PDA

View Full Version : Greg Monroe picks Georgetown



Pages : [1] 2

Duke79UNLV77
09-08-2007, 05:47 PM
I've seen a couple of places that Williams is visiting campus this weekend, and I've also seen that we have an in-home visit with Monroe. Any word on how the visits have been going?

ACCBBallFan
09-09-2007, 08:21 AM
I've seen a couple of places that Williams is visiting campus this weekend, and I've also seen that we have an in-home visit with Monroe. Any word on how the visits have been going?

Have not heard anything but was thinking it must have been a busy weekend for coach K hosting Elliot Williams on campus and having to fly over to Louisiana for the Monroe in home discussion.

Patrick Yates
09-13-2007, 01:07 PM
Longtime readers are well aware of my thoughts re: the recruitment of Greg Monroe. I, like many national pundits, am of the opinion that Monroe will more than likely choose between LSU and Duke.

[this is subject to one MAJOR caveat. If, IF, a high major team were to win the NC and face massive, and currently unexpected, NBA defections, Monroe might be able to step into a good PT situation at a high profile school that would still retain enough talent/incoming recruits to be relevant nationally. Since Monroe is going to wait until the end of the year to decide, a la Patterson, this could very well be the case. But, that is unforseeable, so this post deals with the here and now]

Until now, I believed that Duke was behind LSU only because of the Home-state pressure, which could be large (especially if LSU wins/is diddled over by the BCS in football, cause then love for the state U would be monstrous), AND by the fact that there was a freaking plethora of PT/shots available on a depleted roster.

That may no longer be the case.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/briefingroom

The above link is to ESPNs recruit tracker. This site only reports confirmed gossip, if you will, in that it only quotes the player, his parents/guardians, or his HS coach.

According to the site LSU has inked a 6-10 C from GA, who is top 50-75, and could soon ink a SF. The third player mentioned is J'Mison Morgan kid came on huge this summer, and he was justifyable impressed with the atmosphere at the LSU-VT game this past weekend. On a related note, you really have to applaud K's ability to recruit when he does not have a quality FB team/rocking FB stadium to use to impress recruits. He has to overcome this, not use it as an inducement like some other coaches can.

This could/does throw a monkey wrench into my reasoning. Suddenly, LSU might not be the wasteland/scene of easy PT pickings it once was. Admittedly, these additions might make LSU more competitive, but that would take 2-3 years, and GM might not be there long enough to reap the rewards of this upward trend. Also, the two best recruits, if they get all 3, would be post players, the very position where GM plays. Given the situation at LSU, the coach would have to force-feed the other 2 posts quality minutes to prepare for when GM leaves (probably 1 year). Duke could afford to play GM for 30+mps (indeed, we may HAVE to, if we get him), knowing that we would at least be decent even if he was one-and-done.

As others on the board have reported LSU has got to be feeling the heat. Even though they went to the FF (and got desroyed) 2 years ago (fluke), it is kind of a wasteland. The LSU coach would have to prepare GM's eventual replacements, cause with such a young team focusing entirely on GM, he as an individual might see success without the team realizing a significant boost (due more to their youth/skills than any Monroe shortcoming/selfishness, of which there is no whisper of).

As much as the LSU coach may want GM, he may be looking at a bird in the hand scenario. Far more than Duke, who will be at least OK even if GM never enrolls here, LSU is so bad that they cannot simply hold a slot for GM and not recruit any other posts. They are so bad that they cannot put all of their eggs into one basket, cause that basket may go elsewhere.

The upshot is, LSU may be getting a lot less attractive than Duke, or at least not having such an obvious superiority with regards to PT/SPG, what with our obvious need in the post.

Patrick Yates

SilkyJ
09-13-2007, 03:27 PM
According to the site LSU has inked a 6-10 C from GA, who is top 50-75, and could soon ink a SF. The third player mentioned is J'Mison Morgan kid came on huge this summer, and he was justifyable impressed with the atmosphere at the LSU-VT game this past weekend. On a related note, you really have to applaud K's ability to recruit when he does not have a quality FB team/rocking FB stadium to use to impress recruits. He has to overcome this, not use it as an inducement like some other coaches can.



Two things: 1st off the site says they received a VERBAL commitment from Dennis Harris, the 6'10" C you referred to, so nothing has been "inked".

2nd, he isn't even listed on scout.com's top 100, so I dont think he's going to challenge a consensus top 5 recruit for much PT.

CY_devil
09-13-2007, 04:06 PM
LSU getting a commitment from a 6-10 prospect might sway GM towards Duke. I say might because it does not matter who LSU has on roster, GM (from what I've heard) can step in and play his minutes from the beginning.
Also, J'Mison Morgan has been rumored to be a KU lean for a while now and he is going to visit their campus this weekend after Bill Self's home pitch this week.

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2007/sep/12/texan_set_visit/?mens_basketball

In addition, GM has a number of schools on his list that will be making in home visits and I would not count any of them out at this point.

http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/goo...InHome_Schedule

The top-ranked player in the Class of 2008, Greg Monroe, has tried to keep his final eight schools fairly secretive – but FOXSports.com has the list, along with in-home visit dates for each school. Here you go:

Duke – Sept. 9
Georgetown – Sept. 9
LSU – Sept. 11
USC – Sept. 16
Baylor – Sept. 18
UConn – Sept. 22
Kansas – Sept. 22
Texas – Sept. 25

CY

watzone
09-13-2007, 07:14 PM
The three are Duke, Georgetown and LSU.

ACCBBallFan
09-14-2007, 12:37 AM
The three are Duke, Georgetown and LSU.

By having those three in-homes first, Greg Monroe established them as his benchmark, and the other 5 are in contention for which 2 get a complimentary official visit, but I trust Mark Watzone is correct as usual King Friday.

ACCBBallFan
09-14-2007, 10:14 AM
My daughter lives in Baton Rouge. So I asked her what the local word is, though local news is obviously concentrating on #2 rated Football team who destroyed VA TEch.

Apple does not fall far from tree in her initial reply. The rest is apparently from Google searches but I do not have the links.

I have not heard anything personally about Monroe, but he must be pretty good if they named a city after him. I will keep my eyes open for any word in the Advocate. There will be much more coverage as we get closer to bball season.
.....
In its third decade of honoring the nation’s best high school athletes, Gatorade joined with RISE Magazine to name junior power forward GREG MONROE of HELEN COX HIGH in Harvey as its 2006-07 Louisiana Boys’ Basketball Player of the Year.

Monroe averaged 19.4 points, 12.5 rebounds, 3.0 blocks and 2.0 assists per game for the Cougars (34-4), who lost to Washington Marion in the Class 4A postseason’s round of 16. The 6-foot-10, 225-pound Monroe was the Louisiana Sportswriters Association’s pick for the state’s Mr. Basketball and was the Class 4A Player of the Year. He is considered Metro New Orleans’ best basketball talent since Randy Livingston earned Gatorade National Player of the Year honors at Isidore Newman School in 1993.

Monroe has maintained a 3.75 GPA in the classroom. He is active in the First Emmanuel Baptist Church community in New Orleans and serves as a volunteer coach for junior varsity basketball players before practice.

“What makes the college scouts really drool is he’s 6-10 and he’s so versatile,” said Helen Cox head coach Tyron Mouzon. “He probably can play all five positions on the court. He’s that gifted with basketball skills. He can handle the ball like a guard, he can play in the post and he has an excellent mid-range game. He knows how to make players around him better.”

Monroe will begin his senior year of high school this fall and he is already attracting recruiting interest from Division I men’s basketball programs.

jimsumner
09-14-2007, 01:52 PM
"Monroe will begin his senior year of high school this fall and he is already attracting recruiting interest from Division I men’s basketball programs."

Already? My goodness, these folks are on top of things. :)

mapei
09-14-2007, 02:18 PM
Is he still regarded as likely a one-year player?

Man, the recruiting burden has gotten heavier in recent years. You spend a major part of your resources trying to get a Monroe, or Patterson, or McRoberts for that matter - and, even if you're lucky enough to land him, you have to do it all over again to replace him.

Classof06
09-18-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm sorry if somebody already addressed this, I haven't been on the site as much lately. But does anyone have any idea how Eliott Williams' visit to campus went? Or how Monroe's in-home went? Any credible info would be appreciated.

VaDukie
09-18-2007, 03:52 PM
I remember reading somewhere that the Williams campus visit went well; apparently he clicked with a lot of guys currently on the team. I haven't heard anything lately on Monroe though...

OZZIE4DUKE
09-18-2007, 04:18 PM
I haven't been on the site as much lately.

And just whose fault is that? Please don't let it happen again.

CenOhioDukeFan
09-20-2007, 02:26 PM
According to this LSU website, Greg Monroe, the #1 2008 recruit, is down to LSU and Duke!!! :D

CenOhioDukeFan
09-20-2007, 02:28 PM
oops, Got excited there. Here's the site.

http://www.dandydon.com/

Patrick Yates
09-20-2007, 02:38 PM
oops, Got excited there. Here's the site.

http://www.dandydon.com/

The site is obv. a fan site, and they are not linking to official comments. It just says someone at GM's HS said this. I see this as a "I heard this from a guy who heard from a guy who knows a guy" type of scenario.

A few weeks ago, GM was very insistent on setting up and taking all 5 offficial visits.

While I hope this to be true, it smells a little wonky.

Patrick Yates

Devilsfan
09-20-2007, 04:06 PM
home site front page?

Classof06
09-20-2007, 04:34 PM
After all that Patterson crap, I'll wait for an official announcement.

watzone
09-20-2007, 06:06 PM
There is no source quoted nor a track record for accuracy. Monroe is still having schools in home as I type. It makes for fun reading, but it is just that. A source close to the school could be anyone from a custodian to a pimple faced freshman;) I do think Duke and LSU are at the top of his list though.

Indoor66
09-20-2007, 06:10 PM
After all that Patterson crap, I'll wait for an official announcement.

I think you are right. The mental masterbation is not worth the time or effort.

throatybeard
09-20-2007, 11:48 PM
After all that Patterson crap, I'll wait for an official announcement.

What he said.

Nothing has ever made me lose as much interest in recruiting as that Patterson saga.

Patrick Yates
09-21-2007, 07:01 AM
What he said.

Nothing has ever made me lose as much interest in recruiting as that Patterson saga.

I am not trying to be snarky here, but why are you guys losing interest? The Patterson case certainly did not end well, but in my eyes it was a somewhat typical recruiting battle for a top player.

Sure, it got extra attention due to the fact that said battle took place at the end of the season, and there was very little competition in the news cycle.

If it was all the rumor-mongering, well, that is the nature of recruiting. Really, only the player, and maybe his family know for sure. Everyone else is conjecturing, with varying level of actual insight. Basically, the PP saga was par for the course in a recruiting battle.

So why did this backlash against recruiting? Was it because it broke against us (which is understandable; beleive me, if there is one thing I get, it is bitterness and rancour), or because of the media cycle?

Seriously, I want to know.

Patrick Yates

dw0827
09-21-2007, 11:14 AM
I remember the old days when there basically was no recruiting information available to the teeming masses (me) and I'd wait anxiously for Street & Smith to come out because it would give some indication of who the high school studs were and where they might end up.

Now we have complete and utter overload and its hard to sift through the drivel.

And I'm too cheap to pay for "premium" sites . . . because I refuse to spend my hard earned money trying to understand where some kid may or may not play basketball for a year or two before he goes to . . . TA DA !!! THE NEXT LEVEL (my favorite cliche . . . there was a time when the next level was graduate school . . . lol)

I'm never happy, I guess. Too little info, too much info.

throatybeard
09-21-2007, 11:25 AM
So why did this backlash against recruiting? Was it because it broke against us (which is understandable; beleive me, if there is one thing I get, it is bitterness and rancour), or because of the media cycle?

Seriously, I want to know.

Patrick Yates

Let's see. I wasn't very interested in recruiting in the first place because I regard its coverage as a ridiculously melodramatic contrivance focused on rumormongering (as you point out) about 17 year olds. Add the level of over-exposure and hype of the PP saga, and I've turned off completely.

Krzyzewski will get some players. I will root for them when they show up in Durham. Some people will be interested in recruiting. Some won't. The world turns.

captmojo
09-21-2007, 11:41 AM
Let's see. I wasn't very interested in recruiting in the first place because I regard its coverage as a ridiculously melodramatic contrivance focused on rumormongering (as you point out) about 17 year olds. Add the level of over-exposure and hype of the PP saga, and I've turned off completely.

Krzyzewski will get some players. I will root for them when they show up in Durham. Some people will be interested in recruiting. Some won't. The world turns.

Extremely well put sir. However, is it not exciting too anticipate the possibilities after their choice is made? I'd get behind any player that announces his passion for desire to appear in a Duke uniform.

Classof06
09-21-2007, 12:00 PM
Patrick,

It's not a backlash or that I'm losing interest, but the whole Patterson thing turned into a day-by-day, hour-by-hour, chronicle of what uninformed people thought he was saying. If you look back at our posts this summer, I feel like some of us changed our mind on Duke's chances of landing Patterson by the day; now some of that might be self-inflicted, but the point is that us trying to follow Monroe step-for-step does nothing to affect where he will decide to go to school.

As you see, I started this thread to see how the Duke visits went, because that is all I really care about; I don't care about senseless speculation from people who probably know little more than we do. This is why I don't pay to be on scout.com or Devils Illustrated or Watzone's site (though I'm sure it is a good website); I'm going to find out where these kids decide to go to school anyway so why pay to get a week-by-week update of it? Just doesn't make sense to me. Anyway, that's my $0.02.

Patrick Yates
09-21-2007, 03:19 PM
I think we here at Duke have gotten really spoiled over the last few years. For the last Decade or so, Duke has gotten the vast majority of the players that we pursued. Even when we lost a player, it usually happened almost a year, or more, before the kid actually reported to school. That is, when we lost a kid, it was in the early period, and there was always a backup plan to be pursued, or even a season to be played. Also, Duke never had such a glaring need for a player, with no alternate in sight. Also, it was the end of the year when there is little else for college hoops junkies to focus on.

Prior to last year, Duke got the players that they wanted, and usually locked them up early in the process, so we could sit back and debate who we should pursue the NEXT year.

For other schools, they go through a Patterson Saga every year. Duke will probably go through one this year, and probably beyond. Monroe has been upfront that he will wait until the end of the school year to decide. He is probably going to wait to see which of his top schools has the best situation for him, however he determines that situation to be.

If you think it was bad for PP, just wait until GM is deciding come late May. This board will be going crazy, because really, what else is their to talk about?

And, I highly doubt anyone here can be an authority on how the Visits go. Only the kid, or his family, or an insider in the coaching staff is likely to truly know those details, and they are hardly likely to be forthcomming. Even those with so-called "access" rely on anonymous sources. And a personal interview with the kid is unlikely to help. Today, they are all unflailing polite and are smart enough to never bad-mouth a school. Until eveybody is saying the same thing, especially a relative, HS or AAU coach, or the kid himself, no one else knows what they are talking about. That is why I post what I post, most of which I glean from reputable sites. Anyone, and everyone, including me, who claims to "know" what is going on is delusional. All we can do is conjecture. Sucks, but there you have it.

Patrick Yates

ps I do wonder, and I am not trying to be snarky, or mean, or anything negative, but I WONDER if some of the negative feelings towards recruiting stem from the fact that we did not get Patterson? Would you be as upset if the wild speculation, which, arround here, was about how PP would Defininitely commit to Duke, had proven correct? Don't let the bad taste in your mouth sour you on following recruiting. But you have to understand, that nobody knows. That is why I don't pay for premium recruiting sites. They are all perfectly wrong. The premium content is nothing more than their opinions, usually bolstered by personal interviews where the kid is too smart to give anything away (every trip was always "great. I felt a rappor with the coaches and the players. The campus was beutiful. Everyone was so nice. The classroom facilities were awesome. I CAN SEE MYSELF THERE."). If I want mindless conjecture, I will read my own posts. When following recruiting, take every thing with a grain of salt, or better yet, be like me. Be cynical and distrusting of everything, and every body. Then, if you are surprised, it is a good surprise.

SilkyJ
09-21-2007, 03:20 PM
Let's see. I wasn't very interested in recruiting in the first place because I regard its coverage as a ridiculously melodramatic contrivance focused on rumormongering (as you point out) about 17 year olds.


whoa whoa whoa. Laguna Beach is a fantastic show. take it back.

JasonEvans
09-21-2007, 04:09 PM
I do wonder, and I am not trying to be snarky, or mean, or anything negative, but I WONDER if some of the negative feelings towards recruiting stem from the fact that we did not get Patterson? Would you be as upset if the wild speculation, which, arround here, was about how PP would Defininitely commit to Duke, had proven correct?

Maybe it is my failing memory but I don't recall anyone seriously saying or thinking that PP wass a lock for Duke or anything close to that. Plenty of folks made arguments, often persuasive ones, that Duke would be an excellent choice for him but I don't recall anyone saying it was a done deal. Again, I may be wrong.

Similarly, I don't find myself at all thinking that "Duke would be fine this year... if we only had PP!!" Talking to other Duke fans, I don't get the sense they feel this way either. Patterson was touted quite a bit during his recruitment, but I never felt he was a lock to come in and start (again, my memory may be wrong).

Of course, it is worth noting that I worry a heck of a lot less about our post situation than most of the rest of ya'll ;)

--Jason "I am notorious for having perhaps waaaaay too much faith in the kids currently on the roster-- no matter when that roster is-- versus guys coming into the program or expecially guys we are recruiting" Evans

mapei
09-21-2007, 04:16 PM
I think Patterson is part of it. So was Brandan Wright, and Hansbrough. So, in their own ways, were Kris Humphries and Shaun Livingston. I've just learned not to invest any significant hopes in anyone until after they have declared, and even then I hold something back until they are enrolled.

Clipsfan
09-21-2007, 05:05 PM
I gave up interest in recruiting not because of certain losses (they're bound to happen) on the recruiting front, but rather because it's become too much of a circus. I mean, I'll get to see the guys on TV when Duke finally starts playing, and hear plenty of exaggerations in the meantime. The PP saga was ridiculous because PP went from being a very sold recruit to being the potential savior for the program he chose, solely because he was one of the few/only good recruits left unsigned towards the end of the basketball season. Everyone focused on him until it seemed like he had Oden-like stature. It was just too much.

I think that another aspect is that it's hard to care as much when I feel that the players aren't going to be around for as long. When I started Duke it was fun rooting for the guys and seeing their development over 4 years. Now, we don't have a clue whether to get really invested in Singler or to hope that he has a great season and have a slightly warmer place for him in our hearts when he's in the NBA. Hell, UCLA has pulled in a phenomenal haul for next year (and a pretty good one for this year), but I don't really care much until the season starts. I used to care, I just don't anymore.

-jk
09-21-2007, 09:26 PM
ps I do wonder, and I am not trying to be snarky, or mean, or anything negative, but I WONDER if some of the negative feelings towards recruiting stem from the fact that we did not get Patterson? Would you be as upset if the wild speculation, which, arround here, was about how PP would Defininitely commit to Duke, had proven correct? Don't let the bad taste in your mouth sour you on following recruiting. But you have to understand, that nobody knows. That is why I don't pay for premium recruiting sites. They are all perfectly wrong. The premium content is nothing more than their opinions, usually bolstered by personal interviews where the kid is too smart to give anything away (every trip was always "great. I felt a rappor with the coaches and the players. The campus was beutiful. Everyone was so nice. The classroom facilities were awesome. I CAN SEE MYSELF THERE."). If I want mindless conjecture, I will read my own posts. When following recruiting, take every thing with a grain of salt, or better yet, be like me. Be cynical and distrusting of everything, and every body. Then, if you are surprised, it is a good surprise.

Personally, I gave up following recruiting closely back when Marty Nessley was a McD. Nicest guy, mind you, and a hard worker, with an NBA contract, too (insert old saw about coaching height). One look at him on the court, though, and you knew he wasn't in the same league. He was just big. OK, really, really big. The original "Marty doesn't foul!" I seem to recall that Barry Jacobs lead with him for fouls per minutes playing time.

I've only passively followed recruiting since. I decided that there are just too many changes from HS to top tier NCAA hoops to really have more than a clue where the kids' talents will take them, at least once you get past the very top handful. So much has to do with how hard players work and the team chemistry.

The professional ranking services frequently disagree as well. Names go up their lists when they hear that a top school is interested as quickly as on the observed merits of the player. Too many unheralded players become stars; too many stars fall from view.

And besides, you're trying to deduce the thought process of a 17 or 18 year old. I was one once, too, and it wasn't a pretty sight. I just don't find the worry worth it. I'll leave it to the pros and and dilettantes, and watch (and support) the players that actually show up to play.

-jk

Jaymf7
09-21-2007, 09:29 PM
But you have to understand, that nobody knows. That is why I don't pay for premium recruiting sites. They are all perfectly wrong. The premium content is nothing more than their opinions, usually bolstered by personal interviews where the kid is too smart to give anything away (every trip was always "great. I felt a rappor with the coaches and the players. The campus was beutiful. Everyone was so nice. The classroom facilities were awesome. I CAN SEE MYSELF THERE."). If I want mindless conjecture, I will read my own posts.

I hate to admit it, but I got totally caught up in the Patterson circus. There was just too much of a void after we lost to VCU (early season baseball just does not cut it). I agree -- there really is no credible information. I feel Patterson played us a bit, basically because his stated reason for choosing UK was that he did not click with our guys but he did not eliminate us until well after he spent time with our guys. There is nothing more I would like in the world than a head-to-head match-up in the NCAAs in which Lance makes PP his rag doll (okay, that is an exaggeration -- I suppose a couple of other thinbgs would be better).

We should not care to play the speculation game, but I am a Duke addict, and what else can I read about in the summer other than recruiting (and, sadly, injuries). So I follow recruiting.

