under FOM. Our strength has always been great perimeter pressure D. Under FOM we can't play this anymore- how can you apply pressure with your hands stuck to your sides- next year players will have pockets sewn in the bottom of there practice jersys to facilitate the no hands soccar like rules. I digress our defense sucks because Plumley can't do it alone- we ask him to be both the rim protector and the rebounder. Our defense sucks because we lack a second rim protector required under FOM. Next year when we lose Plumley and jefferson and Ingram we better find at least 2 new rim protectors and I think one if not two of them will have to be recruited unless Robinson gows like his father did. Grow Robby, Grow Robby Grow LOL.
Sorry to rant again but you can't coach size and we don't really play a good zone mostly because it is not really agressive and we didn't recruit for it. Under old rules we could just ramp up perimeter pressure and try to compensate- under new exciting rules we must turtle back in a packed zone and let teams hit 50% 3's but this is more fan friendly?? I know it cuts both ways our guys can penetrate at will too but other teams have more than one rim protector back there when they do. I expect Amare to come back but if I were Amare and was selfish and looking out only for myself and could get a medical redshirt year(does anyone know if itis possible given how much he has played) I would definitely take that course of action.

Ima Facultiwyfe
02-08-2016, 04:22 PM
Who is Amare?
Love, Ima

Kedsy
02-08-2016, 05:07 PM
Our strength has always been great perimeter pressure D.

We haven't played "great perimeter pressure D" since, like, 2004. Last season, we not only didn't have two "rim protectors," we really didn't even have any. Despite that, somehow we muddled through and won the national championship.


Next year when we lose Plumley and jefferson and Ingram we better find at least 2 new rim protectors and I think one if not two of them will have to be recruited unless Robinson gows like his father did. Grow Robby, Grow Robby Grow LOL.

First, it's Plumlee. We've had at least one on our roster for the past eight seasons, and none of them had a "y" in their last name.

Second, it's Amile. Unless you're suggesting Amare Stoudemire will be joining our team since he's not playing so much for the Miami Heat these days anyway.

Finally, at this point the likelihood of Duke recruiting even one, much less two rim protectors for next season is essentially zero. And yet, the chances of our being ranked in the top five of the nation (at least to start the year) are pretty strong.

smvalkyries
02-08-2016, 11:44 PM
yes I know its Amile my bad.
As far as the lack of rim protectors in prior years thanks for making my point- you could do w/o them under old rules
, not under new FOM/soccar rules and hey what's with the technical on Grayson for using his feet, isn't that what they are supposed to do now? As for next year again thanks for making my point- no way we are going to the final 4 w/o at least two rim protectors unless the rules revert back to permitting perimeter defense.
As for AMILE and a possible med redshirt I wouldn't even mention this if I didn't think he would have a shot at an NBA roster slot with a whole year of play like he displayed in the first third of this year. Reasonable minds may differ here but I can't see Amile doing a Kyrie and still making an NBA roster next year?

Furniture
02-14-2016, 11:33 AM
Where will Duke be? 18?
Will the title of the thread be changed?
What about "Duke is back"?

CameronBornAndBred
02-14-2016, 11:54 AM
Where will Duke be? 18?
Will the title of the thread be changed?
What about "Duke is back"?
I would assume with back to back wins vs ranked teams that we'll make a healthy jump. Very positive attitude to take into Chapel Hill. (I know the baby blues were relishing the thought of us going in unranked...sorry to burst yer bubbles. ;) )