But who cares. In fact, and I regret that this is buried in an old thread, who wants a loaded team? I have to say that I have followed Duke since 1990 (when I was a junior in high school -- sorry old-timers) and my least favorite season was 1999. During the regular season, we blew everyone out by 25 and it was anticlimactic. During the postseason, we squandered vastly superor talent to a scrappy UConn (Victs) team (from my home state). That really sucked.

I am ready to see what we can do with whatever team suits up this year, or the next or the year after that. Coach K is a great recruiter -- and with his exposure he has some unbelievable cards to play. I like the drama of watching him win with the hand he's dealt.

JasonEvans
09-23-2007, 05:56 AM
I hav culled all the posts about Duke basketball history that really have nothing at all to do with the original conversation in this thread and moved them to their own thread which can be found here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3598).

--Jason "nothing like moderating bright and early on a Sunday morning" Evans

Bob Green
09-23-2007, 06:00 AM
I hav culled all the posts about Duke basketball history that really have nothing at all to do with the original conversation in this thread and moved them to their own thread which can be found here (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3598).

--Jason "nothing like moderating bright and early on a Sunday morning" Evans

You're behind the times as it is actually Sunday night.

GoDukeDevils
09-28-2007, 02:35 PM
LSU, GTown, Duke, Texas, UConn

Official visits scheduled with LSU and GTown.

houstondukie
09-28-2007, 03:23 PM
So LSU is the first visit, followed by G'town. If Duke gets his third visit, I think that will be a very good sign for us. Even though most think he will take all 5 visits, there is a good chance Monroe will decide after his Duke visit.

I'm surprised Kansas didn't make the list, but glad they didn't because they would of provided stiff competition. As much as UCONN scares me, I can't see Monroe going so far from home, even if it is just for one year. Hopefully, he will decide on Duke before he even takes a visit up to Storrs. Texas seems like a longshot, but perhaps Monroe has Durant in mind.

I don't want to read too much into the order of the visit dates, but something tells me that Monroe is leaning towards Duke, with the most competition coming from LSU and G'town. My thinking is that he scheduled LSU and G'town first, so that he can compare them to his top school, Duke. He will visit Texas and UCONN only if he is still undecided.

Ignatius07
09-28-2007, 04:15 PM
Why do you think he would decide without taking all his visits? I thought he has made clear in the past that he would be waiting till spring to decide, or am I mistaken?

houstondukie
09-28-2007, 04:26 PM
Monroe has said that if he feels comfortable with a school, he will decide in November. But he doesn't want to feel rushed and doesn't mind waiting til the spring. It is just my personal opinion that after his LSU, G'town, and Duke visits, he will decide sooner rather than later.

I'm just reading between the lines, but the order of his visits seems very interesting since most agree Duke and LSU are the teams to beat (even though Monroe downplays this), with G'town making a strong push. If Duke is his 3rd visit after LSU and G'town, and we make a very good impression, my guess and hope is that he will decide on Duke and not take his remaining visits to Texas and UCONN.

mapei
09-28-2007, 04:46 PM
The scuttle in DC (which I can't confirm, just something I heard) is that he is planning to attend Midnight Madness at Georgetown. In related news, JT3 just signed a long-term contract extension this week.

I too am surprised that Kansas dropped off the list.

greybeard
09-28-2007, 05:07 PM
The scuttle in DC (which I can't confirm, just something I heard) is that he is planning to attend Midnight Madness at Georgetown. In related news, JT3 just signed a long-term contract extension this week.

I too am surprised that Kansas dropped off the list.

Georgetown has done well with kids from down there. The two lefties, McDonald and the big who is still in the pros. Have to think that they bring out Big John for this one.

BTW, Mai, I never got the story behind this stuff with Ron's departure from Ball State--racial stuff and all. The old man was going wild about it on the radio yesterday. Only caught a tad of it. What's up with that?

mapei
09-28-2007, 09:53 PM
I read a bunch about it at the time, but frankly I can't remember it except that it did seem that Rony was at least somewhat at fault. Recruiting issues. Apparently there were some nasty notes left in his office. But he's young and can learn from his mistakes. I think he will land on his feet.

I honestly wish Big John would just go away at this point. He is someone with both strong positives and strong negatives. He did a lot for the kids in his program, and it was clean and honorable for the most part. It was certainly successful on the court and in the classroom. He brought credit to the university and the community. But he has so much baggage, and his radio show is just awful. He sounds like he's 100 years old.

He should back off and let JT3 run his own program, like Bush 41 did with Bush 43. I have confidence it would turn out a lot better in JT3's case, though. ;)

Waynne
09-30-2007, 03:32 PM
The visit to Georgetown makes me nervous. This is a very good program in an attractive city with a young, charismatic coach in a top league that gets a ton of East Coast coverage. Big John probably will make a pitch if the school lets him. Monroe will get more exposure and better coaching at G'town than at any of the other schools in which he is interested, except Duke. I hope he doesn't decide after the G'town visit.

greybeard
10-01-2007, 04:47 PM
The visit to Georgetown makes me nervous. This is a very good program in an attractive city with a young, charismatic coach in a top league that gets a ton of East Coast coverage. Big John probably will make a pitch if the school lets him. Monroe will get more exposure and better coaching at G'town than at any of the other schools in which he is interested, except Duke. I hope he doesn't decide after the G'town visit.

JTIII, like his mentor Carrill, is one terrific coach of pivot players (no I do not call them centers).

Maipai, I was only "fussin" (don't you want to barf when he continues to say that) with the Dukies here by raising the specter of Big John. Most people still underestimate just how terrific JTIII is in his own right.

mapei
10-01-2007, 08:47 PM
I know. It's just a minor peeve of mine to get III out from Pops's formidable shadow.

Ignatius07
10-02-2007, 01:39 PM
I'm just reading between the lines, but the order of his visits seems very interesting since most agree Duke and LSU are the teams to beat (even though Monroe downplays this), with G'town making a strong push. If Duke is his 3rd visit after LSU and G'town, and we make a very good impression, my guess and hope is that he will decide on Duke and not take his remaining visits to Texas and UCONN.

According to a UConn blog (http://emekanadavandcorny.blogspot.com/2007/10/gregs-list.html), which was linked by Blue Devil Nation, Duke will actually be visited fourth, on the October 27-28 weekend. Monroe will apparently be making the five visits in consecutive weeks starting this weekend, so the order will be: LSU, Georgetown, Texas, Duke, and UConn.

I think this is positive news, and for anybody who is unsettled by not being visited earlier in the process (which probably means nothing anyway), Duke probably wanted it that way: if the above is true, Monroe will be visiting for the Blue-White Scrimmage, and thus is assured of a packed and excited Cameron. We can rest assured that he'll get the best experience possible.

VaDukie
10-02-2007, 04:57 PM
According to a UConn blog (http://emekanadavandcorny.blogspot.com/2007/10/gregs-list.html), which was linked by Blue Devil Nation, Duke will actually be visited fourth, on the October 27-28 weekend. Monroe will apparently be making the five visits in consecutive weeks starting this weekend, so the order will be: LSU, Georgetown, Texas, Duke, and UConn.

I think this is positive news, and for anybody who is unsettled by not being visited earlier in the process (which probably means nothing anyway), Duke probably wanted it that way: if the above is true, Monroe will be visiting for the Blue-White Scrimmage, and thus is assured of a packed and excited Cameron. We can rest assured that he'll get the best experience possible.

If he's coming during Blue-White we need everyone in CIS to be chanting his name!

ACCBBallFan
10-03-2007, 04:54 PM
If he's coming during Blue-White we need everyone in CIS to be chanting his name!According to primacy and recency theory, ideal placement is first or last.

However, Greg will see better competition in the Blue-White game than he will in the UCONN-Buffalo game now that Calhoun used back room tactics to get Holy Cross out of the Coaches vs Cancer event UCONN is hosting.

Holy Cross slow down style would not have made UCONN look attractive either. A little late for foliage season Nov 8th too.

Of course, if he commits the weekend of Oct 27, or any time in 10 or so days before Nov 8 that would be his last visit.

Some are clinging to hope that Terrence Jennings commits to UCONN after de-committing from MD.

I view that as a wash just as I did the Olek Czyz commit since Greg Monroe may have the Patrick Patterson gene and fear being chained to the post. If he is #1 2008 recruit, he has no competition from other recruits to fear.

That and Jennings may not qualify academically at UCONN either, though it is not the toughest place to get into. UCONN and Pitt may be the toughest place to get disqualified from though.

VaDukie
10-07-2007, 05:45 PM
Or maybe based on this article, Georgetown and us.

http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=722758

JasonEvans
10-07-2007, 06:01 PM
Or maybe based on this article, Georgetown and us.

http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=722758

If he is still taking visits then all 5 schools are in it. Visits quite often change everything. It sounds to me like the recruiting guru for Rivals thinks Monroe's order of preference entering the visits is:

1. Georgetown
1a. Duke
2. (space left empty to indicate a gap)
3. LSU
4. UConn
5. Texas

--Jason "Georgetown has a nice team, but with Hibbert and Wallace graduating after this season, they don't figure to be nearly in the national title hunt next year the way Duke should be" Evans

gw67
10-08-2007, 07:25 AM
The Hoyas' cupboard will not be bare when Hibbert leaves. Macklin, Summers, Wright, Rivers, Freeman and Sapp are fine players and 3-4 of these youngsters have the potential to be very good. In addition, Thompson is bringing in some local youngsters next year (Braswell, Clark and Sims) who should add some good depth. I expect them to be very good this year and next.

gw67

JasonEvans
10-08-2007, 07:55 AM
The Hoyas' cupboard will not be bare when Hibbert leaves. Macklin, Summers, Wright, Rivers, Freeman and Sapp are fine players and 3-4 of these youngsters have the potential to be very good. In addition, Thompson is bringing in some local youngsters next year (Braswell, Clark and Sims) who should add some good depth. I expect them to be very good this year and next.

Yup, I said they had a nice crop of youngsters and I do expect them to be good. However, I don't think they are likely to be a top 5 team next season... more likely mid-teens or lower... with them losing clearly their two best players in Hibbert and Wallace (their center and their PG, the two most difficult positions to replace).

Duke, OTOH, is very ikely to be considered one of the elite teams in the land next season. If part of Monroe's decision is paying for a team that gives him maximum exposure then a team that is on TV virtually every single game they play and a team that will be one of the favorites to reach the Final Four would seem to be a smart choice for him.

--Jason "JTIII is really bulding a nice program at GTown-- but he's not K" Evans

Patrick Yates
10-08-2007, 12:39 PM
Of the 5 teams that Monroe is considering, only Duke is considered a national contender in 08-09. LSU definitely won't be. UCONN will lose Thabeet this year, and maybe some others, so they may not be a power either. I can also see that possible/highly probably defections will hurt Texas as well. Personally, I think G-Town will be good next year, but with Monroe they definitely would be a national power (indeed, maybe top 5-7 next year while reliying on youngish players, and morphing into an elite power by March, a la OSU last year).

Maybe Monroe doesn't really care about the national relevance of the teams he is considering. If he were, Kansas and Kentucky would not have been dropped in favor of two of LSU, TX, and UConn (not saying the last two don't have great potential next year, just probably not nationally relevant NEXT year).

I have said this till I am blue in the face. Many kids would like to be on national powers. But, it is obvious that not every kid considers this to be the most important factor. Playing time, shot availability, and playing style ALL come into play.

If competing for the NC were all that Monroe cared about, G-Town and Duke are the only schools on his current list that would have made the cut, and KU and UK would still be there.

Patrick Yates

kydevil
10-08-2007, 02:37 PM
Of the 5 teams that Monroe is considering, only Duke is considered a national contender in 08-09. LSU definitely won't be. UCONN will lose Thabeet this year, and maybe some others, so they may not be a power either. I can also see that possible/highly probably defections will hurt Texas as well. Personally, I think G-Town will be good next year, but with Monroe they definitely would be a national power (indeed, maybe top 5-7 next year while reliying on youngish players, and morphing into an elite power by March, a la OSU last year).

Maybe Monroe doesn't really care about the national relevance of the teams he is considering. If he were, Kansas and Kentucky would not have been dropped in favor of two of LSU, TX, and UConn (not saying the last two don't have great potential next year, just probably not nationally relevant NEXT year).

I have said this till I am blue in the face. Many kids would like to be on national powers. But, it is obvious that not every kid considers this to be the most important factor. Playing time, shot availability, and playing style ALL come into play.

If competing for the NC were all that Monroe cared about, G-Town and Duke are the only schools on his current list that would have made the cut, and KU and UK would still be there.

Patrick Yates

Maybe Monroe does care and that is what sets us apart from the other schools. It could be the final factor in his decision, come on down Greg.

Patrick Yates
10-08-2007, 03:26 PM
Maybe Monroe does care and that is what sets us apart from the other schools. It could be the final factor in his decision, come on down Greg.

but I still think it would be all teams likely to be dominant in 08-09 (with possibly the hometown LSU thrown in) on his list if that were one of the key factors. Instead, there are 3 teams that will be OK to good with Monroe, 1 team that would be pretty good to great with Monroe, and one team likely to be great with Monroe.

Patrick Yates

mapei
10-08-2007, 03:55 PM
Discerning GM's intentions is a little like trying to read Alan Greenspan's oblique remarks a decade ago. Much significance attached to the tiniest of clues. I'm really going to annoyed if he chooses neither Duke nor Georgetown.

jaimedun34
10-08-2007, 04:42 PM
I admit I'm somewhat out of the loop when it comes to projecting the success of other teams, but I think Texas has a good chance to be very good in the next few years with DJ Augustine.

Ignatius07
10-08-2007, 05:57 PM
There's a good chance Augustin will bolt after this year - some people thought he might even leave after last year. He'll be the focal point of the offense now, in terms of both scoring and distributing.

SilkyJ
10-08-2007, 10:22 PM
I admit I'm somewhat out of the loop when it comes to projecting the success of other teams, but I think Texas has a good chance to be very good in the next few years with DJ Augustine.

I admit that I will never understand how Rick Barnes ever got the Texas job.

I do understand, however, how we SPANKED them in the meadowlands when lots of people were calling for the upset...b/c even though their jerseys are the color of fire, we still had DY-NO-MITE!!

watzone
10-09-2007, 09:44 AM
Monroe set to visit Georgetown this weekend for midnight madness.

http://myblogdevils.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2007/10/9/3280278.html

greybeard
10-09-2007, 01:37 PM
Yup, I said they had a nice crop of youngsters and I do expect them to be good. However, I don't think they are likely to be a top 5 team next season... more likely mid-teens or lower... with them losing clearly their two best players in Hibbert and Wallace (their center and their PG, the two most difficult positions to replace).

Duke, OTOH, is very ikely to be considered one of the elite teams in the land next season. If part of Monroe's decision is paying for a team that gives him maximum exposure then a team that is on TV virtually every single game they play and a team that will be one of the favorites to reach the Final Four would seem to be a smart choice for him.

--Jason "JTIII is really bulding a nice program at GTown-- but he's not K" Evans

Do not underestimate Summers. The kid played terrific ball last year as a freshman, and for a guy with his body and physical skills, can shoot from range better than any comparably-sized player in the country. MacKlin was the more highly recruited, and is long and extremely quick off his feet. He seems to get to good spots. He might well hurt some people. Georgetown will also have four extremely good and experienced guards. A guy like Monroe, if he thinks that he can really learn to be a skilled pivot player (notice I did not say "center") would have to consider playing under JTIII after seeing what Green did and the unprecedented progress that Hibbert has made. If he were to choose Georgetown, they'll have one heck of a team.

I do not believe that young men chose a school based upon whether they are more or less likely to make a run at an NCAA title, even the most talented of them. I could be wrong, but it seems to turn on its head the very reason that they got good at the game in the first place.

K and JTIII are both incredible educators/leaders, who respect the learning and maturation processes as much as the issues of Xs and Os and wins and loses. Duke and Georgetown each provides a terrific environment.

If Monroe goes to a school other than one of those two, I think it will be unfortunate from his perspective. If he goes to either of those two, I don't think that he can go wrong.

Mike Corey
10-13-2007, 03:55 PM
Per Dave Telep. (http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/690263.html)

Congrats to the Hoyas. They're getting a good one.

kramerbr
10-13-2007, 04:11 PM
Without even visiting Duke? Oh well, at least he made his decision early so Duke can move on. Who would be the next main target after losing out on Monroe?

BTW Monroe will fit nicely into their system and I wish him the best of luck.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
10-13-2007, 04:16 PM
Agree on both counts. I'm very surprised he didn't even give us a chance to make a pitch, but Georgetown is a great program that is very hot at the moment. Best of luck to a kid I've always heard is a really good person as well as a great player.

On to the next . . .

Lord Ash
10-13-2007, 04:17 PM
Wow. Disaster.

yancem
10-13-2007, 04:27 PM
Without even visiting Duke? Oh well, at least he made his decision early so Duke can move on.

I agree, this seems very weird to me. I'm surprised that he went from I'm going to take all of my visits and probably not commit until the spring, to committing after his second or third visit. Not taking his visit to Duke, considered one of his top two choices, seems even more bizarre.

Best of luck to Greg and I don't think you can't really go wrong with Georgetown, but I'm way confused. Like kramerbr said, at least we know now instead of having to wait until May. I think that it is too late to pursue any quality big men in the '08 class but K can make the necessary adjustments in his recruiting the '09 class

sandinmyshoes
10-13-2007, 04:29 PM
Not that I thought Duke was in the lead, but after the football game this just caps a bad day.

Lord Ash
10-13-2007, 04:37 PM
He better make an adjustment somewhere, because a team can't really compete at the highest level without a serious big man, and it looks like we are really thin in that department.

Cameron
10-13-2007, 04:38 PM
We'll just have to run him into the ground when we play the Hoyas. Maybe pull out some William Laimbeer sh%?:)


He just made a HUGE mistake, as our 2008-09 squad has national champion written all over them (as long as Greg doesn't spaz out on us). We will have a senior and more experienced Paulus, three junior studs in Jon, Lance, and Gerald (please God Gerald), proven second year guys in Kyle Singler, who could be an All-American candidate at this point, Taylor King, and Nolan Smith, as well as the incoming freshman class. Run-on sentence I think not! It's a machine gun paragraph of talent! (Okay, not really sure what the hell I am talking about:))

But, anyway, sorry you made such a poor decision, Greg. Letting the Duke experience slip away is your loss. Nothing can beat it. I played shooting guard in '06 (#4), and it was the best time of my life. Well, maybe not:) But I was him in my mind and I loved every minute of it!!!

**Okay, saying we have "national champion" written all over us next season might be a stretch (I think I just had a momentary mental lapse about our big man situation), but I still think we'll be serious Final Four contenders and a top five team nationally all year long. And if you are a Final Four caliber club, anything can happen. We'll be loaded in the guard/wing slots, though. Maybe we'll just have to out run and out score everyone, kind of like a milder version of old Loyola Marymount. We'll see, I guess.

Jumbo
10-13-2007, 04:43 PM
Wow. Disaster.

I know there's a potential melt-down about to happen, and this is a certainly a disappointing twist. But disaster is a strong word. This is going to sound like a rationalization, but here are some facts about why this is not a "disaster."

1) The Class of 2008 is historically bad. Monroe is a very good player, but it's not like Duke just lost the next Kevin Durant. Recruiting rankings don't have the benefit of context -- Monroe might not have cracked the top-10 in several other classes.

2) Monroe does have size though, which (to me) was his biggest appeal. But that won't be as big an issue if A) Singler proves he can play inside B) Zoubek develops the way people expect by the time he's a junior C) Thomas continues to get stronger and D) Czyz can give Duke anything. Really, it cuts Duke's margin for errors significantly and means Duke's current players must progress. But, that's certainly a possibility.

3) Duke can go hard after bigs in the talent-rich Class of 2009. Long-term, that might be a blessing.

Again, this is disappointing, but there are enough pieces in place to avoid this being a "disaster."

_Gary
10-13-2007, 04:44 PM
I agree with Ash. This is a huge blow, and it just signals to me that we can't get the athletic big when we really need to. I'm shocked and very disappointed, and I feel this is going to hurt us big time. We really needed to get this kid after missing on Wright and then Patterson. Three athletic bigs in a row. Not good at all. Sorry to seem so down, but I can't Pollyanna this one away. I really felt like we needed to land this guy.

chrishoke
10-13-2007, 04:47 PM
all the eggs - one basket

_Gary
10-13-2007, 04:49 PM
all the eggs - one basket

Yeah, but there used to be a time when that didn't matter because there was no way that basket was going to drop. Now it is a big deal because this particular basket has been dropped three times in a row [i.e. failing to land our #1 athletic big].

DevilCastDownfromDurham
10-13-2007, 04:50 PM
This is off the top of my head, but I think (and other please correct me if I'm wrong) that this is at least the second major recruit we've lost to the fanfare of another program's Midnight Madness festivities in the last couple of seasons. (B. Wright was considered a big Duke lean and then committed to UNC right after his trip to Midnight w/ Roy and the Ballerina, IIRC). I know some people, including K, seem to think that it's a silly thing to do, but if players and recruits like it, maybe some pep rally antics and a public scrimmage wouldn't kill us. Just a thought.

captmojo
10-13-2007, 04:53 PM
There's over 300 division 1 schools that didn't get Monroe. [I] can think of the same amount that did not get Greg Oden. Oh yeah, Ohio state didn't win. Oden's gone now and what will the Buckeyes do this season?


Oh yeah, celebrate a football championship.:eek:

Lord Ash
10-13-2007, 04:57 PM
I understand "disaster" is a strong word, but taken in the view of "college basketball disaster" it is pretty close.

Jumbo, you put out a bunch of hypotheticals. They are just that; hypothetical. If Zoubek gets good, if Lance Thomas becomes a big strong guy, if Kyle Singler actually sticks around, and so on and so forth. None of that overcomes, as some people have said, that we have missed on some true bigs lately, and this miss is another big one (pun intended.) While I adore our guards and wings, I don't think a team of guards and wings can win a national title. As we were only looking at a couple of bigs these last few years, missing on all of them is a bad deal. To me it feels like all of that guard talent will end up being wasted as the team won't have that piece it needs to truly perform when it counts.

I know that there are some fans who will say "No biggie, it doesn't matter" but I can't be one of those; recruiting the best players does matter, as does filling positions on a basketball team, and missing out on a bunch of them is a bad sign. There was a time just a few years back when it felt like we could get almost anyone. Now it feels unusual to actually be considered by the top players. Now this might be the way things will be; maybe Coach K has decided to NOT go after the 1 year guys and instead to really develop a 3 and 4 year program. If so I applaud that, but the growing pains we'll experience in the meantime, especially since these are the years those growing pains will really be obvious, will hurt.

Lord I hope Singler is real good.

dyedwab
10-13-2007, 05:00 PM
1) With Roy Hibbert leaving this year, Monroe will be the number one man big man at GTown instantly....and GTown prides itself on it big man heritage.

2) A random thought that the inevitable reaction to Monroe's not coming to Duke illustrates something very rational about his choices. Folks view his not coming to Duke as a disaster and I'm sure that had he come here, the focus on him would have been intense particularly when he didn't play well. At Georgetown, he gets to develop at a big program , but one that is at least 4 or 5 spots down on the sports menu in a major market. Simply, at Georgetown, he will have the chance to develop without the microscope on his failures that there would have been at Duke. I think that is a rational choice.

Anyway, I wish he would have come to Duke, and would say that I wish him well, but really, I don't know him, and he's not joining the community I care about, so really, he's just like hundreds of thousands of other kids who I don't know who don't go to Duke. God bless 'em, but I'm not thinking about him anymore

_Gary
10-13-2007, 05:07 PM
I'd like to emphasize again (for clarity) that as far as I'm concerned this isn't "horrible" simply because we lost this kid. It's horrible because this is three in a row! That's why I'm really concerned. I feel like we are seriously losing ground when it comes to the athletic bigs that are very, very important to a team that is loaded with wing players.

Jumbo
10-13-2007, 05:07 PM
I agree with Ash. This is a huge blow, and it just signals to me that we can't get the athletic big when we really need to. I'm shocked and very disappointed, and I feel this is going to hurt us big time. We really needed to get this kid after missing on Wright and then Patterson. Three athletic bigs in a row. Not good at all. Sorry to seem so down, but I can't Pollyanna this one away. I really felt like we needed to land this guy.

Easy, easy. Singler is very much an "athletic big." So was McRoberts. So is Lance Thomas. Yes, Duke missed on three big targets, but it's dangerous to lump Duke's recruiting misses into a large stereotype. There are many factors are play, and we can't expect to get everyone we want.

Jumbo
10-13-2007, 05:11 PM
I understand "disaster" is a strong word, but taken in the view of "college basketball disaster" it is pretty close.

Jumbo, you put out a bunch of hypotheticals. They are just that; hypothetical. If Zoubek gets good, if Lance Thomas becomes a big strong guy, if Kyle Singler actually sticks around, and so on and so forth. None of that overcomes, as some people have said, that we have missed on some true bigs lately, and this miss is another big one (pun intended.) While I adore our guards and wings, I don't think a team of guards and wings can win a national title. As we were only looking at a couple of bigs these last few years, missing on all of them is a bad deal. To me it feels like all of that guard talent will end up being wasted as the team won't have that piece it needs to truly perform when it counts.

I know that there are some fans who will say "No biggie, it doesn't matter" but I can't be one of those; recruiting the best players does matter, as does filling positions on a basketball team, and missing out on a bunch of them is a bad sign. There was a time just a few years back when it felt like we could get almost anyone. Now it feels unusual to actually be considered by the top players. Now this might be the way things will be; maybe Coach K has decided to NOT go after the 1 year guys and instead to really develop a 3 and 4 year program. If so I applaud that, but the growing pains we'll experience in the meantime, especially since these are the years those growing pains will really be obvious, will hurt.

Lord I hope Singler is real good.

I understand how you feel. I just think it's really important at times of disappointment to force yourself to take a step back. Of course all of my propositions were hypothetical in nature. But so, too, was any projection of Greg Monroe's college future. Duke has a lot of recruiting work to do in the Class of 2009, no question. But there are many more targets from which to choose. In 2008, there were very few bigs who were good enough to warrant Duke's interest while also fitting Duke's academic profile, type of program, etc.

And, look, if we recruited Zoubek, it was certainly under the impression that he should be good enough to start as a junior. If we recruited Thomas, it was certainly under the impression that he'd be able to be a legit contributor inside. These things might not happen, but it's not like they can't happen, either.

_Gary
10-13-2007, 05:13 PM
Easy, easy. Singler is very much an "athletic big." So was McRoberts. So is Lance Thomas. Yes, Duke missed on three big targets, but it's dangerous to lump Duke's recruiting misses into a large stereotype. There are many factors are play, and we can't expect to get everyone we want.

Ehhhh. I know that technically you could call Singler and McRoberts athletic bigs (not sure about labeling Lance that) but those players weren't in the same mold as Wright, Patterson and Monroe. It's just not the same thing in my book. Singler and McRoberts came in as more of all-around, power forward type players that are very important because of their versatility. But when I talk about athletic bigs I'm thinking of those players that have a solid inside presence offensively and defensively (even if they aren't polished offensively). Surely you see the difference and understand what I'm getting at. Right?

Jumbo
10-13-2007, 05:14 PM
Ehhhh. I know that technically you could call Singler and McRoberts athletic bigs (not sure about labeling Lance that) but those players weren't in the same mold as Wright, Patterson and Monroe. It's just not the same thing in my book. Singler and McRoberts came in as more of all-around, power forward type players that are very important because of their versatility. But when I talk about athletic bigs I'm thinking of those players that have a solid inside presence offensively and defensively (even if they aren't polished offensively). Surely you see the difference and understand what I'm getting at. Right?

I think, honestly, the only difference is race. Not sure if you've seen Patterson, but Josh was WAY more athletic. So, for that matter, is Singler. Patterson is burly.

_Gary
10-13-2007, 05:17 PM
I think, honestly, the only difference is race. Not sure if you've seen Patterson, but Josh was WAY more athletic. So, for that matter, is Singler. Patterson is burly.

I can honestly say that for me it's not a race thing. But I can understand how you might get that impression. It's just not the case in my book.

Bob Green
10-13-2007, 05:21 PM
Greg Monroe has picked Georgetown so it's time for me to move on. I've stated several times on this board that Brian Zoubek will be an inside force during his Junior and Senior seasons. Instead of dwelling on GM, I will be following BZs development. Zoubek is a bit behind due to his summer injury, but once his conditioning returns, he will be able to continue his development as an ACC caliber big man. I look for Duke to be extremely talented in 2008-2009 with a line-up of great guards and wings along with a frontline consisting of Kyle Singler, Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas. The same is true for 2007-2008.

rthomas
10-13-2007, 05:23 PM
Greg Monroe has picked Georgetown so it's time for me to move on. I've stated several times on this board that Brian Zoubek will be an inside force during his Junior and Senior seasons. Instead of dwelling on GM, I will be following BZs development. Zoubek is a bit behind due to his summer injury, but once his conditioning returns, he will be able to continue his development as an ACC caliber big man. I look for Duke to be extremely talented in 2008-2009 with a line-up of great guards and wings along with a frontline consisting of Kyle Singler, Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas. The same is true for 2007-2008.

Word. !

Lord Ash
10-13-2007, 05:34 PM
Maybe the word BIG isn't emphasized enough when we say athletic big. What I mean is maybe more a "big athletic big," and big doesn't mean tall, but strong and powerful. No one would consider Josh powerful. And Kyle Singler certainly has never had the word "power" attached to him. Obviously Lance isn't powerful. But the guys we have missed on are certain big shouldered, large bicep "big athletic bigs." I think that burly power is essential to a winning basketball program.

I do think that by his junior year Brian Zoubek will be decent enough to play. Heck, he might be okay this year, who knows? But as of now I would much rather have him as a second big option with a serious high-talent "big athletic big" as a first big option.

Houston
10-13-2007, 05:36 PM
I understand there are ~300 division one programs with many schools offering attractive opportunities. However, we are Duke. We have a HOF coach who is also resurrecting the US basketball program. When PP selected UK, it was not a big disappointment b/c GM would be coming the following year. Now we have neither.

Although I hope I am wrong, BZ will be a project. He struggled as a freshman and lost the summer b/c of injury. If he played at another school, I don't think his skills would be appreciated by this board. We NEED EW to come and can not afford any early entries to the league.

Troublemaker
10-13-2007, 05:36 PM
Not that big a deal as long as Singler stays two years and two of the following pan out as good players in the post (not necessarily via orthodox post play, btw): King, Zoubek, Czyz, Thomas.

I suspect King will surprise us this year and Czyz will surprise us next year. Pleasantly.

jimsumner
10-13-2007, 05:36 PM
I'm certainly quite surprised that Monroe picked the Hoyas without even visiting Duke, especially when a few months ago he was telling anyone who would listen that Duke was his favorite school growing up. Duke very much wanted him and it is a significant miss.

But no, I don't think it was a disaster. We knew a couple of things going in. Duke signed seven players in the previous two classes, so it wasn't going to be a numerically big class. Note that all seven were prep All-Americans; not bad for a program in decline.

Secondly, we knew that the h.s. class of '08 is regarded as noticeably weaker than the class of '09. There simply weren't/aren't many players in that class that Duke can sign and wants to sign. That is not the case next season. Of Duke doesn't get a bunch of yesses from some combination of Boynton, Thompson, McDonald, Nelson, Echenique, Murphy, Hood, and others TBD, then worry would be a legitimate reaction. But not now.

I'm on record as thinking that Duke will be a top ten team this season with a 4/5 rotation of Singler, Thomas, Zoubek, McClure, and King. All should be back next season, older, more experienced, stronger. Add Czyz. So the interior group should be better in '09 than '08. Hypothetical? Sure. But, as Jumbo pointed out, so is any speculation on the future. Monroe would have been a big help. But I think a deep breath and step back from the bridge is the right move here.

_Gary
10-13-2007, 05:39 PM
Maybe the word BIG isn't emphasized enough when we say athletic big. What I mean is maybe more a "big athletic big," and big doesn't mean tall, but strong and powerful. No one would consider Josh powerful. And Kyle Singler certainly has never had the word "power" attached to him. Obviously Lance isn't powerful. But the guys we have missed on are certain big shouldered, large bicep "big athletic bigs." I think that burly power is essential to a winning basketball program.

I do think that by his junior year Brian Zoubek will be decent enough to play. Heck, he might be okay this year, who knows? But as of now I would much rather have him as a second big option with a serious high-talent "big athletic big" as a first big option.

Thank you, Ash. You described what I'm thinking of perfectly! Well said.

dkbaseball
10-13-2007, 06:12 PM
Quite honestly, I was thinking earlier today before I got the news that I hoped he didn't come here. He's a one-year player who would set back the development of four-year players Zoubek, Thomas and Czyz while he's here and taking so many post minutes. If Zoubek and Thomas make some progress -- and I really have never understood the pessimism hereabouts about them -- and King can contribute a bit of post defense, there will be plenty of talent on hand to make a run at the NC next year. And possibly this year as well.

And when has Duke ever won a lot with an athletic big? Laettner wasn't , nor Ferry or Alarie. Brand, Boozer and Williams were very strong, but not eye-poppingly athletic by any means. Duke needs a very active four man, such as Grant. But Shane proved that you can be sufficiently active in that role without necessarily being super athletic.

newbdisapain
10-13-2007, 06:23 PM
Yes, missing GM hurts as the number 1 ranked prospect almost always is a very good player. We do have a roster of solid players, and if Lance has spent time in the weight room, he should be less foul inclined and solid for us. LT has mucho heart and hopefully has been able to add strength.
Unfortunately, I suspect that the injury to BZ will limit him this year, but barring further injury, he should be ready to help in 08-09.
I am in favor of burly, see Brand and the Landlord, but you go with who you get and we have the talent to be good for next several years without regard to whether we get any recruits this year other than the Polish Pogo stick.

smvalkyries
10-13-2007, 06:32 PM
I really don't know what is going on at Georgetown now but when I lived in DC long long ago when JT#1 was coach the G-town basketballers had there own dorm and classroom and courses and were rarely ever seen on the actual G-town campus and virtually never in normal classes? Hopefully that has changed by now. Georgetown itself is a quality school I just wonder if the basketball team actually attends the academic part of the school?

jimsumner
10-13-2007, 06:35 PM
RE: Zoubek. He is 100% recovered from his injury. He still has a ways to go before his conditioning has returned. But Duke expects him to be a significant contributor this year, maybe a starter.

The Duke coaches most emphatically feel that Zoubek is going to be a very good player at Duke.

Uncle Drew
10-13-2007, 06:53 PM
I know there's a potential melt-down about to happen, and this is a certainly a disappointing twist. But disaster is a strong word. This is going to sound like a rationalization, but here are some facts about why this is not a "disaster."

1) The Class of 2008 is historically bad. Monroe is a very good player, but it's not like Duke just lost the next Kevin Durant. Recruiting rankings don't have the benefit of context -- Monroe might not have cracked the top-10 in several other classes.

2) Monroe does have size though, which (to me) was his biggest appeal. But that won't be as big an issue if A) Singler proves he can play inside B) Zoubek develops the way people expect by the time he's a junior C) Thomas continues to get stronger and D) Czyz can give Duke anything. Really, it cuts Duke's margin for errors significantly and means Duke's current players must progress. But, that's certainly a possibility.

3) Duke can go hard after bigs in the talent-rich Class of 2009. Long-term, that might be a blessing.

Again, this is disappointing, but there are enough pieces in place to avoid this being a "disaster."


Hate to disagree with you Jumbo, I rarely do. But this is a HUGE disaster for Duke and I think we all know it down deep inside. I've seen us all discussing this upcomming season and everyone has been worried about the center / power forward positions. But we've all been thinking if we could make it through this season at least we had help coming into Duke in the form of Monroe. Now that carpet has been yanked out from under our feet. Not as late in the season as Patterson, but late enough where any centers of value are left. Granted the over all class is weak but I'd rather have a number one rated center from a bad class than no center at all. I'm sure the Duke and LSU coaching staff are both in shock. But I guess it shows how much recruiting annalysts actually know.

Man after finally getting to watch Duke play football on TV for the first time in God knows how long. (And watching them knock out the opposing QB even!) Then watching them get torn apart like a pitt bull at a Michael Vick party, this SUCKS. I am actually depressed now, where's my bottle of tequilla!!!!!!

pfrduke
10-13-2007, 07:08 PM
Maybe the word BIG isn't emphasized enough when we say athletic big. What I mean is maybe more a "big athletic big," and big doesn't mean tall, but strong and powerful. No one would consider Josh powerful. And Kyle Singler certainly has never had the word "power" attached to him. Obviously Lance isn't powerful. But the guys we have missed on are certain big shouldered, large bicep "big athletic bigs." I think that burly power is essential to a winning basketball program.

I do think that by his junior year Brian Zoubek will be decent enough to play. Heck, he might be okay this year, who knows? But as of now I would much rather have him as a second big option with a serious high-talent "big athletic big" as a first big option.

Just to quibble, Brandan Wright isn't exactly "big shouldered, large bicep" powerful. He was athletic as all get out, could leap and run with the best of them, and was extremely effective as a post scorer. But he wasn't "BIG" to use your terms. He was more like a better version of Lance Thomas - same mold of player, one just had more success last year.

Am I disappointed Monroe decided to go elsewhere? Sure. Do I think it's the end of the world? No. All it does it put pressure on Zoubek, Thomas, Singler, and Czyz to improve and perform. All these guys are high profile recruits who have obvious talent. If all mature and progress to their potential, we'll have an excellent interior game, to complement a great collection of guards/wings.

Uncle Drew
10-13-2007, 07:23 PM
Just to quibble, Brandan Wright isn't exactly "big shouldered, large bicep" powerful. He was athletic as all get out, could leap and run with the best of them, and was extremely effective as a post scorer. But he wasn't "BIG" to use your terms. He was more like a better version of Lance Thomas - same mold of player, one just had more success last year.

Am I disappointed Monroe decided to go elsewhere? Sure. Do I think it's the end of the world? No. All it does it put pressure on Zoubek, Thomas, Singler, and Czyz to improve and perform. All these guys are high profile recruits who have obvious talent. If all mature and progress to their potential, we'll have an excellent interior game, to complement a great collection of guards/wings.

And if I hit the winning numbers for powerball tonight, my retirement portfolio won't look like a malnourished crystal meth addict. (Sorry I started drinking the tequilla, it makes me mean and sarcastic.) I envy your optimism pfr, I wish I could look at the glass as half full. But the next two seasons are going to be played without a "safety net" now. And all those if's you mention don't happen, Duke is for in a long couple of seasons. We all remember having Greg Newton at center for a couple of years and how frustrating that was. God I hope Zoubek and Lance pull it off or it could make the Newton years look like the wonder years.

Indoor66
10-13-2007, 07:42 PM
Pessimism about Duke Basketball is a non-win additude. Duke will be fine. We will compete at the highest level. No one player makes or breaks Duke. I have no doubt the coaches have other targets for 08 and 09 - that, guess what, they haven't told us about. Who knew about Olek 6 months ago?

Johnny B
10-13-2007, 08:48 PM
I understand that ranking players in upcoming recruiting classes frequently doesn't translate to actual performance at college. Therefore I don't think one player not choosing Duke is a reason for depression to set in. However, I do wonder whether Duke is now less succesful in attracting higher ranked athletes than in previous years. I don't have that data, but after reading this board for a few years, I know someone out there must have that information.

If the premise is correct and we are less succesful at recruiting, the question is why? Could this be due to Coach K's Team USA efforts? I understand that the hours these coaches put in is enormous and there is only so many hours in a week. There must, rationally, be less time spent working with Duke, if any time at all is spent on the national team. Or could this be fallout? Perceptions of Duke created by the lacrosse affair whereby, unfairly, Duke was portrayed as a white, elitist, and racist institution. It may not matter that the Lacrosse players were innocent and, indeed, were the real victims, it's just that impressions can last.

Thoughts?

jimsumner
10-13-2007, 09:11 PM
Below are the consensus rankings of high school players in the last two classes. Hard to find much evidence of slippage.

Lance Thomas showed considerable promise last season. He needs more confidence and more consistency and I expect we'll see both this season. But performances like Air Force and the first BC game are reasons for optimism.


http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/RSCI_100_PostSeason_2006.htm

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/RSCI_100_Final_2007.htm

wiscodevil
10-13-2007, 09:16 PM
of some of the fans in this thread is mind-boggling.

shadycharacter
10-13-2007, 09:23 PM
I think a trap easy to fall into with a recruiting miss is the assumption that guy would of course have been terrific.....while all the guys we already have may or may not come through--they are just hypotheticals.

A few years ago Chris Burgess was ranked #1 much of his senior year, and his commitment supposedly was the cornerstone in a great recruiting class. Yet when he transferred, we hardly noticed.

We thanked the stars above for Casey Sanders after many thought he was more likely headed to, as I remember, Florida. Great guy, never a star here.

We got Shav's commitment, one of the most famous HS players in NC history, only after a long and furious struggle. How did that work out?

McRoberts was ranked #1, and he supposedly was going to return us to the greatness of the '90's. Left after his soph season, and many of us were not sure whether we were sorry or not.

On the other hand, Maryland won their only NC ever without a true center, only by plugging in a Lonny Baxter most of us had never heard of until he became an upper classman.

Would Monroe have been our saviour, or more resembled one of the above who never came close to reaching the hopes the faithful had for them?

Dunno. But I, and we, do know we have a great bunch of dedicated and very talented guys who did come, and who are giving and will give 100% for Duke and to reward our faith in them--at least those of us who have faith in them. Count me in that number.

Johnny B
10-13-2007, 09:24 PM
of some of the fans in this thread is mind-boggling.

I hope it's not a sense of entitlement, but perhaps I could be corrected by others on that. Just simply asking if there is any data to support or refute recruitment concerns. Perhaps I'm just a data-happy type guy and get some solace from facts and figures. Than again, perhaps I need a life!:rolleyes:

wiscodevil
10-13-2007, 09:29 PM
I hope it's not a sense of entitlement, but perhaps I could be corrected by others on that. Just simply asking if there is any data to support or refute recruitment concerns. Perhaps I'm just a data-happy type guy and get some solace from facts and figures. Than again, perhaps I need a life!:rolleyes:

I was referring to people who cannot believe Greg Monroe didn't choose Duke, or Duke somehow failed because they don't get every recruit they covet. I've seen these types of comments on these boards before. The post above listing the "can't miss" targets Duke landed who, well, missed, is a more rational and enlightened approach to recruiting.

Cheer for the guys Duke gets - which happens to be just about everyone they want. geesh!

Bob Green
10-13-2007, 09:45 PM
If the premise is correct and we are less succesful at recruiting, the question is why? Could this be due to Coach K's Team USA efforts?



I do not believe that our recruiting has slipped. We have brought in highly ranked recruits the past several years: McRoberts, Paulus, Henderson, Scheyer, Thomas, Zoubek, Singler, Smith, & King. Our roster is packed with Big Macs!

As far as Coach K's Team USA efforts, IMO the positive press he has received from established NBA stars such as Kobe Bryant will have a positive effect in the long run.

ACCBBallFan
10-13-2007, 09:47 PM
I agree with the point Jumbo made earlier that not having a one and done 2008 big Greg Monroe makes recruiting 2009 bigs an easier task, since recruits can never be sure that the guy will not be a little less than advertised but still darn good, and stay two years, hurting their freshman PT as a big.

That is, unless Zoubek-Lance-Kingsnoggle turn out to be a much better post defense by committee than most expect, in which case not as big a need for 2009 bigs.

There were enough parallels to Monroe's preferred style of play and Josh McRoberts' that I do think Josh falling to second round draft choice played a role in Monroe's decision, vis a vis where Jeff Green was drafted.

As with the Patterson whiff, it does pretty much force coach K into investing time in Zoubek's development this year, versus that mythical bigs take 2-3 years to develop. You can bet that with Monroe and Singler, Zoubek would not have been developed next year (his third year) unless he makes the most of his opportunities this year, making it necessary to transition Kyle to 3 and Monroe to 4. Then with only one year to go, why play him.

Now more than ever, I think K needs to exercise extreme patience with Zoubek this year as he did with Scheyer last year and Paulus both years. It will pay huge dividends at end of thus season and the following two years.

Whatever Zoubek does or does not develop into, Lance is not an ideal 5 offensively or defensively nor is Kingsnoggle an ideal role. So Duke needs to recruit quality 3-4 year bigs as in tall and burly bangers, in 2009 and 2010.

Not having doubts over whether Greg Monroe will end up staying more than one year, makes that recruitment of big and burly in 2009 somewhat easier.

I am OK with K rolling the dice on Greg Monroe and taking his chances with Zoubek/Lance who were highly prized recruits a couple years ago and will have two full years of experience by the time Monroe would have arrived. Same with Elliot Williams, good player absolutely, but so is Marty and Nolan.

Though having only Olek is not ideal from a down the road leadership perspective, the time to panic is if 2009 is not a big and top class, not 2008 since after 2009 Greg, Marty, Dave are certainly gone and possibly Gerald/Kyle (Nelson gone after this year). But with 10 returnees next year, Duke can still be a very good team, though even better, particularly long term, if they also get Elliot Williams.

NCSU&UNCgrad
10-13-2007, 10:03 PM
Duke will have Thomas, Zoubek, McClure, King, Singler, and Czyz in the post for 08-09, which will be the best front court in America.

A. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Monroe opted for GT b/c he'll have much less competition for playing time there.

B. Thomas is the "same" player as Monroe, and he'll have 2 years ACC experience on Monroe...Thomas will be better in 08-09.

C. Zoubek will be a beast by then. As a junior, he should be able to do everything Oden did as a freshman, and probably more.

D. Duke has 30 combined post fouls that season...Monroe, who thinks he's a 3, isn't even needed.

DBFAN
10-13-2007, 10:16 PM
I come home from a pretty long day, and am getting ready to check my e-mail, but I stop by DBR first, well I did not stop by it is my homepage, and I see the Greg Monroe thing. I just do not know what to say. At this rate we are going to be playing second fiddle to the team down the road for a long time. I just do not know why we are missing on our recruits. I understand that we get a very good selection of players, but every group needs that one go to guy to solidify everything. I just feel that we may be on the outside looking in for awhile. I still just can not believe that kid did not even take a look at us, this is just great.

Cameron
10-13-2007, 10:18 PM
Kingsnoggle

Get it right, it's King Taylor. What are you trying to do, hijack my perfectly formulated plan to make King Taylor a national brand? :)

jipops
10-13-2007, 10:34 PM
Pretty much with one hand a person can count the number of teams Coach K has led with any sort of elite-level athletic big in the middle. You obviously need more than one hand to count K's Final Four teams.

Relax people, an explosive athletic big has always been a rarity at Duke. Elton Brand was probably K's first and he didn't exactly jump out of the gym. Boozer, he's been a better athlete in the pros than at Duke but certainly never known for his D. Shelden, great D, decent athlete.

Who else you got in the K years. Laettner? - weren't we talking about athletic?, Abdelnaby? , Cherokee?, Bilas?

For probably the next two seasons we're featuring a frontcourt of 7-1 (Z), 6-8 (according to some Singler is 6-9), 6-8 (Lance), 6-6.5 (King), 6-6 (McClure). Throw in a 6-8 Cycz for next season. In terms of height that's about as big as any of our past frontlines have been.

Again, relax people.

Jumbo
10-13-2007, 10:48 PM
Maybe the word BIG isn't emphasized enough when we say athletic big. What I mean is maybe more a "big athletic big," and big doesn't mean tall, but strong and powerful. No one would consider Josh powerful. And Kyle Singler certainly has never had the word "power" attached to him. Obviously Lance isn't powerful. But the guys we have missed on are certain big shouldered, large bicep "big athletic bigs." I think that burly power is essential to a winning basketball program.

I do think that by his junior year Brian Zoubek will be decent enough to play. Heck, he might be okay this year, who knows? But as of now I would much rather have him as a second big option with a serious high-talent "big athletic big" as a first big option.

Have you seen Monroe? He's not built any more powerfully than Josh. He's a slender big with perimeter skills -- perfect for Georgetown's Princeton Offense.

Uncle Drew
10-13-2007, 10:49 PM
I come home from a pretty long day, and am getting ready to check my e-mail, but I stop by DBR first, well I did not stop by it is my homepage, and I see the Greg Monroe thing. I just do not know what to say. At this rate we are going to be playing second fiddle to the team down the road for a long time. I just do not know why we are missing on our recruits. I understand that we get a very good selection of players, but every group needs that one go to guy to solidify everything. I just feel that we may be on the outside looking in for awhile. I still just can not believe that kid did not even take a look at us, this is just great.


This is a quote from Rivals about the evil empire:

Everything is coming together at the right time for UNC. While the bulk of the ACC teams appear to be regressing – eight other teams lost their best player – the Heels remain loaded. Hansbrough is the league's best player, and Lawson - who is poised for a great season - could emerge as the second-best. Ellington is a future NBA player. Thompson and Stepheson give the Tar Heels the size to match up with bigger frontcourts. Williams also has a solid group of experienced role players. Going undefeated in ACC play is a reasonable goal. Postseason success will depend largely on outside shooting and defense. If the Tar Heels do a solid job in both areas, they will have their second national title in four seasons.

There are a ton of people on here who are going to say we all should compare Duke to Duke, and let them be the best team they can be year in and year out. Are we as fans spoiled? Of course we are! We want to Duke to be a top 5 team every year, best team in the ACC most years and best team in the state EVERY year. Monroe may not be the tallent that a Durrant or Oden are. And even if his game was more along the lines of McRoberts than Elton Brand it's still a damn good player who won't be suiting up for Duke. Meanwhile we pin our hopes on player development. Everyone of us has seen players improve vastly in the past but we've all seen them improve little from Freshmen to Seniors too. Center / Power Forward was a hole in the line up even before McRoberts bolted. Now it's a gash that can't be filled with in comming tallent for two years instead of one. I hope Lance and Zoubek do step it up. The whole point is, if they don't Duke has NOTHING to fall back on. Not just this up coming season but next season too.

Duke finished what 6th in the ACC last year? And I don't see how losing probably your best player improves a team, even as good as I know Singler is and I know the freshmen can improve. Meanwhile the bastards in light blue are going to walk all over the ACC this year and I can only hope to God they don't win it all.

monkey
10-13-2007, 10:53 PM
booo!!! hisss!!!:(

Jumbo
10-13-2007, 11:36 PM
Reading through this thread again, I've seen a lot of stuff that upsets me. I've touched on some stuff already, but I've got a few other points I want to make.

1) Someone commented on a sense of entitlement among some posters, and that person was dead on. Duke is going to lose some recruits. Duke has lost many recruits in the past, including during whatever you'd define as the "glory years." Duke is not the best school for every recruit, and choosing a different place doesn't make a kid a bad person.

2) Part in parcel to the above, Georgetown is an excellent option for Greg Monroe, and I can't fault his motivation to go there at all. John Thompson III is an outstanding coach and a good person. The program is on the rise and located in a major city. It's a good academic school. It runs the Princeton Offense, perfect for an inside-out 6'10" guy like Monroe. Sure, Duke offers myriad perks as well, but Monroe didn't exactly sell out his future by opting for the Hoyas.

3) Someone else made another great point that essentially spoke to the lure of unseen potential, contrasted with the way said imagination tends to disappear once we've seen a player. Guys like Zoubek and Thomas were lauded for their potential a year ago; now it seems like half the board doesn't think they're even capable of being solid starters at any point in their careers? Why? Based off one season? Duke's had plenty of guys who improved tremendously after doing very little as freshmen. If Greg Monroe had come to Duke and disappointed as a freshman, would we have suddenly written off his career too? There is a logical fallacy here, and it's silly.

4) Greg Monroe is hardly a guaranteed one-and-done player. Again, this kid is not Durant. He's a top-five player in a weak class. There's no guarantee that his NBA stock will be super-high after one college season.

5) A lot has been said about the trio of Brandan Wright, Patrick Patterson and Monroe. Wright would have been a great addition last year -- he easily could have vaulted Duke into the top-10 (at minimum). But he left after one year. So Duke would be in the same position today -- just with more success last season. Anyone who followed the Patrick Patterson recruitment closely knows Duke very well might have dodged a bullet with him. Monroe's decision hurts, but for all the reasons listed here and in my other posts, it isn't exactly a killer.

6) An amazing aspect of this whole saga is the way Kyle Singler is being underrated. I love the fact that a good portion of this board have no idea what's about to hit them in a few weeks. People seem to have this notion that he's a small forward. He's not. Sure, maybe he could slide there in the pros, but Kyle is a perfect Duke 4 who can play some 5. He's 6'9" and more powerful than people realize. There are very few bigs in the ACC -- or the rest of the country -- that Kyle can't, at the very least, battle defensively. And he'll cause a huge mismatch on offense. Consider this -- Laettner was listed as 6'11" 235 at Duke. Singler is listed as 6'8" 220 on Duke's website, and K has repeatedly said he's actually 6'9." Is that a huge difference?
Honestly, my biggest fear is that Singler will be so good that he entertains draft thoughts this spring. Thankfully, I get the feeling that he'd stay for at least two years, regardless of his status. I hope I'm not wrong about that.

7) Duke doesn't "need" Elliott Williams. Sure, he'd be a great addition. But Duke should have Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Pocius and King back next year. That's PLENTY of perimeter talent.

8) Getting back to the development of Thomas and Zoubek, the Monroe decision could be a blessing in disguise for them. Instead of feeling as if a replacement is waiting in the wings next season, both should be confident knowing there's a ton of playing time available for the next two season. Now, maybe the impending sense of competition might have been strong motivation to improve. But it's just as easy to argue that the sense of job security both should have might enable them to relax, leading to improvement. Either way, it's hard to imagine that both won't get better.

9) Finally, as Jim Sumner said, the Class of 2009 is key. It's loaded. Duke is after a lot of prospects (as opposed to the Class of 2008, which presented very few viable options). If Duke lands a couple of key guys in the 2009 class, we shouldn't worry, and we should just hope that the guys we were sweating as recruits just two years ago pan out as veterans. If Duke somehow gets shut out in the Class of 2009, given the number of players we're chasing and the opportunities available to them, then I will join some of you in worrying about the overall state of Duke's recruiting. But right now, the evidence just isn't there to reach any grand conclusions.

10) Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler is a quartet capable of competing with any team in the country. Good luck finding me two players as good as Gerald Henderson and Nolan Smith coming off anyone else's bench. Zoubek, Thomas and McClure merely need to be decent, match up to different sized/skilled opponents and show solid progression for this Duke team to be really good. And, assuming everyone returns the following year, you've got a rarity in college hoops -- a group that has been together for a long time. In short, the future is bright. Would it have been brighter with Greg Monroe? Sure. But Duke's fine. Trust me.

Oriole Way
10-13-2007, 11:38 PM
I understand "disaster" is a strong word, but taken in the view of "college basketball disaster" it is pretty close.

Jumbo, you put out a bunch of hypotheticals. They are just that; hypothetical. If Zoubek gets good, if Lance Thomas becomes a big strong guy, if Kyle Singler actually sticks around, and so on and so forth. None of that overcomes, as some people have said, that we have missed on some true bigs lately, and this miss is another big one (pun intended.) While I adore our guards and wings, I don't think a team of guards and wings can win a national title. As we were only looking at a couple of bigs these last few years, missing on all of them is a bad deal. To me it feels like all of that guard talent will end up being wasted as the team won't have that piece it needs to truly perform when it counts.

I know that there are some fans who will say "No biggie, it doesn't matter" but I can't be one of those; recruiting the best players does matter, as does filling positions on a basketball team, and missing out on a bunch of them is a bad sign. There was a time just a few years back when it felt like we could get almost anyone. Now it feels unusual to actually be considered by the top players. Now this might be the way things will be; maybe Coach K has decided to NOT go after the 1 year guys and instead to really develop a 3 and 4 year program. If so I applaud that, but the growing pains we'll experience in the meantime, especially since these are the years those growing pains will really be obvious, will hurt.

Lord I hope Singler is real good.


I wholeheartedly agree with posters like Lord Ash and Gary on this issue. This is a disappointing and negative development. Will Duke still be fine without Greg Monroe? Of course. Will we land another top 10 big man eventually? Of course. But on the heels of failing to get Patrick Patterson, and having a talented team that is an impact big man away from being a national championship favorite, this is bad news. This seems to be a trend, and it's disquieting. Just because some posters point this out does not make them "entitled" nor spoiled. We just observe something and we're concerned.

Dismissing losing a consensus top 5 player, no matter how weak the class, doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line is that Duke would be better off had Monroe committed here, even if just for one year. Otherwise Coach K would never have recruited him. What is really disconcerting is that he committed without taking his last official visit here. That just doesn't happen with our top-priority recruits. Losing Patterson was probably a bigger loss than Monroe, and Brandan Wright was the biggest loss in the past several years.

I know every school loses out on their top targets, and this won't be the last time, but what concerns me is that several of them have been impact big men (big men in the sense of a college power forward), and all of those players would have addressed Duke's biggest deficiencies both at the time and and a few years down the road. I don't like to play the "what if?" game, but if Duke had landed Jared Jeffries (the first player to mark what I believe was a slip in Duke's recruiting), we would have 4 National Titles. In the case of Jeffries, he literally beat us in 2002 instead of helping us win the tourney. I can only hope Patterson and Monroe don't follow suit.

I think concern about Duke's approach to recruiting is warranted. I'm just interested to see what K does to adjust, and I hope members of this board aren't quick to dismiss this as a disappointment, nor dismiss the opinions of those who think it is.

jipops
10-13-2007, 11:56 PM
After Coach K, would anybody even want the Duke job? Not only are 22 win seasons viewed as a disaster but losing out on a few top 10 recruits (while gaining one or two in the process) has the fans crying of impending doom.

Then again, I have to remind myself that most of the people up in arms about this sort of thing are post - '99 fans.

jipops
10-14-2007, 12:02 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with posters like Lord Ash and Gary on this issue. This is a disappointing and negative development. Will Duke still be fine without Greg Monroe? Of course. Will we land another top 10 big man eventually? Of course. But on the heels of failing to get Patrick Patterson, and having a talented team that is an impact big man away from being a national championship favorite, this is bad news. This seems to be a trend, and it's disquieting. Just because some posters point this out does not make them "entitled" nor spoiled. We just observe something and we're concerned.

Dismissing losing a consensus top 5 player, no matter how weak the class, doesn't make much sense to me. The bottom line is that Duke would be better off had Monroe committed here, even if just for one year. Otherwise Coach K would never have recruited him. What is really disconcerting is that he committed without taking his last official visit here. That just doesn't happen with our top-priority recruits. Losing Patterson was probably a bigger loss than Monroe, and Brandan Wright was the biggest loss in the past several years.

I know every school loses out on their top targets, and this won't be the last time, but what concerns me is that several of them have been impact big men (big men in the sense of a college power forward), and all of those players would have addressed Duke's biggest deficiencies both at the time and and a few years down the road. I don't like to play the "what if?" game, but if Duke had landed Jared Jeffries (the first player to mark what I believe was a slip in Duke's recruiting), we would have 4 National Titles. In the case of Jeffries, he literally beat us in 2002 instead of helping us win the tourney. I can only hope Patterson and Monroe don't follow suit.

I think concern about Duke's approach to recruiting is warranted. I'm just interested to see what K does to adjust, and I hope members of this board aren't quick to dismiss this as a disappointment, nor dismiss the opinions of those who think it is.

Actually, I think it was back in '94 or '95 when we lost Adonal Foyle to Colgate that began K's slippage in recruiting. No wait, it was '85 when we lost David Robinson to Navy. No wait, it was in the early 80's when we lost Bill Wennington to St. John's. No wait...

Lord Ash
10-14-2007, 12:05 AM
A few things;

I COMPLETELY disagree about the entitlement stuff. You are wrong. No one here has said "We deserve to win every year and we should win every year and get every recruit." No one.

What people HAVE said is "We WANT to win every year and we WANT to get every recruit, and we are disappointed at a few recent misses." Seriously, there is nothing wrong with wanting the best and being upset when things don't go your way. It has nothing to do with entitlement; it has to do with the highest expectations and, more importantly, the most passionate desires.

Jumbo, I think you have thrown up some straw men there in your points.

No one said Georgetown wasn't a good fit realistically, except in moments of pique.

Yes, Greg and Lance were much lauded; unfortunately last year they did not perform very well, and certainly did not perform like some recent bigs who have gone on to dominant careers at Duke. When you see that for a year, and then you know there is no help coming for at least two years, it is okay to say "Hm, we seem a bit weak in the big man department." I've seen every Kyle video out there, and he is NOT a big man in a big bruising way. Yes he looks FANTASTIC, and I am sure will be a very special Dukie, but I don't think he will be a down-low banger. I do worry he is a one and done guy tho.

I do hope that Zoubs and Lance, with a little time, DO develop into the types of guys who can really dominate. We all could easily be eating our depressing words in a year or two, and I truly hope we will be! (Yum, crow!)

But I do think that fans are allowed to ask questions and, when they have been watching basketball for years and have a basic understanding of what a team needs to succeed and they see a hole in a vital position of a team they love more than any other... well, I think it is understandable.

mgtr
10-14-2007, 12:16 AM
I would rather have GM on our team than not have him. However, if a kid makes a bunch of statements about delaying his decision, about how he always liked Duke, about wanting to make all his visits, and then jumps on a team in the heat of the moment, I think it raises questions about his decision making process and his maturity (even for a HS kid).
I think K's recruitment process is a more cerebral approach, and is geared to the parents as well as the kid. It works for some, and not for others. We may need to have more targets out into the future, but, on the whole, I cast my lot with Coach K.

Oriole Way
10-14-2007, 12:16 AM
Actually, I think it was back in '94 or '95 when we lost Adonal Foyle to Colgate that began K's slippage in recruiting. No wait, it was '85 when we lost David Robinson to Navy. No wait, it was in the early 80's when we lost Bill Wennington to St. John's. No wait...

That's exactly the kind of response I was hoping to avoid.

I'm not saying Coach K can't recruit anymore. Not sure why I'm attempting to explain myself, but just I hope I can discuss/debate some more serious responses.

Patrick Yates
10-14-2007, 12:20 AM
There is no way to put lipstick on this pig. This is bad. Is it disasterous, well, we do not know yet. We won't know until next year, when we see Duke and Monroe in action.

But this is not good. There is no way to spin this as anything but bad.

Many on this board, most of whom are now saying No Biggie, were recently stating that Duke was at the very least in the lead. Duke was the best (actuall, most said it was the only remotely intelligent) decision for Monroe.

Obviously not. A lot is being pinned on Zoubs and Thomas. I would feel a lot better about this were it not for Burgess, Shavlick, McBob, Newton, Casey, Boateng, and other bigs. Really, Duke has only developed three true Bigs (Shane and Dunleavy were more combos, and I defy anyone to compare Zoubs and LT to Shane or Dun) during the last decade or so, those being Sheldon, Brand, and Boozer. Each of those three players produced far more than Zoubs and LT (combined) even as Frosh. But, all three arrived on campus essentially stepping into voids, which did not exist for LT and Zoubs (due to McBob, but a little more production would have been killer).

Frankly, I do not really attribute Brand nor Boozer's development to the current staff. Williams developed more noticeably during his career at Duke, but he was not leaps and bounds better as a Sr than a Frosh. His improvement was about what you would expect for a player competing with skilled players every day.

All three did get into better shape during their careers.

But, I think we may be putting too much eggs into the player improvement basket. Especially since recent results show that the odds are against BOTH LT and Zoubs significantly improving while at Duke.

And whoever wrote that Duke's frontline will be the best next year is wrong. Singler will be good. But the rest currently resemble supporting players. There is not a true low post presence in the fold.

The reason many here are doom and gloom is because Duke will not be dominant to the level we expect. Yes maybe we as fans are spoiled, but it is by expecting high quality that you get good quality. Will Duke be OK sans Monroe? Sure. We won't be bad. But, we might not be great either. Given the climate today, greatness might be required for the FF and NC.

A dark Day at Duke, for many reasons.

Patrick Yates

ps. Currently, Duke has 1 recruit. He is not, by his own admission, ready to contribute significantly as soon as he arrives. He has almost no chance at garnering any significant all america acclaim in HS. (not that this is bad, because Olek has diamond in the rough/hidden gem written all over him, and in 3-4 years he could be a stud). This is kind of a comedown for Duke. Given that Monroe is no longer in the fold, Duke is no longer a slam Dunk preseason favorite next year. For those in the "we'll get Williams cause Duke is the best place to win the NC in 08-09, what are your thoughts?"

Jumbo
10-14-2007, 12:21 AM
A few things;

I COMPLETELY disagree about the entitlement stuff. You are wrong. No one here has said "We deserve to win every year and we should win every year and get every recruit." No one.

What people HAVE said is "We WANT to win every year and we WANT to get every recruit, and we are disappointed at a few recent misses." Seriously, there is nothing wrong with wanting the best and being upset when things don't go your way. It has nothing to do with entitlement; it has to do with the highest expectations and, more importantly, the most passionate desires.

I think you are parsing, here. Who says, "I want, I want, I want" without a realistic expectation that "I'll get, I'll get, I'll get?" I think some of the Wright/Patterson/Monroe posts display a definite air of entitlement.


No one said Georgetown wasn't a good fit realistically, except in moments of pique.

Why are "moments of pique" excused. Here's what Cameron said, for instance: "He just made a HUGE mistake, as our 2008-09 squad has national champion written all over them (as long as Greg doesn't spaz out on us)... But, anyway, sorry you made such a poor decision, Greg. Letting the Duke experience slip away is your loss."


Yes, Greg and Lance were much lauded; unfortunately last year they did not perform very well, and certainly did not perform like some recent bigs who have gone on to dominant careers at Duke. When you see that for a year, and then you know there is no help coming for at least two years, it is okay to say "Hm, we seem a bit weak in the big man department."

What did you think of Shelden as a freshmen, when he was unbelievably inconsistent and was arguably outperformed by Casey Sanders and Nick Horvath for much of the season? We've seen exactly one year out of Zoubek/Thomas. That's not nearly enough time to judge what they will eventually become.


I've seen every Kyle video out there, and he is NOT a big man in a big bruising way. Yes he looks FANTASTIC, and I am sure will be a very special Dukie, but I don't think he will be a down-low banger. I do worry he is a one and done guy tho.
I've seen him play in person. He's not going to block shots. He's not going to grab 15 rebounds. But he can score in the post, and he can defend most college bigs. The few guys who are truly too big and too strong for Kyle (and who also are skilled enough to matter on offense) will be a problem, especially if Zoubek and Thomas don't step up. But they'd be a problem for just about every team in the country, and Duke still will have other ways to beat said hypothetical team. Plus, K's philosophy on D has always been that it's easier to guard "up" than it is to guard "down." I completely agree with that.


But I do think that fans are allowed to ask questions and, when they have been watching basketball for years and have a basic understanding of what a team needs to succeed and they see a hole in a vital position of a team they love more than any other... well, I think it is understandable.

Of course fans should ask questions. That's why we're here. The key, of course, is tone. Well, that and understanding that different people have different opinions of what "a team needs to succeed."

Jumbo
10-14-2007, 12:42 AM
Many on this board, most of whom are now saying No Biggie, were recently stating that Duke was at the very least in the lead. Duke was the best (actuall, most said it was the only remotely intelligent) decision for Monroe.
A) Who is saying "No Biggie?" And B) Where were they saying the stuff about Duke being the only destination for Monroe?


Obviously not. A lot is being pinned on Zoubs and Thomas. I would feel a lot better about this were it not for Burgess, Shavlick, McBob, Newton, Casey, Boateng, and other bigs. Really, Duke has only developed three true Bigs (Shane and Dunleavy were more combos, and I defy anyone to compare Zoubs and LT to Shane or Dun) during the last decade or so, those being Sheldon, Brand, and Boozer. Each of those three players produced far more than Zoubs and LT (combined) even as Frosh. But, all three arrived on campus essentially stepping into voids, which did not exist for LT and Zoubs (due to McBob, but a little more production would have been killer).
Who is "Shavlick?" Who is "Sheldon?" What did you think of Shelden as a freshman? Did you ever think he would be as good as he ended up? I'll dispute your list of guys who didn't improve -- Casey was much better as a senior, Newton had a strong junior year before going off the reservation, and Boateng transferred before he ever had a chance to develop. Another thing to keep in mind is that in most cases, those bigs were playing at the same time as another true big. Casey was never going to surpass Boozer. Burgess was never going to surpass Brand. Michael Thompson (who transferred early) and Shav were never going to surpass Shelden. Zoubek and Lance are in a different situation -- the 5 spot is wide open and waiting to be grabbed. Also (and this is crticial), neither Zoubek nor Thomas has to be close to as good as Brand/Boozer/Williams for Duke to be an excellent team. If either of those guys is simply solid this year and next year, Duke has more than enough surrounding talent to win, and win big. Duke has ALWAYS employed role players in the starting lineup. It just so happens that Duke needs its 5 to be a role player for the next couple of seasons.


Frankly, I do not really attribute Brand nor Boozer's development to the current staff. Williams developed more noticeably during his career at Duke, but he was not leaps and bounds better as a Sr than a Frosh. His improvement was about what you would expect for a player competing with skilled players every day.

That is complete hogwash. Williams often looked lost as a freshman. He didn't know what to do with the ball, was foul-prone and remarkably inconsistent. By his senior season, Shelden was a rock. He had a host of post moves -- power moves in both directions, and up-and-under, a fadeaway, a face-up 15-footer, and a baby hook. He did an excellent job of avoiding fouls despite playing heavy minutes. And he was remarkably consistent. It's amazing that you can just ignore the staff for any improvement good players make, yet zap the coaches when guys don't develop.


And whoever wrote that Duke's frontline will be the best next year is wrong. Singler will be good. But the rest currently resemble supporting players. There is not a true low post presence in the fold.

I don't know who wrote that, but Duke's frontline won't be "the best" next year. It doesn't have to be. As I said, the committtee at the 5-spot simply needs to be decent for Duke to have an excellent season. That is far from an unrealistic expectation.


The reason many here are doom and gloom is because Duke will not be dominant to the level we expect. Yes maybe we as fans are spoiled, but it is by expecting high quality that you get good quality. Will Duke be OK sans Monroe? Sure. We won't be bad. But, we might not be great either. Given the climate today, greatness might be required for the FF and NC.
High quality and dominance are two different things. And at some point, we have to measure whether our expectations are realistic. Plus, wouldn't it make sense to see how some of this season plays out before determining just how big an impact Monroe would, or wouldn't, have made the following year?


ps. Currently, Duke has 1 recruit. He is not, by his own admission, ready to contribute significantly as soon as he arrives. He has almost no chance at garnering any significant all america acclaim in HS. (not that this is bad, because Olek has diamond in the rough/hidden gem written all over him, and in 3-4 years he could be a stud). This is kind of a comedown for Duke. Given that Monroe is no longer in the fold, Duke is no longer a slam Dunk preseason favorite next year. For those in the "we'll get Williams cause Duke is the best place to win the NC in 08-09, what are your thoughts?"

I don't know what those people would say about Williams. I'm not worried, because Williams is not a huge priority for me. As I've said, I'm more concerned about the Class of 2009. I want to land a big from that class (way more than I wanted to land Monroe). And, ideally, it would be great to get a true PG too. As far as 2008 goes and the whole "one recruit" deal, I don't think it's important. Again, Duke intentionally did not recruit many guys. There aren't many scholarships to go around, and it's better to save those for the loaded 2009 class than waste them on guys from the weak 2008 class who probably won't contribute. Even if Duke doesn't land Williams, 10 guys will be on scholarship (assuming no early attrition): Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Pocius, Singler, King, Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, Czyz. That's a lot of guys and, obviously, the largest class Duke could have built for 2008 would have been a three-man group. I would have loved to add Monroe, but it's tough to fill all 13 scholarship slots with high-quality players. And Duke, again, is concentrating heavily on the 2009 class, when at least five scholarships should be available (the two vacant ones plus Paulus', Pocius' and McClure's). As I've said, let's see what happens with that group before we jump to major conclusions.

Oriole Way
10-14-2007, 02:07 AM
I don't know what those people would say about Williams. I'm not worried, because Williams is not a huge priority for me. As I've said, I'm more concerned about the Class of 2009. I want to land a big from that class (way more than I wanted to land Monroe). And, ideally, it would be great to get a true PG too. As far as 2008 goes and the whole "one recruit" deal, I don't think it's important. Again, Duke intentionally did not recruit many guys. There aren't many scholarships to go around, and it's better to save those for the loaded 2009 class than waste them on guys from the weak 2008 class who probably won't contribute. Even if Duke doesn't land Williams, 10 guys will be on scholarship (assuming no early attrition): Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Pocius, Singler, King, Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, Czyz. That's a lot of guys and, obviously, the largest class Duke could have built for 2008 would have been a three-man group. I would have loved to add Monroe, but it's tough to fill all 13 scholarship slots with high-quality players. And Duke, again, is concentrating heavily on the 2009 class, when at least five scholarships should be available (the two vacant ones plus Paulus', Pocius' and McClure's). As I've said, let's see what happens with that group before we jump to major conclusions.


Hey Jumbo,

I agree with most of what you point out, however I think it's a little unwise to count on the class of 2009 so much. By the the time those guys will be in a position to win anything, the rest of the pieces already in place now will be gone. One reason I'm disappointed by the recent big men "losses", as well as the transfer of Eric Boateng, is because they would mesh well with our guards and other current players in what would be a championship-calibre team.

Now we're looking ahead to 2009. And you know what, wouldn't it make sense that those of us who are dismayed by our current and past recruiting shortcomings have reason to believe that our chances of landing a top class in 2009 aren't that great?

Secondly, just because we are loaded with premium guards doesn't mean that losing Elliot Williams wouldn't also be a huge blow. He seems to be an impact, potential All-Conference type player who's a smart kid to boot - someone I'd love to have representing my school. For the same reasons I agree that we can't panic without seeing how Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek progress, I don't think we should be forgetting about kids we could get in '08 just because the '09 class looks so loaded.

bfree
10-14-2007, 02:18 AM
Hey Jumbo,

Now we're looking ahead to 2009. And you know what, wouldn't it make sense that those of us who are dismayed by our current and past recruiting shortcomings have reason to believe that our chances of landing a top class in 2009 aren't that great?


I know this is chicken-little territory, but I think this is a very important point.

SmartDevil
10-14-2007, 05:03 AM
Good luck at Georgetown, Greg.

I speak as someone who holds degrees from both instituions and as a DC resident.

A couple of thoughts.....

1.Georgetown plays its home schedule at the Verizon Center clear across town from Georgetown University. And I don't think a heck of a lot of the students care about the distance being too far to permit them to attend games And there's not a tremendous amount of on-campus excitement about the basketball program anyway. And the local populace is almost totally indifferent.

2. I thiink I recall Greg being one of those recruits who has professed great concern about academics. In my actual experience, Georgetown was an academic joke compared to Duke. My undergraduate career at Duke was FAR more challenging than my tenure at Georgetown's top-rated professional school. I also have rarely had anyone ooh and ah about my Georgetown degree while plenty of people regularly react with respect (even awe) regarding my Duke degree and what it represents.


Good luck, Greg. I'll be rooting for you at Georgetown. But I hope future recruits take a more intensive look at the differences between the two universities in general and their basketball programs in particular.

JasonEvans
10-14-2007, 07:12 AM
Are there really a large number of Duke fans who think our recruiting is slipping?!?!?! Really?!?!

Missing on Patterson (who we got in on VERY LATE and who is not all that great a prospect anyway) and Monroe and Wright is unfortunate, but no one... not even the great Duke led by Coach K... gets every recruit they want. Duke has missed out on so many stud players over the years listing them would take hours of time. What happened yesterday is not something new.

But, more on point, Duke has brought in more than its fair share of studs in recent years. Our current roster is loaded with major high school talent. I have not checked the stats lately, but I am fairly sure we continue to have more McDonald's All-Americans than any other school in college basketball as we have for the better part of the past decade (UNC is really the only other school who comes close).

As for big men, we just brought in the #2 big man in the class THIS YEAR in Kyle Singler. Last year we brought in a traditional huge post in Zoubek and a more athletic big in Thomas ONE YEAR AGO. Ummm, how much more success do you expect us to have getting big men? What would satisfy you people?

Lets look at how Duke's recruiting classes have ranked (according to RSCI) over the past several years:

2007 - #3
2006 - #3
2005 - #2

Wow, that sucks!! No other school has been in the top 5 in each of the past 3 years. Of course, it is also worth noting that a decline/down year after ourt past 3 classes makes a ton of sense as we simply do not have a lot of roles that need filling. As many others have pointed out, it is not like Monroe is guaranteed of being so varstly superior to the junior versions of LT/BZ that he would have been a sure-fire starter.

I am sure many of the pessimistic worriers look over at UNC and frown. you folks are aware that Carolina has whiffed on big-man after big-man lately, right? After their excellent 2005 and 2006 classes, they really took it on the chin this past year and missed on thier top several big man prospects in the current class before landing Ed Davis (who would not have been ranked ahead of LT or BZ had they been in the same class). You want something to panic about? Look at what Carolina's PG situation will be next season if, as expected, Lawson turns pro. Yikes!! I wold much rather be Duke with LT and BZ as your primary big men than Carolina with Frasor and top-50ish recruit Larry Drew as your only viable options at PG in 2008.

And, as so many have said, 2009 has always been where we were focussing in recruiting. If we don't land at least a couple Mickie Dees-level players from that class then I'll agree there may be something to worry about a little bit. But worying about our roster for next year... I'm not buying that.

--Jason "I think folks are fooled by how loaded we are for next season -- we really needed next-to nothing from the 2008 class" Evans

JasonEvans
10-14-2007, 07:26 AM
Now we're looking ahead to 2009. And you know what, wouldn't it make sense that those of us who are dismayed by our current and past recruiting shortcomings have reason to believe that our chances of landing a top class in 2009 aren't that great?


My answer is going to seem rude but...

Those of us who have followed recrutiing for years and understand the ebb and flow of it do not understand how ANYONE could say that Duke has any recruiting shortcomings.

Here is how we have done in our persuit of our #1 prospects over the past several years:

2008 - missed (Monroe)
2007 - hit (Singler)
2006 - missed (Wright)
2005 - hit (McRoberts)
2004 - missed (Howard)
2003 - hit (Deng)
2002 - hit (Shav, Shel, JJ hard to say who was our #1 recruit-- probably Shel)
2001 - miss (David Lee and/or Ousmane Cisse)
2000 - miss (Jared Jeffries, though might have been a hit with Duhon)
1999 - hit (JWill, maybe a double-hit with Boozer)
1998 - miss (Dane Fife or maybe it was Michael Miller)
1997 - hit (Elton, a triple hit with Battier and Burgess too)

What is my point with this list? That Duke has had hits and misses throught the years and the only real trend is that it is almost impossible to hit your #1 target or even your #2 target every season. There is nothing new going on here. In fact, I think a great case can be made that when Duke misses one year, they almost always have a big hit the following season. Considering how good the 2009 class is, maybe we should have been hoping for a miss in this class to set us up better for a homerun next season!

--Jason "the glass is not half full, it is 3/4 full" Evans

gotham devil
10-14-2007, 07:28 AM
I don't know what those people would say about Williams. I'm not worried, because Williams is not a huge priority for me. As I've said, I'm more concerned about the Class of 2009. I want to land a big from that class (way more than I wanted to land Monroe). And, ideally, it would be great to get a true PG too. As far as 2008 goes and the whole "one recruit" deal, I don't think it's important. Again, Duke intentionally did not recruit many guys. There aren't many scholarships to go around, and it's better to save those for the loaded 2009 class than waste them on guys from the weak 2008 class who probably won't contribute. Even if Duke doesn't land Williams, 10 guys will be on scholarship (assuming no early attrition): Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Pocius, Singler, King, Zoubek, Thomas, McClure, Czyz. That's a lot of guys and, obviously, the largest class Duke could have built for 2008 would have been a three-man group. I would have loved to add Monroe, but it's tough to fill all 13 scholarship slots with high-quality players. And Duke, again, is concentrating heavily on the 2009 class, when at least five scholarships should be available (the two vacant ones plus Paulus', Pocius' and McClure's). As I've said, let's see what happens with that group before we jump to major conclusions.
Since you're anxious to spin that you are more concerned about the 2009 class, which high caliber 4/5s do you foresee Duke being able to land?

Derrick Favors?
Renardo Sidney?
Deshawn Painter?
DeMarcus Cousins?
Daniel Orton?
DeShonte Riley?
Isaiah Armwood?

Outside of the very unlikely Orton (who has displayed immaturiy issues) option, I don't see the Blue Devils getting any of the first/second tier 2009 4/5s.

Below these options, there are the options of
-Reeves Nelson, the repeatedly injured 6'7" pf with a strong likelihood of matriculating to a dominant LA program
-the perimeter oriented Wear twins, but how receptive will the staff be to their father's demands of playing time and positions
-Erik Murphy, injured over the summer, but reportedly comfortable in the Northeast albeit with the young and aggressive defending back-to-back national title winning coach of Florida on his trail

Before you toss out his name, Greg Echenique is certainly capable of providing back up minutes at the 4/5 for an elite level program.

Maybe it would be for the best if I could naively buy into your argument that 2009 will be a banner year for 2009 5/4 recruiting. Here's hoping the staff can convince Jeremy Tyler of '10 to spend a year in Durham.

Devilsfan
10-14-2007, 08:14 AM
fact is we lost our #1 target. Life goes on. In home interviewing (recruiting) process very similar to seniors looking for jobs. Sometimes the best get overlooked! It's Monroes' loss (mistake) as much as it is Dukes' mistake of putting all its eggs in nearly one basket. Maybe we can find an Adam Morrison out there, a future superstar that the recruitng experts overlooked.

gw67
10-14-2007, 08:14 AM
I hope that the 2009 big man recruits are not split into two groups, "high caliber" and "white". The coaching staff will be looking for several good players in that recruiting year and I'm sure that race is not one of the criteria. Skill, size, attitude and ability to fit in at Duke will be important.

We missed on Monroe. That's life and you move on. IMO, Jumbo has made a good case that Duke needs to concentrate on the 2009 class. I have confidence in the coaching staff continuing to bring in top players.

gw67

jimsumner
10-14-2007, 08:39 AM
I think the word entitlement does accurately reflect the mind set of a minority of the Duke fan base. This isn't unusual or surprising. It happens with all successful programs. Ask Gene Bartow or Frank Solich.

Successful programs also get short-term, band-wagon fans. I suspect that term may apply to some here. Not many, but some. Be that as it may, somehow the myth has arisen that at some time in the golden past, when King Mike reigned over Camelot, Mike Krzyzewski didn't recruit, he selected. Got everybody he wanted. Now he can't do that anymore and the sky is falling.

The reality is that even the greatest coaches have lots of misses. When Adolph Rupp was at his peak, he still missed on guys like Clyde Lovellette and Ronnie Shavlik. John Wooden wanted Paul Westphal so bad, he couldn't stand it. Dean E. Smith missed on Tom McMillen, David Thompson, John Lucas, Mike Gminski, Danny Ferry, Grant Hill and countless others. Likewise, K has always lost top recruits. Chris Webber anyone?

In two consecutive recruiting classes earlier this decade Duke missed on every single big guy they looked at; Cisse, David Lee, Rick Rickert, Jeffries, Teddy Cummings, Rolando Howell. Somehow they managed to survive. In fact, Duke followed those misses with the Redick-Williams-Randolph-Dockery class. So why is this different? Why is this different from missing on Perry Carter or Adonal Foyle or Troy Lewis or Vince Carter or Alan Henderson or Eric Montross or Corliss Williamson?

No rational person is denying that losing Monroe is a significant loss. He would have looked real good in Duke blue. But let's don't extrapolate to conclude that Krzyzewski has somehow lost his touch and can't recruit anymore. The evidence simply doesn't support such an over-reaction.

In other words, perspective. Next play. It's a philosophy that has worked pretty well over the last quarter century.

grossbus
10-14-2007, 09:45 AM
my last post with this thought content "disappeared" so i will try again as a question seeking enlightenment...

many in this thread express confidence (or the "impression") that zoubs will show huge improvement, if not this year then certainly the next. my question is what these posters observed last year that would lead to these conclusions.

what i saw is a guy with size, but not particularly quick, strong or agressive, uncertain footwork, and a certain "softness" inside (preference for shooting the ball off the board when in close instead of powering up and dunking). while i do expect improvement in some of these areas, i don't anticipate enough growth to warrant the "next coming of G-man" predictions that preceded his arrival.

i will concede that jumbo (the magician who made my previous post disappear?) is probably right that we don't need him to be G-man, just be solid. however, i am not as confident of that potential as most of you are. on the other hand, my observations are unfortunately limited to what i saw on TV.

i am open to enlightenment.

RepoMan
10-14-2007, 10:16 AM
I agree with most of what you point out, however I think it's a little unwise to count on the class of 2009 so much. By the the time those guys will be in a position to win anything, the rest of the pieces already in place now will be gone. One reason I'm disappointed by the recent big men "losses", as well as the transfer of Eric Boateng, is because they would mesh well with our guards and other current players in what would be a championship-calibre team.


Losing is a bummer. That's a given. But, it is important to keep in mind what was lost. I think a lot of people have a misimpression of Monroe. Its not at all clear that he is an immediate impact one and done sort of player who could be that missing post piece to send a loaded perimeter team to a championship. And, it is 100% clear that he is not a traditional post presence in the mold of Boozer, Williams, Brand, etc. Sure, I'd rather have him than not, but the loss's overall impact is far from certain.

Troublemaker
10-14-2007, 10:19 AM
my last post with this thought content "disappeared" so i will try again as a question seeking enlightenment...

many in this thread express confidence (or the "impression") that zoubs will show huge improvement, if not this year then certainly the next. my question is what these posters observed last year that would lead to these conclusions.

what i saw is a guy with size, but not particularly quick, strong or agressive, uncertain footwork, and a certain "softness" inside (preference for shooting the ball off the board when in close instead of powering up and dunking). while i do expect improvement in some of these areas, i don't anticipate enough growth to warrant the "next coming of G-man" predictions that preceded his arrival.

i will concede that jumbo (the magician who made my previous post disappear?) is probably right that we don't need him to be G-man, just be solid. however, i am not as confident of that potential as most of you are. on the other hand, my observations are unfortunately limited to what i saw on TV.

i am open to enlightenment.

Zoubek showed a lot of potential in non-televised early season action last year. I agree he looked bad in tv games, so I don't know what to believe. While I'm not counting on him to come through, it could happen, and more importantly, Duke has other options. We just need two of King, Z, LT, and Czyz to come through for the '09 season. For this, the '08 season, we'll probably have to go small to win if he's not ready yet.

As for not "powering up and dunking", Zoubek has zero hops. It's not softness. He likes contact. He just needs to bank it a lot more than you'd think because he's not explosive off the ground. He was that way all through high school as well.

Troublemaker
10-14-2007, 10:27 AM
Losing is a bummer. That's a given. But, it is important to keep in mind what was lost. I think a lot of people have a misimpression of Monroe. Its not at all clear that he is an immediate impact one and done sort of player who could be that missing post piece to send a loaded perimeter team to a championship. And, it is 100% clear that he is not a traditional post presence in the mold of Boozer, Williams, Brand, etc. Sure, I'd rather have him than not, but the loss's overall impact is far from certain.

Agree. He wasn't going to be a major post presence on offense. That's not his game. Where losing Monroe hurts us is rebounding and protecting the basket. That's something that will be lacking this season unless Zoubek surprises. The question is, will they also be lacking in '09 without Monroe? We'll see how some of these posts develop over the next year.

Troublemaker
10-14-2007, 10:37 AM
Since you're anxious to spin that you are more concerned about the 2009 class, which high caliber 4/5s do you foresee Duke being able to land?

Derrick Favors?
Renardo Sidney?
Deshawn Painter?
DeMarcus Cousins?
Daniel Orton?
DeShonte Riley?
Isaiah Armwood?

Outside of the very unlikely Orton (who has displayed immaturiy issues) option, I don't see the Blue Devils getting any of the first/second tier 2009 4/5s.

Below these options, there are the options of
-Reeves Nelson, the repeatedly injured 6'7" pf with a strong likelihood of matriculating to a dominant LA program
-the perimeter oriented Wear twins, but how receptive will the staff be to their father's demands of playing time and positions
-Erik Murphy, injured over the summer, but reportedly comfortable in the Northeast albeit with the young and aggressive defending back-to-back national title winning coach of Florida on his trail

Before you toss out his name, Greg Echenique is certainly capable of providing back up minutes at the 4/5 for an elite level program.

Maybe it would be for the best if I could naively buy into your argument that 2009 will be a banner year for 2009 5/4 recruiting. Here's hoping the staff can convince Jeremy Tyler of '10 to spend a year in Durham.

LOL. Would you even be able to pick these guys out of a lineup? Let's not become obsessed with recruiting rankings and thinking that so-and-so is a must-have and so-so is garbage.

I'm not a big fan of 1-and-dones anyway. That's why I believe you are underrating Echenique. He's got the squatty 6'8", 250-lb body that can be a 4-yr rock for you at center. If you recruit an athletic 6'10", 220-lb guy instead, he can spend one year for you making freshman mistakes, getting pushed around, and occasionally flashing really explosive plays that gets him drafted in the lottery. Big deal. I'd prefer the stability of a Lonny Baxter. One thing about Echenique is that most players with his squatty build don't have near the shot-blocking ability that he has. He'll protect the basket for you, and if Duke nabs him, we should be happy with him.

Wander
10-14-2007, 10:50 AM
Do you guys even realize how many McDonalds All Americans are on this year's team? And you think Duke has recruiting shortcomings? That's laughable.

Also, did somebody really say Shelden Williams wasn't leaps and bounds better as a senior than he was as a freshman?

dkbaseball
10-14-2007, 11:00 AM
John Wooden wanted Paul Westphal so bad, he couldn't stand it.

How, in the name of heaven, could Westphal have picked USC over UCLA in 1968? I realize USC had brought in a top recruiting class in 1967, but still... Was Henry Bibby Wooden's back-up choice at guard?

pfrduke
10-14-2007, 11:17 AM
my last post with this thought content "disappeared" so i will try again as a question seeking enlightenment...

many in this thread express confidence (or the "impression") that zoubs will show huge improvement, if not this year then certainly the next. my question is what these posters observed last year that would lead to these conclusions.

what i saw is a guy with size, but not particularly quick, strong or agressive, uncertain footwork, and a certain "softness" inside (preference for shooting the ball off the board when in close instead of powering up and dunking). while i do expect improvement in some of these areas, i don't anticipate enough growth to warrant the "next coming of G-man" predictions that preceded his arrival.

i will concede that jumbo (the magician who made my previous post disappear?) is probably right that we don't need him to be G-man, just be solid. however, i am not as confident of that potential as most of you are. on the other hand, my observations are unfortunately limited to what i saw on TV.

i am open to enlightenment.

I'll preface this with two caveats - 1) there's a small sample size issue; 2) much of the sample came against early season competition. But...

Zoubek was a stud offensive rebounder last year, and a very good defensive rebounder. Had he played qualifying minutes, he'd have led the conference in offensive rebounding. He's 7'0"-7'1" and strong (his strength likely improved over the off-season, as strength tends to be a big area of growth for big men during their college careers), and employs good positioning on the glass. He puts his backside in guys and they can't go over or around him, so he gets the ball.

Second, statistically speaking, we played best as a team with Zoubek on the floor. Our efficiency margin on the season was +13.89. When Zoubek was on the court, it was +25.38. As I noted above, a lot of this was against early-season competition, but even against that competition, our efficiency margin was always better with him on the court. And his statistics per-40 minutes were very good: 16.7 points and 12 boards (5 offensive). Of course, he did also average slightly over 6 turnovers per 40-minutes. This hopefully was a big point of emphasis for him over the summer.

Third, Zoubek has capable post moves. His footwork is not as bad as it looked last year - he often just got himself a little rushed. And he definitely does not shy away from contact - he was better at getting to the line than anyone else on the team. And remember, we don't need Zoubek to dominate - no one is relying on him for 20/10 a game. We need him to be a good role player, able to score in the post when needed, able to pick up offensive rebounds and to protect the defensive glass, and to guard opposing big men effectively. If he averages about 8/7 a game, playing 25 minutes or so, that's excellent production, and will provide the necessary complement to what we're getting from Singler and all the wings.

What I saw with Zoubek last year was a guy who was strong and aggressive, but too emotional. He let himself get flustered (I think the speed of ACC play was a big adjustment after NJ high school ball) and as a result he generated a lot of turnovers. But when he was on the court, it was tougher for other teams to score, and easier for us to score. If he can make that same difference next year, it will be an extremely valuable contribution, and anything extra is just gravy.

Oh, and as an aside, I find encouragement from the likes of Aaron Gray, (played 88 minutes, with season highs of 4 points and 5 boards as a freshman) and Kyle Visser (blossomed out of nowhere to be third-team all-ACC last year), and the countless other big men who have improved from their first season onwards.

DevilCastDownfromDurham
10-14-2007, 11:30 AM
Frankly, I think a lot of the impression some have that our recruiting is "slipping" is based not on the guys we land, but on the results on the court. Based on a variety of factors, our top-rated classes since 2002 have not lived up to their rankings. Rebuilding from 1995 our major classes produced great individual and team results. Since then, I’d argue we haven’t had a class that lived up to the (often VERY overblown) expectations.

2002: The “Selected Six” were hyped as arguably the greatest recruiting class in history. Five McDonald’s All Americans, three top 20 players, “K doesn’t recruit, he selects”, etc. Obviously J.J. and Shel became historical greats, but Dockery never became the floor leader that we needed him to be, Melch arguably overachieved a bit, and Shav was, well, Shav. The less said about Thompson, the better.

2003: Deng was great for the season he was here, but left a year before everyone expected (including Deng, according to his quotes from the 2004 Final Four). Hump was a unique case.

2004: Leavingsoon lived up to his name. Nelson has struggled with injuries and some difficulty adjusting his style of play to the college game. Dave lost a season to injury but has been the solid role player we expected.

2005: This is where the disparity between class rank and class production has just killed us. From a five man class that featured the #1 overall player, the #1 PG, and another Burger Boy, we have two (thus far disappointing) players remaining. Boykin and Boateng left after 1 season, McRoberts never got close to our (again unrealistic) expectations, Marty remains a nonfactor entering his third year, and Greg has been hobbled by injuries both seasons.

2006: Arguably too soon to judge. Early indicators, however, have been mixed. Hendo has struggled with health issues, Scheyer is about what we expected from a 5 star All-American, Thomas is what we should have expected (but the drama surrounding his recruitment created a lot of, IMO unreasonable expectations) and Z is still a question mark.

The result (other than a .500 ACC record) is a huge gap between the top-ranked classes and the on court results. I see three major factors.

Since recruiting from the success of the 2001 title:
1) Injury – Duke has been snakebit in a way that seems unprecedented to me. We lost entire seasons (or even careers) from Shav, Nelson, Dave, Josh, Greg, and Hendo (Dock, Love, PJ, and a few others have had some injuries as well).

2) Transfer – Thompson, Sweet, Hump, Boykin, and ‘Tang all felt uncomfortable here and chose to leave.

3) Early Entry – As a high profile program, we have lost a lot of guys in 1-2 years to the NBA including Shav, Deng, Leavingsoon, and McBob.

As a result, since 2002 here is the full list of signees who gave us more than two seasons of healthy basketball: JJ, Shel, Melch, Dock, Marty, Jon, Lance, Z. 8 guys. Total.

What I take from all this is that K is still doing a great job of bringing in top classes, but unique circumstances have blunted their effect. The early entry is unavoidable and, at some level, a sign of success. People more versed in Phys. Ed. and medicine can tell me if the injuries are flukes or if there is something wrong with our facilities, workouts, etc. This leaves the transfers. Again, those closer to the players and the program surely know more than I do, but we are averaging a transfer every season. That seems to me a major problem. Whether that is a result of mistakes in recruiting, mistakes in player management, or is another spell of bad luck, I can’t say. I can say that I'd LOVE to have a Jr. 'Tang in the middle or to have been able to throw MT at Okafor in the 2004 Final Four.

Aside from transfers, however, it’s hard to fault K for our struggles. We are bringing in the same level of talent as always, we have just been unlucky in terms of injury, early entry, and transfer. I don't know whether these problems will sort themselves out (the law of averages seems to demand that we have a few healthy seasons, at least). I do think it is important to distinguish between bad recruiting (based on player/class rank) and seeing production on the court. Recruiting remains a crapshoot based on a million factors. We've had a bad run (esp. compared to the Evil Empire down the road, imo the actual #1 reason for all the gnashing of teeth) but as long as we keep bringing in great talent (and I think we unarguably still are), I'll take our chances with the team K sends out every night.

grossbus
10-14-2007, 11:44 AM
"Kyle Visser (blossomed out of nowhere to be third-team all-ACC last year"

actually, his freshman year was pretty good and expectations were high for his soph year. however, soph and jr years were down considerably. that is why his senior year was a surprise.


if you did your stat analysis for just ACC play, i think you would have a greatly different result. still, you make a credible case for him becoming "solid." i just don't see "huge" in the future.

grossbus
10-14-2007, 11:59 AM
"As for not "powering up and dunking", Zoubek has zero hops. It's not softness. He likes contact. He just needs to bank it a lot more than you'd think because he's not explosive off the ground. He was that way all through high school as well."

hmmm, useful. thanks.

jimsumner
10-14-2007, 12:04 PM
"How, in the name of heaven, could Westphal have picked USC over UCLA in 1968? I realize USC had brought in a top recruiting class in 1967, but still... Was Henry Bibby Wooden's back-up choice at guard?"

Actually he was. Bibby was all set to go to North Carolina State but fell a bit short of the ACC's minimum SAT scores; same thing happened a few years earlier with Pete Maravich but State never threatened to leave the ACC. Wooden occasionally came east for recruits--that Alcindor guy seemed to work out okay--but preferred to stay on the west coast. But Bibby kind of fell into his lap and the guy did know how to recognize talent.

Westphal was a truly great high school player and Wooden wanted him very badly. But Westphal had an older brother who had played at SC and the Trojans were loaded. In 1971 they went 24-2. Both losses were to UCLA. SC turned down an NIT bid (loser's tournament) and became arguably the best team in modern college history not on probation to sit out the postseason.

Chicago 1995
10-14-2007, 12:06 PM
Are there really a large number of Duke fans who think our recruiting is slipping?!?!?! Really?!?!

. . .

Lets look at how Duke's recruiting classes have ranked (according to RSCI) over the past several years:

2007 - #3
2006 - #3
2005 - #2

. . .

--Jason "I think folks are fooled by how loaded we are for next season -- we really needed next-to nothing from the 2008 class" Evans

Do we really think that '05 class should have been rated #2 even in Durham County? And the '06 class, while it showed some promise, didn't exactly perform like a #3 class, either. Admittedly, we've got sample size issues as to the '06 class, and I'm optimistic about their future, but those rankings Jason, don't mean a thing compared to play on the court, and by that standard, trumpetting the '05 ranking doesn't provide much of a defense to the staff.

I have serious concerns about our recruiting, and Monroe serves as an example of one of those concerns, and the '05 class the other, Jason.

Monroe is the third year in a row where we've put a lot of focus on a single recruit and not been anywhere near as close to landing that recruit as we thought. It's not that we lost the recruit. That happens. We lost Chris Webber. Adonal Foyle. Keet Boot. Jared Jeffries.

The problem is that the staff focused so much of their energies on Monroe, Patterson and Wright and just misread how close they were. Part of recruiting is evaluating how serious about Duke the kids we like are. We've missed kind of spectacularly at a position of need three years in a row.

If Patrick Patterson's not really that interested in Duke, the time and effort spent recruiting him might have been better spent trying to get Greg Monroe really interested. We've spent six months recruiting Monroe only to not even get a visit. Even if this class is truly so weak that he was the only front court recruit that was going to be able to contribute immediately, we could have spent the time chasing one of the '09 recruits we're now making up ground on.

That miscalculation and consistently misapplying resources doesn't reflect well on the staff.

The other concern I've got with our recruiting is that, even with the guys we do get, we seem to be missing on a much higher percentage of those players than in the past. We brought in the second best class in the country in 2005. Boateng and Boykin were almost completely unable to contribute and left. Marty's still here, but he apparently is unable to contribute as well. Josh never became the player that we thought he could be. Greg's fought injuries, but his play when healthy has raised serious questions for at least some of us. At best, the staff went 2/5 in that class, and that's as good as it is going to get, and I think the grade could be lower before the '05 class is done.

Going backwards, Demarcus Nelson hasn't become the scorer we expected. JJ and Shelden were outstanding players and leaders for Duke, but the remainder of that number one ranked class failed to develop or progress substantially.

Even looking at most recent additions to the Duke roster, there are fair questions that can be asked. The '06 class shows promise, but Henderson, it's most talented member, struggled to get on the floor and find a role most of the year. Zoubek gave us very little last year and regressed as the season went on. Thomas didn't contribute consistently at all. This all on a team dying for talent and contributions. I'm not closing the book on any of those guys, and I've got hope for all of them, but there are fair questions as that class.

Heck, we're already tempering expectations for the incoming frosh outside of Singler. In '07, Jumbo's already talking down the possibility that Taylor King sees the floor this year, and Nolan Smith, as good as he may be, is coming into a log jam, and is going to have to take minutes from Paulus, which I'll have to see to believe.

We're bringing in heralded talent, but are we using it? Are we developing it?

Putting the Monroe miss together with the '05 class and even the classes before it, I think its completely fair to ask serious questions being asked about our recruiting, and have serious concerns about it.

And, no, I'm not a post-99 bandwagon fan. Nor am I someone who think Duke is entitled to anything, although I've been branded both here.

One other thing not related to Jason's post. Jumbo's right about Singler, but only to a certian extent. Kyle's really good, but he's going to struggle in the post against high level pivots with strength. I worry a little about him wearing down over the course of the season playing up front, but I worry much more about Kyle getting in foul trouble. We need his offense, and running him up against bigger, stronger guys in the post could easily lead to foul trouble. It did against Kevin Love in the Oregon 5A title game for example. Love also had, what, 38? That's not completely fair to Kyle, and it's a small sample size against a great post scorer. But it's instructive to some extent at the same time.

I'd also suggest the size at which Laettner played the pivot 16 years ago isn't completely instructive to the future either. Guys are a little bigger now, no? A kid with the build of Chris Webber was the exception in 1992. It's much less an exception today.

We're going to be better this year thanks to a year of experience, the addition of Singler, better chemistry and a conference that graduated a bunch of talent around us. But that doesn't mean we can whiff on a recruiting class, and it doesn't mean we shouldn't raise a concerned eye about recruiting going forward either.

jimsumner
10-14-2007, 12:33 PM
"I'd also suggest the size at which Laettner played the pivot 16 years ago isn't completely instructive to the future either. Guys are a little bigger now, no"

Maybe, maybe not. But big guys hung around a lot longer then than they do now. Would a Laettner analogue have to go up against a junior Shaquille O'Neal nowadays? Just in the ACC Laettner went up against Eric Montross, Malcolm Mackey, Elden Campbell, Dale Davis, Matt Geiger, Sharone Wright, Tom Gugliotta, Cedric Lewis, Kevin Thompson, Scott Williams, Tony Massenburg, et. al. Sculpted forwards in just 1992 in the ACC included Rodney Rogers, James Forrest, Evers Burns, Junior Burrough, and Doug Edwards. Laettner wasn't getting it done inside against 90-pound weaklings, he was going against some tough customers.

If anything the college game has trended towards sleekness and quickness since the early 1990s. Are the bigs at Virginia and Virginia Tech and Clemson, indeed most of the ACC this year really that much scarier than what Laettner faced in the early 1990s?

Wander
10-14-2007, 12:50 PM
Do we really think that '05 class should have been rated #2 even in Durham County? And the '06 class, while it showed some promise, didn't exactly perform like a #3 class, either. Admittedly, we've got sample size issues as to the '06 class, and I'm optimistic about their future, but those rankings Jason, don't mean a thing compared to play on the court, and by that standard, trumpetting the '05 ranking doesn't provide much of a defense to the staff.

Most of your arguments have nothing to do with recruiting; they have to do with developing and keeping the recruits that you get (a legitimate complaint, I think).

How the hell can anyone think recruiting is this big of a concern when we have eight McDonald's All Americans? EIGHT! No other team in the country has eight. No other team in the country has seven. No other team in the country has six. There's one team that has five, one that has four, four with three, and a handful with two and one.

Lord Ash
10-14-2007, 12:57 PM
Just gotta say, we will win PLENTY of ACC titles before Coach K leaves. National Titles, who knows, I certainly hope so. But let's not start with the "Now that Roy has arrived the sky is falling" nonsense.

JasonEvans
10-14-2007, 01:05 PM
All DBR conversations happen at least 9 different times. The questions raised about whether LT and BZ will improve this season lead me to direct folks to re-read this post from about a month ago:


I am not saying Zoubek or Thomas will end up as All-ACC players. I agree that mega-studs who go on to be lottery picks by their soph year almost always start out as studs as freshmen. Still, it is not at all difficult to find guys who were very good players and even NBA first rounders who did not do much as freshmen.

Step one is to remind everyone of Thomas and Zoubek's stats last year.

Lance averaged 4.0 ppg and 2.5 rpg in 14.9 mpg of play.
Brian averaged 3.1 ppg and 2.2 rpg in 7.3 minutes per game.

Just to show how common it is for a dud freshman to turn into a stud soph, here are the best ACC big men from last season who were not McJosh or Hasbro (who were highly touted coming out of high school and were expect to put up big numbers as freshmen-- unlike Zoubek and Thomas). Every single one of these other guys compare very favorably with our 2 guys who struggled a bit as freshmen.


Ekene Ibekwe played 13.6 mpg with 4.9 ppg and 3.9 rpg as a frosh.
Brandon Costner played just 13.8 mpg for NC State as a frosh with 2.8 ppg and 2.6 rpg. He was slightly better as a soph last season ;)
Ben McCauley also was a non-entity for State as a freshman with 6.9 mpg, 2.1 ppg, and 1.0 rpg.
Kyle Visser's freshman year at Wake was a dud, 12.4 mpg, 4.6 ppg, 2.6 rpg. In fact, he was even worse as a soph and only slightly better as a junior. He had a pretty decent senior season, though, didn't he?
Al Thornton was perhaps the best player in the ACC last year. His freshman campaign was 7.9 mpg, 2.8 ppg, and 1.8 rpg.
James Mays freshman year at Clemson was slightly better than the rest of the these guys, but not by a lot-- 16.0 mpg, 4.3 ppg, 3.4 rpg. That's not all that much better than what Thomas did last season.


Are you now convinced that maybe a so-so freshman season is not all that indicative of what a big man will become?

-Jason "that was easy-- I only had to go back one year to find many, many examples" Evans

bfree
10-14-2007, 01:11 PM
Jason- can you support this claim? It seems highly unlikely...

"Ed Davis (who would not have been ranked ahead of LT or BZ had they been in the same class)"

Looking at the measurables, accolades, other schools recruiting, youtube videos... I'd take Davis without hesitation. Maybe you can prove me wrong?

EDIT: And of course this isn't how a staff measures a prospect, but it is the best your or I can reasonably do.

_Gary
10-14-2007, 01:18 PM
I'm just very much in the same camp as Ash and Patrick. They make excellent points that mirror my thinking to a tee. I'll just add a few points.

#1) I call bull on the "entitlement" comment. In fact I think that's just poisoning the well and very beneath the normally solid, logical discussion that takes place here. On top of that, I personally felt the same about the "race" comment that was made back on page 2. I calmly responded, but to be honest I thought that was designed as a "below the belt" comment and I didn't appreciate it at all. But I'll say no more about it.

#2) I'm always going to root for our players to develop, but it doesn't mean I honestly think they are going to become great or even make substantial improvements. I hope our current "bigs" (I'm thinking specifically of what would pass for a 5 in the Duke system - so Singler doesn't count) make vast improvements and pleasantly surprise me. But I didn't see anything to make me think we had another Brand, Boozer or Shelden in the middle. I don't even see a Parks for that matter. So I am concerned.

#3) I just don't get why some of you aren't seeing our point. This is about a recent pattern of losing our top "athletic big man" prospect over the last couple of years. It should concern everyone. If you don't think it's a disaster, fine. We can quibble over wording if you want to and that's all fine and good. But it's beyond me how anyone can not be at least a little concerned and see this latest miss as at least somewhat of a big deal. You may not think it's disastrous (again, that's semantics), but you have to be concerned. There's just no way to Pollyanna this one, IMHO.

#4) The recent rankings that Jason gave don't mean diddly to me in this discussion. Reason being, as another poster pointed out, those rankings have not translated on the court. Heck, I still think losing Wright not only gave UNC that extra push they needed, but it cost us a championship that year. No one will ever convince me that his addition wouldn't have made the difference for us. And I'm just fearful that the latest losses will cost the present team. There's a huge difference between being a "good" team and being a "great" team. I imagine we are presently the former. But I'd much rather be the latter.

Gary

Cameron
10-14-2007, 01:34 PM
I am not sure if Coach K will get another title before he leaves, ACC or NCAA.

I'm not exactly the most positive fan in the entire world, as I tend to live my life with a George Costanzian-like paranoia, but I would say at least part of the above sentence is completely ridiculous. Coach K will most certainly win another ACC title while residing in Durham, and maybe even as soon as this season. We have, after all, won 7 of the last 9. Remember, even if we don't have the overall talent from top to bottom to take out Carolna in the regular season this year, we can STILL win the ACC by taking home the tournament crown--which, as all ACC fans know, is the true conference champion. The regular season award winner means absolutely nothing compared to the winner of the Grand Daddy of them all, and, IMO, we definitely have the talent level to win a weekend tournament of chance, where anything can (and usually does) happen. In fact, I really believe we will win it this season, as we all know that Carolina usually chokes that time of year anyhow.

Whether or not we will win a fourth national championship under Coach K, is still unknown. Even with the loss of Monroe (and it is a significant loss, there's no question about it), I still think we'll be heavy Final Four favorites in 2008-09. Jon, Gerald, and Kyle could very well be superstar All-American candidate players by the time next fall rolls around, and Greg, Lance, Nolan, Taylor, and perhaps even Brian, will all be solid as well. And who knows, maybe Greg will even be an elite point guard by this time. There is still a ton of time before now and next fall, so anything could happen. (No I didn't forget about Marty, I just think Coach K will have.)

Bottom line, we will have plenty of talent circulating in Durham the next couple of seasons (that is as long as Gerald and Kyle remain college students). There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to believe we will not win another ACC title under Coach K. I think it's absurd to even think that, and I'm afraid of my own shadow:) (Well, not really, but I've been told that I'm a very pessimistic person during basketball season, almost like a Red Sox fan...)

We aren't on the Titanic, and we don't need some Carpathian-like big man (Monroe) to save Coach K's ship. We'll be just fine.

Doomsday will be when we don't have Coach K.

Jumbo
10-14-2007, 01:48 PM
my last post with this thought content "disappeared" so i will try again as a question seeking enlightenment...

many in this thread express confidence (or the "impression") that zoubs will show huge improvement, if not this year then certainly the next. my question is what these posters observed last year that would lead to these conclusions.

what i saw is a guy with size, but not particularly quick, strong or agressive, uncertain footwork, and a certain "softness" inside (preference for shooting the ball off the board when in close instead of powering up and dunking). while i do expect improvement in some of these areas, i don't anticipate enough growth to warrant the "next coming of G-man" predictions that preceded his arrival.

i will concede that jumbo (the magician who made my previous post disappear?) is probably right that we don't need him to be G-man, just be solid. however, i am not as confident of that potential as most of you are. on the other hand, my observations are unfortunately limited to what i saw on TV.

i am open to enlightenment.


I didn't delete your post. JBDuke did. I don't moderate threads in which I participate. Suffice it to say that your initial post was much snarkier than this one.

As far as Zoubek goes, you are guilty of jumping to conclusions based on one season, which is a mistake regarding any player. It's an even bigger mistake to that to a seven-footer whom everyond described as a bit of a project before last season. How did Aaron Gray look as a freshman at bit? Zoubek needs time to develop, to build lower body strength and to adjust to the speed of the game. I'm not saying he's going to be a star. I'm saying that he deserves the opportunity to improve, and people like you have already written his epitaph.

dkbaseball
10-14-2007, 01:53 PM
arguably the best team in modern college history not on probation to sit out the postseason.

Maybe so, but I'll take the '74 Terps. Thanks for the answer.

jimsumner
10-14-2007, 02:19 PM
That's why I said arguably. That would make a great game. '71 USC v. '74 Maryland.

Some other ACC teams would qualify, especially 1970 South Carolina, which was denied the chance to play in the NIT because they were hosting an NCAA Tournament game and NCAA regulations barred schools hosting NCAA Tournament games from playing in the NIT. Given that McGuire and most of his team were from NYC, I suspect they would have jumped at a chance to play in MSG, unlike other teams that dismissed the NIT.

Davidson's Hetzel-Snyder teams would also make the short list.

RepoMan
10-14-2007, 02:23 PM
#2) . . . But I didn't see anything to make me think we had another Brand, Boozer or Shelden in the middle. I don't even see a Parks for that matter. So I am concerned.


I thought this was a discussion about losing out on the Greg Monroe commitment. How would he have solved your desire for the next Brand, Boozer, or Shelden?

_Gary
10-14-2007, 02:26 PM
I thought this was a discussion about losing out on the Greg Monroe commitment. How would he have solved your desire for the next Brand, Boozer, or Shelden?

Because Monroe would have been a true Duke 5, just like the other three I mentioned. That doesn't mean he's the monster those guys were, but he would have been a strong, athletic inside presence and filled the 5 spot for us in an above average way.

Jumbo
10-14-2007, 02:33 PM
#1) I call bull on the "entitlement" comment. In fact I think that's just poisoning the well and very beneath the normally solid, logical discussion that takes place here. On top of that, I personally felt the same about the "race" comment that was made back on page 2. I calmly responded, but to be honest I thought that was designed as a "below the belt" comment and I didn't appreciate it at all. But I'll say no more about it.

Gary, that's ridiculous. I pointed out that you happened to group players where race was a distinguishing characteristic. No one was calling you a "racist" -- it was just an observation. There was nothing "below the belt about it" and there's no reason you should "not appreciate it." Geez, let's not develop a persecution complext about this, ok?


#3) I just don't get why some of you aren't seeing our point. This is about a recent pattern of losing our top "athletic big man" prospect over the last couple of years. It should concern everyone. If you don't think it's a disaster, fine. We can quibble over wording if you want to and that's all fine and good. But it's beyond me how anyone can not be at least a little concerned and see this latest miss as at least somewhat of a big deal. You may not think it's disastrous (again, that's semantics), but you have to be concerned. There's just no way to Pollyanna this one, IMHO.

People see the point you are trying to make. They just don't agree with you. Someone like Jim Sumner, who has a better grasp of Duke history than any of us, has provided a counter-argument that is almost impossible to refute. This is not a recent pattern. And, with all due respect, I don't think you're close enough to the recruiting game to identify Duke's top big man recruit. For instance, I'd say Singler was that guy for the incoming class. Duke got into the Patterson sweepstakes quite late. I agree with you on Wright. I agree with you on Monroe. But those are TWO examples in a fairly nuanced game. Furthermore, the fact that you think Duke should land its top recruit is the very definition of the sense of entitlement that you so decry.

Jumbo
10-14-2007, 02:38 PM
Because Monroe would have been a true Duke 5, just like the other three I mentioned. That doesn't mean he's the monster those guys were, but he would have been a strong, athletic inside presence and filled the 5 spot for us in an above average way.

Have you ever actually seen him play? Because Monroe's game and build in no way resembles Brand's, Boozer's or Shelden's.

_Gary
10-14-2007, 02:52 PM
Gary, that's ridiculous. I pointed out that you happened to group players where race was a distinguishing characteristic. No one was calling you a "racist" -- it was just an observation. There was nothing "below the belt about it" and there's no reason you should "not appreciate it." Geez, let's not develop a persecution complext about this, ok?

Ok, if you say so. I'm just saying I thought it was a strange, out of the blue remark on your part. But I'll take your word for it and leave it at that.



People see the point you are trying to make. They just don't agree with you. Someone like Jim Sumner, who has a better grasp of Duke history than any of us, has provided a counter-argument that is almost impossible to refute. This is not a recent pattern. And, with all due respect, I don't think you're close enough to the recruiting game to identify Duke's top big man recruit. For instance, I'd say Singler was that guy for the incoming class. Duke got into the Patterson sweepstakes quite late. I agree with you on Wright. I agree with you on Monroe. But those are TWO examples in a fairly nuanced game. Furthermore, the fact that you think Duke should land its top recruit is the very definition of the sense of entitlement that you so decry.

And I don't see how Singler, whom we all seem to agree is a Duke 4, not 5, figures into the discussion. He would have been our overall biggest recruiting target. Of that there's no doubt. And he is big and athletic. But in the context of what Ash and I have been saying about athletic bigs, I'd still say Patterson was our top target for that particular spot (the 5 position at Duke).

And once more, for the record, I very much resent the "entitlement" comment. That is a straw man, on top of the fact that it's judgmental on your part. Wanting the best for Duke doesn't mean I have a sense of entitlement. Just not the same thing.


Have you ever actually seen him play? Because Monroe's game and build in no way resembles Brand's, Boozer's or Shelden's.

Not in person. But I believe I've seen him on either tv or video (via computer). I know he isn't a big burly guy like the other three. Didn't I make that clear? The point is he would have been an athletic inside presence for us on offense and defense. Don't you think he generally would have played the 5? I sure do. And that's why I made the comparison to EB, CB, and SW. It wasn't about him having the same build. Just about him playing the position they did at a high level.

Gary

P.S. I took out my smarmy comment. Just not worth it. Sorry if anyone read it first.

Oriole Way
10-14-2007, 03:57 PM
Most of your arguments have nothing to do with recruiting; they have to do with developing and keeping the recruits that you get (a legitimate complaint, I think).

How the hell can anyone think recruiting is this big of a concern when we have eight McDonald's All Americans? EIGHT! No other team in the country has eight. No other team in the country has seven. No other team in the country has six. There's one team that has five, one that has four, four with three, and a handful with two and one.

I never like to talk about how many McDonald's All-Americans we have, because a lot of times the fact schools like Duke and UNC pick up a player boosts their rankings and status to McDonald's All-American. Like it or not, there's a positive effect that a kid going to Duke has on that player's stock, and many times it alters recruiting experts' evaluations.

Instead of talking about how many Mickey D's AA's we get/have, I'd like to focus on what I consider a SLIGHT dropoff in our recruiting, not only in quality of the players we land and go after, but also in our philosophy.

Wander
10-14-2007, 04:26 PM
I never like to talk about how many McDonald's All-Americans we have, because a lot of times the fact schools like Duke and UNC pick up a player boosts their rankings and status to McDonald's All-American. Like it or not, there's a positive effect that a kid going to Duke has on that player's stock, and many times it alters recruiting experts' evaluations.


That's getting to some circular logic. "We shouldn't trust the recruiting rankings because they're biased, but we're slipping in recruiting because we're not getting the top ranked recruits."

Besides, even if that were true, it wouldn't be enough to account for our recruiting success. We may very well have a starting line up that is composed of four guys who were in the top 3 at their position as recruits. I haven't taken the time to look it up, but I don't think there's any other team in country that can claim that (maybe Kansas or UNC?). And each of those four guys would have an All-American as their back-up! That's an absurd amount of success. There's been discussion on these boards of whether or not Taylor King will see significant playing time this season - just the fact that this discussion exists show how ridiculously good our recruiting is.

I'm hardly the kind of guy who defends Duke at every turn just because they're Duke. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms against the staff, but subpar recruiting sure isn't one of them.

jzp5079
10-14-2007, 04:50 PM
I have not read through all the threads but I think its clear that our biggest factor in not landing Monroe was Duke's inability to turn Randolph and McRoberts into excellent players. Monroe stated he was confident Georgetown could help him become more NBA ready. I believe Randolph was more of a high posting big man at Broughton and was forced to play down low a helluva lot more then he ever wanted to... but again my point is just that I think if one of the two players would have been a star, maybe Monroe picks Duke?

dukestheheat
10-14-2007, 04:53 PM
This is indeed a tough loss for Duke; in perspective though, I do think he's a one and done player.

Who(-m) else is a key target, now, for the paint?

dth.

Oriole Way
10-14-2007, 05:08 PM
That's getting to some circular logic. "We shouldn't trust the recruiting rankings because they're biased, but we're slipping in recruiting because we're not getting the top ranked recruits."

Besides, even if that were true, it wouldn't be enough to account for our recruiting success. We may very well have a starting line up that is composed of four guys who were in the top 3 at their position as recruits. I haven't taken the time to look it up, but I don't think there's any other team in country that can claim that (maybe Kansas or UNC?). And each of those four guys would have an All-American as their back-up! That's an absurd amount of success. There's been discussion on these boards of whether or not Taylor King will see significant playing time this season - just the fact that this discussion exists show how ridiculously good our recruiting is.

I'm hardly the kind of guy who defends Duke at every turn just because they're Duke. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms against the staff, but subpar recruiting sure isn't one of them.

I was more speaking to the fact we have so many McDonald's All-Americans. Specifically, that we shouldn't judge our talent and roster by how many we have.

Obviously, I would never advocate disregarding rankings. Otherwise, we'd have a tough time having an idea how good these players are.

I don't think we have subpar recruiting. I just think it isn't the same level it was six or seven years ago. And I'm not complaining. Six or seven years ago, we got everyone we wanted and won a national championship. I'm not expecting that, but I do believe that we had a better philosophy and approach towards recruiting that we should revisit - getting dynamic, high-scoring athletic talent - and I think Monroe was a return to that philosophy, which is why I'm disappointed we lost him. I believe that Coach K got burned by NBA defections and altered his recruiting strategy, and I believe we started paying for it last year with a disappointing season. Just my thoughts, and just some constructive criticism.

Johnny B
10-14-2007, 06:33 PM
I do not believe that our recruiting has slipped. We have brought in highly ranked recruits the past several years: McRoberts, Paulus, Henderson, Scheyer, Thomas, Zoubek, Singler, Smith, & King. Our roster is packed with Big Macs!

As far as Coach K's Team USA efforts, IMO the positive press he has received from established NBA stars such as Kobe Bryant will have a positive effect in the long run.

...that recruitment has been somewhat less succesful recently, I do feel Bob has it right in that the profile of the program, in the long run, benefits from Coach K's involvement with the national team. Even if, arguably, Duke basketball has suffered from K's divided attention in the short-term, Coach stepped up and did the right thing by helping the national program. I'm proud of Duke and what K has done here, but even more proud of our country and what he's building with that team.

Wander
10-14-2007, 06:35 PM
I don't think we have subpar recruiting. I just think it isn't the same level it was six or seven years ago. And I'm not complaining. Six or seven years ago, we got everyone we wanted and won a national championship. I'm not expecting that, but I do believe that we had a better philosophy and approach towards recruiting that we should revisit - getting dynamic, high-scoring athletic talent - and I think Monroe was a return to that philosophy, which is why I'm disappointed we lost him. I believe that Coach K got burned by NBA defections and altered his recruiting strategy, and I believe we started paying for it last year with a disappointing season. Just my thoughts, and just some constructive criticism.

Fair enough, Oriole. I guess I was more speaking to those who think our recruiting has been mediocre.

Saratoga2
10-14-2007, 07:42 PM
A few things;

I COMPLETELY disagree about the entitlement stuff. You are wrong. No one here has said "We deserve to win every year and we should win every year and get every recruit." No one.

What people HAVE said is "We WANT to win every year and we WANT to get every recruit, and we are disappointed at a few recent misses." Seriously, there is nothing wrong with wanting the best and being upset when things don't go your way. It has nothing to do with entitlement; it has to do with the highest expectations and, more importantly, the most passionate desires.

Jumbo, I think you have thrown up some straw men there in your points.

No one said Georgetown wasn't a good fit realistically, except in moments of pique.

Yes, Greg and Lance were much lauded; unfortunately last year they did not perform very well, and certainly did not perform like some recent bigs who have gone on to dominant careers at Duke. When you see that for a year, and then you know there is no help coming for at least two years, it is okay to say "Hm, we seem a bit weak in the big man department." I've seen every Kyle video out there, and he is NOT a big man in a big bruising way. Yes he looks FANTASTIC, and I am sure will be a very special Dukie, but I don't think he will be a down-low banger. I do worry he is a one and done guy tho.

I do hope that Zoubs and Lance, with a little time, DO develop into the types of guys who can really dominate. We all could easily be eating our depressing words in a year or two, and I truly hope we will be! (Yum, crow!)

But I do think that fans are allowed to ask questions and, when they have been watching basketball for years and have a basic understanding of what a team needs to succeed and they see a hole in a vital position of a team they love more than any other... well, I think it is understandable.

Coach K quote from the paper copy of Lindays. "My first Final Four Team (1986) didn't have a center and we had two of the smallest guards in the league." Krzyzewski said. "We haven't really had huge teams. I'm alright with who we are."

Personally, I would prefer having some bangers on the team, especially when other teams will feature strong centers or power forwards or both. Clearly, coach K doesn't seem to think size and strength is as important as skill and a team attitude. It's difficult to argue that Duke has recruited and retained the big strong players since Shelden came aboard.

Waynne
10-14-2007, 09:03 PM
We definitely have missed on recruiting "bigs" lately (Sasha Kaun, Jon Brockman, Boateng, Patterson, Monroe), but we have not missed on recruiting wings, where we have been more successful than any other program in the country the past 7 years. What this means for the '07-'08 team is that we should be fine re speed, ball-handling, outside shooting and hopefully perimeter defense, but in serious trouble re rebounding, and post defense and scoring.

Zoubs will play minutes this year out of necessity, but he is still going to be a project. His footwork, strength, and handle are all going to be issues, and it is going to take time, commitment, and a whole lot of practice for him to become a solid ACC level player. He certainly has potential, but his injury this summer set him back significantly in terms of conditioning and practice, so he is going have to work hard to catch up during the season.

Much the same is true of Lance. He has not yet defined his position on the floor, but to me he seems more of a 4 than a 5. He also will get minutes in the post this year out of necessity, but he too is going to be a project who must work hard on positioning, rebounding, ball-handling, scoring and most important, defense. After this year of trial by fire, hopefully both Zoubs and Lance will be ready to make major contributions in '08-'09. The fact we did not get Monroe offers both a golden opportunity for PT in '08-'09.

It's not realistic to expect either Singler or King to be significant post presences. While both can play post defense against teams that don't have strong post players, both are wings, not post players. Against teams like UNC and NCSU, both will be overwhelmed defensively. It also would be a waste of their offensive skills for either to spend major minutes in the post. McClure, while an inspirational and very solid role player, is simply too small to be a major post presence.

The recruiting gods have not smiled on us in recent years with regard to inside players, but that is just the way recruiting works: there is no rhyme or reason to it. Unfortunately, this year's team will pay the price.

Troublemaker
10-14-2007, 09:50 PM
Coach K quote from the paper copy of Lindays. "My first Final Four Team (1986) didn't have a center and we had two of the smallest guards in the league." Krzyzewski said. "We haven't really had huge teams. I'm alright with who we are."

Personally, I would prefer having some bangers on the team, especially when other teams will feature strong centers or power forwards or both. Clearly, coach K doesn't seem to think size and strength is as important as skill and a team attitude. It's difficult to argue that Duke has recruited and retained the big strong players since Shelden came aboard.

Yep. Our offensive and defensive systems make it easy to adjust to not having a lot of size. The systems favor quickness over size.

greybeard
10-14-2007, 10:39 PM
No one knows if Monroe will be Georgetown's best big once he arrives, assuming that the verbal commitment sticks. Macklin will have had two years playing for JTIII. Look where Hibbert was year one and year three.

JTIII creates an environment in which bigs can grow in their understanding of the flow that the game can have and learn to function in multifacted ways at the pivot of it. He is a terrific, terrific facilitator of such learning, and the offensive concepts he works with provide fertile ground for both growing and performing. Would have to think Hibbert's growth, decision to stay for a fourth year, Green's performance, and the ability of the guys on the team to explain the concepts the princeton offense embodies were the selling points, and midnight madness had nothing to do with it.

No reason to think that K has lost his fast ball if Monroe was swayed by the unusual constillation of Green/Hibbert, at least that is my view.

jimsumner
10-14-2007, 10:39 PM
"It's not realistic to expect either Singler or King to be significant post presences. While both can play post defense against teams that don't have strong post players, both are wings, not post players."

Sure. But remember, it also works the other way. The burly guys that Singler or King might have trouble guarding down low are the same burly guys who are going to have to chase them in transition and on the perimeter, out to the three-point line.

Wander
10-14-2007, 11:08 PM
No one knows if Monroe will be Georgetown's best big once he arrives, assuming that the verbal commitment sticks. Macklin will have had two years playing for JTIII. Look where Hibbert was year one and year three.


Yup. And don't forget about Summers too, who actually saw much more playing time than Macklin.

pfrduke
10-14-2007, 11:59 PM
I have a question, mostly for those who think we're doomed having missed on Monroe, but anyone can chime in.

Why are we as a fan base so high on players who might come to Duke but so down on the players who are at Duke?

Reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that many of the posters think that Thomas, Zoubek, and Singler aren't fit to carry even Nick Horvath's jock as post players. I don't have the energy to search through archives, but I'm nearly certain that after Zoubek's commit, everyone here was confident we had a 4-year solution at center. The things written about Patterson this off-season were almost identical to those written about Thomas last season. But now, it seems like Zoubek and Thomas have been completely written off as future contributors, and are listed as part of our recruiting "problems" as opposed to our recruiting successes.

Let's be honest with one another. There's not a single person writing here who knows how good Greg Monroe will be as a collegiate athlete. Nor is there anyone here who knows how good Patrick Patterson will be, either next year or over the course of his Kentucky career. And there isn't a single person here who knows how good Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek can become. I'd be willing to wager that many of you who are so high on Monroe and so down on the probability of Zoubek and Thomas ever being viable contributors had similar high praise for Brian and Lance back when they were in high school. How soon we forget.

I for one am going to retain my optimism that Zoubek and Thomas will continue to progress as we thought they would back when they committed. And there's nothing I saw last season from those two that suggests to me that they won't live up to our expectations by the end of their careers. It's pointless to play the "what might have been" game. I'll be happy with what we have, because there's no fewer than 300 teams (and probably closer to 320 teams) who wish they had what we have.

ikiru36
10-15-2007, 12:48 AM
well stated, pfrduke!

sure, i'm disappointed that we didn't land a recruit who seems a good young man and who our coaching staff clearly thought worthy of offering scholarship (and likely starter's minutes) to. but that is completely separate from my support and hopes for those players who are here, working their tuchases off, partly for our benefit.

i feel as if much which was thought, said, felt back with the 94-95' team and 95-96' team is being revisited now. well, 1996-2002 turned out to be a pretty good period for Duke hoops, or so it seems to me. heck, even that low point of 94-95' contains a favorite moment and player or two, as a long-time duke fan.

i do think that duke's recruiting has suffered a tad this past year or so, partly related to some lost swagger and also in relation to the Lacrosse situation tarnishing the school's image. but you can bet that in 1996, other programs were using our 13-18 season, failure to properly develop greg newton and ricky price, and the concern about coach K's back injury to turn recruits away from Duke and two years later we landed Brand, Battier, and Avery.

i can't wait to see the team develop over the course of this year, and on into the future. my main concern about now vs. 1996 is that potential recruits might read these very pages and see duke's own fans guessing at the impending collapse of the program's elite status.

so long as coach k is here (and likely once JD takes over, years from now), duke will be a most special place to attend and play for as a basketball student-athlete. and not too bad as a fan either.

go duke!!!!!!!!!!!!! go devils!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTHCGTH!!!!!!!!!!

ACCBBallFan
10-15-2007, 07:51 AM
I have a question, mostly for those who think we're doomed having missed on Monroe, but anyone can chime in.

Why are we as a fan base so high on players who might come to Duke but so down on the players who are at Duke?

Reading this thread, I'm starting to believe that many of the posters think that Thomas, Zoubek, and Singler aren't fit to carry even Nick Horvath's jock as post players. I don't have the energy to search through archives, but I'm nearly certain that after Zoubek's commit, everyone here was confident we had a 4-year solution at center. The things written about Patterson this off-season were almost identical to those written about Thomas last season. But now, it seems like Zoubek and Thomas have been completely written off as future contributors, and are listed as part of our recruiting "problems" as opposed to our recruiting successes.

Let's be honest with one another. There's not a single person writing here who knows how good Greg Monroe will be as a collegiate athlete. Nor is there anyone here who knows how good Patrick Patterson will be, either next year or over the course of his Kentucky career. And there isn't a single person here who knows how good Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek can become. I'd be willing to wager that many of you who are so high on Monroe and so down on the probability of Zoubek and Thomas ever being viable contributors had similar high praise for Brian and Lance back when they were in high school. How soon we forget.

I for one am going to retain my optimism that Zoubek and Thomas will continue to progress as we thought they would back when they committed. And there's nothing I saw last season from those two that suggests to me that they won't live up to our expectations by the end of their careers. It's pointless to play the "what might have been" game. I'll be happy with what we have, because there's no fewer than 300 teams (and probably closer to 320 teams) who wish they had what we have.

Completely agree with you. Never ceases to amaze me how recruiting junkies heap such praises on them as his school juniors and such criticism on them as sophomores in college when in reality the problem is the fan's exalted expectations, not the player who has continued to improve each year, but just at a mere mortal rather than superhero pace.

Devilsfan
10-15-2007, 08:09 AM
How long after commiting to Georgetown did he pick up the phone and call Coach K? I wonder why he would not at least visit an elite university with arguably the best coach on the planet at the helm. Sometimes a person knows when a situation is right for him, but other times youth gets caught up in the hype of an event like midnight madness. Very smart on Thompson's part to have him there that night.

whereinthehellami
10-15-2007, 08:20 AM
I didn't delete your post. JBDuke did. I don't moderate threads in which I participate. Suffice it to say that your initial post was much snarkier than this one.

As far as Zoubek goes, you are guilty of jumping to conclusions based on one season, which is a mistake regarding any player. It's an even bigger mistake to that to a seven-footer whom everyond described as a bit of a project before last season. How did Aaron Gray look as a freshman at bit? Zoubek needs time to develop, to build lower body strength and to adjust to the speed of the game. I'm not saying he's going to be a star. I'm saying that he deserves the opportunity to improve, and people like you have already written his epitaph.

Zoubek and Thomas both struggle with the speed of the game. One struggles from the mental part of the game and the other from a physical standpoint. To me they are both role players for this year and the next. I think its unrealistic for people to expect either guy to step up into a starter spot for the next two years. Like it or not, its SMALL BALL! Fortunately we have the big (small) macs needed to fill an order at the drive-thru.

Karl Beem
10-15-2007, 08:58 AM
I have not read through all the threads but I think its clear that our biggest factor in not landing Monroe was Duke's inability to turn Randolph and McRoberts into excellent players. Monroe stated he was confident Georgetown could help him become more NBA ready. I believe Randolph was more of a high posting big man at Broughton and was forced to play down low a helluva lot more then he ever wanted to... but again my point is just that I think if one of the two players would have been a star, maybe Monroe picks Duke?

Oh my Intelligent Designer...:eek:

Devilsfan
10-15-2007, 09:08 AM
Also Shav beat out Webber berfore his injury.

Carlos
10-15-2007, 09:25 AM
"It's not realistic to expect either Singler or King to be significant post presences. While both can play post defense against teams that don't have strong post players, both are wings, not post players."

Sure. But remember, it also works the other way. The burly guys that Singler or King might have trouble guarding down low are the same burly guys who are going to have to chase them in transition and on the perimeter, out to the three-point line.

To quote former UDub Coach Marv Harshman - "Quick guys get tired, big guys don't shrink."

In general, even with the 3-pt line, it's more efficient to score inside rather than outside.

I've said from the day that McRoberts left that this Duke team will be fine on offense because of all the mismatches they can create. It's not just because the other team's centers will have a hard time keeping up with Singler on the outside. It's also because if Duke can truly draw the other team away from the basket then it opens up driving lanes for Henderson and Nelson. The key to all of this is that both big men have to be able to score away from the hoop - which means Lance Thomas has to have some ability to hit a 15-foot jump shot.

It's on the other end of the floor though where Duke will really struggle. The Devils will have to be able to outscore their opponents because they're going to have a hard time stopping people inside. And they're going to have to outscore their opponents with team that is primarily perimeter based which, historically, means that you'll eventually have that night in the tournament where your shots aren't falling and you go home.

JasonEvans
10-15-2007, 09:45 AM
Jason- can you support this claim? It seems highly unlikely...

"Ed Davis (who would not have been ranked ahead of LT or BZ had they been in the same class)"

Looking at the measurables, accolades, other schools recruiting, youtube videos... I'd take Davis without hesitation. Maybe you can prove me wrong?

EDIT: And of course this isn't how a staff measures a prospect, but it is the best your or I can reasonably do.

Ed Davis is currently (according to RSCI, a compilation of many recruiting rankings and the best way to judge overall feelings on a recruit) ranked the #11 recruit in the 2008 class.

Lance Thomas was the #20 recruit in the 2006 class while Brian Zoubek was #25 in the same class. The 2006 class was widely considered an excellent class among high school recruiting experts. OTOH, the 2008 class is easily the weakest class in many years -- so weak that some top programs, like Duke, are essentially skipping it.

So, I am guessing that the #11 in an historically weak class would not be regarded as better than the #20 in a strong class. Maybe I am wrong. It is impossible to tell because recruiting rankings are so subjective and comparing rankings from year to year is a truly difficult science. Still, I think my statement has some logic to it.

--Jason "for what it is worth, Alex Stephenson (#39) and Deon Thompson (#43) were both rated well behind the much-malligned BZ and LT" Evans

greybeard
10-15-2007, 10:45 AM
Zoubek and Thomas both struggle with the speed of the game. One struggles from the mental part of the game and the other from a physical standpoint. To me they are both role players for this year and the next. I think its unrealistic for people to expect either guy to step up into a starter spot for the next two years. Like it or not, its SMALL BALL! Fortunately we have the big (small) macs needed to fill an order at the drive-thru.

I disagree. To me, the part of the game I saw as terribly subpar last year was in the skills of the littles with regard to feeding the pivot. "He who hestitates is lost," as Bill Munch used to put it, and the littles hesitate and then provide the bigs with the ball after the defense has adjusted, after the big has lost his movement and therefore his rhythm, and after there is nothing for the big to do but fight off the wolves.

You want a better inside game from those two, imo, you improve the vision, understanding of the littles and one more essential thing that I think might well be missing and I think is devasting to a team's success--they need to trust the bigs to make receptions on the move, althletic ones, and to be able to make good choices just as the littles think they can themselves.

One caveat, I have heard nothing to suggest that the multiple fractures in Zoub's foot are going to permit him to meaningfully contribute. The foot, people, you forgot about the foot. I can assure you Zoub's hasn't; I bet it's talking to him as we speak.

JasonEvans
10-15-2007, 10:49 AM
It is a common refrain among the recruiting worriers that "A kid Duke gets automatically shoots up in the rankings while player xxxx for some other school was ranked lower but is really a much better prospect."

We hear it all the time and I think it was probably true a decade or so ago before the internet made recruiting much more nationalized and into a bigger industry. I think it is a fallacy that it exists today.

So, here is my challenge. I would like all the folks who believe this to be true to go to RSCI (http://rscihoops.com/) where they have recruiting rankings from various times during the season. As a general rule there are at least 3 different sets of rankigns from a kid's senior season. You can see how the playert was ranked the summer before his senior campaign, before he hit the camps as a rising senior, and how he was ranked at the end of the year just before entering college. Lets see if we can find examples of kids who committed to Duke and then shot up in the rankings. Obviously, it will not work on guys like JJ or Markie who committed as high school juniors or even earlier, but if this notion of a "Duke effect" on recruiting rankings is true then we will certainly be able to find many other examples of it, right?

Now, one caveat-- naturally some guys are going to move up in the rankings because they actually performed better and deserved to move up. But, if the "Duke effect" really exists then we should see a LOT MORE Duke recruits whose rankings jump after committing versus guys whose rankings stay the same of go down, right? Is my logic bad regarding this?

--Jason "hmmm, I am gonna go look myself right now at a few Duke players to see if this does happen" Evans

FewFAC
10-15-2007, 11:05 AM
I have not read through all the threads but I think its clear that our biggest factor in not landing Monroe was Duke's inability to turn Randolph and McRoberts into excellent players. Monroe stated he was confident Georgetown could help him become more NBA ready. I believe Randolph was more of a high posting big man at Broughton and was forced to play down low a helluva lot more then he ever wanted to... but again my point is just that I think if one of the two players would have been a star, maybe Monroe picks Duke?

This is pretty much blasphemous around these parts, but I doubt it was just Shav and Josh. K's has racked up a very poor record in developing low-post players, and to question whether it impacts him on the recruiting trail makes a lot of sense, especially for the kids who would be entrusting him with their future. I suppose K could take the Gary Williams approach re: why MD doesn't graduate players, but K is who he is, and a developer of low-post talent he isn't. It is what it is. Some of that track record:

Zoubek
Boateng
Randolph
Thompson
Sanders
Christensen
Williams
Boozer
Domzalski
Brand
Newton
Parks
Meek
Beard
Buckley
Abdelnaby
Burgin

JasonEvans
10-15-2007, 11:07 AM
Ok, here are a few guys and how the "Duke effect" changed their rankings:

Lance Thomas
Pre-summer ranking - 15
Summer ranking - 20
Final ranking after committing to Duke - 20

Henderson, Scheyer, and Zoubek had all already committed to Duke before the summer began so it is hard to say how the Duke effect gave them a boost.

Nolan Smith and Taylor King had also committed to Duke prior to the summer rankings so again, it is hard to see any Duke boost for them. It is worth noting that Taylor King was considered one of the top 5 kids in the class as a soph and even early in his junior year. His ranking slid though late in his junior season and then, after committing to Duke, through much of his senior campaign. King ended his junior year as the #20 recruit. He was #22 after the summer circuit and finished the season as the #24 recruit.

Kyle Singler
Pre-summer - 6
Post-summer - 5
Final ranking (after committing to Duke) - 5

So far, no evidence of a guy shooting up the rankings after committing to Duke. Hmmm. Lets go back to the class of 2005.

Eric Boateng
Summer - 13
Fall (after committing to Duke) - 24
Final Ranking - 39

Yikes!!! no Duke effect at all there. In fact, he shot down after picking Duke. Maybe the recruiting analysts know to downgrade any big man we pick up.

I could continue this on and on. Sure, there are some kids who shoot up the rankings after picking Duke. We'll have to track what happens with Olek Czyz who was #79 in the summer rankings and #68 in the early fall rankings. We'll see if he shoots up after picking Duke (though it is certainly worth noting that Duke only started going after him because he was widely reported to be playing great in AAU tournaments which would lead to him going up in the rankings regardless of any Duke interest).

Anyway, my point is that I do not believe there is a "Duke effect" and implying that kids we get are magically shot up in the rankings is simply not supported by the fact... at least not by any facts I have seen so far.

--Jason "I cannot wait for Lance and Zoubek to play well this year and shut all you naysayers up!!" Evans

grossbus
10-15-2007, 11:12 AM
"Suffice it to say that your initial post was much snarkier than this one.

As far as Zoubek goes, you are guilty of jumping to conclusions based on one season, which is a mistake regarding any player. It's an even bigger mistake to that to a seven-footer whom everyond described as a bit of a project before last season. How did Aaron Gray look as a freshman at bit? Zoubek needs time to develop, to build lower body strength and to adjust to the speed of the game. I'm not saying he's going to be a star. I'm saying that he deserves the opportunity to improve, and people like you have already written his epitaph."

it was snarky? too much word play? hmmm.

i have not written his epitaph and am perfectly willing to give him the time to improve. what i am trying, apparently without much success, to do is counter those (whose numbers are legion) who are suggesting he will be "huge" or a "beast" by the time he is a junior. i know you aren't saying he is going to be a star, but some seem to be proposing unreasonable expectations.

jimsumner
10-15-2007, 11:33 AM
Count me as one of the people who expects to see significant improvement in Zoubek, this year and into the future.

Projection? Sure. And it may not pan out. Lots of seven-footers start out as projects and end up that way. But a lot of my optimism is based on the opinions of lots of people who know a lot about the subject. You're talking about a 7'1" player with decent mobility, good (not Elton-like) hands, who, by all accounts is smart, works hard, really wants to be good, and has a pretty good grasp of both fundamentals and what he needs to do to dominate at this level.



Besides, you can't teach height.

3rdgenDukie
10-15-2007, 12:26 PM
This is pretty much blasphemous around these parts, but I doubt it was just Shav and Josh. K's has racked up a very poor record in developing low-post players, and to question whether it impacts him on the recruiting trail makes a lot of sense, especially for the kids who would be entrusting him with their future. I suppose K could take the Gary Williams approach re: why MD doesn't graduate players, but K is who he is, and a developer of low-post talent he isn't. It is what it is. Some of that track record:

Zoubek
Boateng
Randolph
Thompson
Sanders
Christensen
Williams
Boozer
Domzalski
Brand
Newton
Parks
Meek
Beard
Buckley
Abdelnaby
Burgin

You included George Burgin and Jay Buckley in this list? As examples of poor development? Seriously?

Anyway, of the 17, 14 were some sort of HS AA (Burgess should be included, Beard should be tossed - he was much more a wing at 6' 9"). Of the 14, four were first round picks, and 6 play in the NBA. Of the 8 who didn't, three transferred way early, two had major injury issues (DQ, whose knees were just shot by the time he was a senior, and Meek, who was injured before matriculating and never fully got it back), and one is still playing. So basically, of the talented big men who have stayed at Duke and not been injured, 6/8 have gone to the NBA. If you go back and include Laettner, Ferry and Alarie (and throw in Nessley as a bust), we're at 9/12. If you include McRoberts, we're 10/13. If Zoub makes it, we're 11/14. 80%ish. During that span, UNC has had HS AAs Zwikker, Brownlee, Wenstrom, Budko, Lang and Popson - all of whom stayed and were injury-free - fail to scratch. Do they develop big men?

Your statement isn't so much blasphemous as it is puerile.

Lord Ash
10-15-2007, 12:36 PM
--Jason "I cannot wait for Lance and Zoubek to play well this year and shut all you naysayers up!!" Evans


Every single one of us only hope!

Troublemaker
10-15-2007, 12:40 PM
Count me as one of the people who expects to see significant improvement in Zoubek, this year and into the future.

Projection? Sure. And it may not pan out. Lots of seven-footers start out as projects and end up that way. But a lot of my optimism is based on the opinions of lots of people who know a lot about the subject. You're talking about a 7'1" player with decent mobility, good (not Elton-like) hands, who, by all accounts is smart, works hard, really wants to be good, and has a pretty good grasp of both fundamentals and what he needs to do to dominate at this level.



Besides, you can't teach height.

Man, I would love for that to come to fruition. My best-case scenario for this season is a "center" tandem of Zoubek and King that flusters opponents because of how widely different their games are. Throw in a little bit of Lance, who has a style of his own as well, and I really like the possibilities. Hopefully they become realities.

Jumbo
10-15-2007, 01:02 PM
Zoubek
Boateng
Randolph
Thompson
Sanders
Christensen
Williams
Boozer
Domzalski
Brand
Newton
Parks
Meek
Beard
Buckley
Abdelnaby
Burgin

Wha??? Let's see, we've got three glorified walk-ons on that list (Chrstensen, Buckley, Burgin), so you can cross them off immediately. Beard and Thompson both transferred before they had any chance to develop, and both were lousy at their next stops. So, cross them off too. Boateng transferred after his freshman year -- zap! Zoubek has played one season, and since we're talking about DEVELOPING post talent, he can't go up there either. El-Zappo! And Williams, Boozer and Brand? You're talking about three guys who were absolute studs at Duke, two of whom are among the best power forwards in the NBA. They had great Duke careers. They should be leading the "Duke DOES develop big men" list.

Now, let's see who is left.
Abdelnaby -- His production increased in every single category during his time at Duke. He went from a 6.6 mpg, 3.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg freshman (sound like anyone currently on the roster) to a 24.9 mpg, 15.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg senior who became a first round draft pick and had a decent NBA career. That is the very definition of development.

Meek -- Was injured in a terrible car accident before ever arriving at Duke, so his career was never the same. Yet, he also saw his stats increase every season and averaged 10.3 ppg, 8.3 rpg as a senior and was a second-round pick. It's hard to say he didn't "develop."

Parks -- Uh, what? Let's see, if he doesn't get injured against Cal, Duke doesn't lose in the second round in Hurley's final game. As a junior, he's Duke's second-best player on a team that is a fingernail away from its third national title in four years. And as a senior, his team was lousy, but he averaged 19 ppg and 9.3 rpg and got drafted in the lottery. How he got on this list is beyond me.

Newton -- He's the best argument so far. He was highly rated recruit who clearly underachieved at Duke. He had a good junior year, but we all know about his problems and ultimate benching as a senior. That said, Greg's issues were hardly unique the basktball court. Sure, Duke didn't do a great job of turning him into the next great big man, but could anyone have done that, given his attitude/maturity issues?

Domzalski -- Clearly didn't develop. Apparently, there were various reasons, and he eventually got recruited over (Brand, Burgess). Still, he was a disappointment.

Sanders -- Duke never maximized his raw ability. However, he was a key figure in Duke's national title run, and had a very underrated senior season (5.2 rpg, 1.6 bpg in only 17.8 mpg; plus seven boards and five blocks in his final college game against Kansas). It's fair to say that he never developed into what we hoped he'd be. But you also have to question whether "hands" can be taught.

Randolph -- No real argument here, other than the fact that he was basically hurt his entire time at Duke.

And, I'll even throw McRoberts onto this list. Meanwhile, let's take a look at some bigs who have clearly developed into outstanding players under K:

Alarie
Ferry
Abdelnaby
Laettner
Parks
Brand
Boozer
Williams

Those guys span just about every season since the 1986 team. The idea that Duke doesn't develop big guys is a myth. Virtually every Duke team has had at least one outstanding big guy.

Also, this post completely lacks context. You can't look at Duke's history in a vacuum. You need to offer other programs as a comparison. Any suggestions?

arnie
10-15-2007, 01:21 PM
I kind of hate to agree with Jumbo, but I will on this post. Very good analysis of our big men since K took over. I thought Buckley was considered more than a glorified walkon, but maybe I'm influenced by memories of his dad. I have wondered if Gaudet (as a big man coach) was stronger in individual development of our post players.

My one memory of Gaudet comes from my sons at the Duke BBall camps in the early 90's. He was definitely the "rules enforcer" at camp, which was certainly needed with that age group.

JasonEvans
10-15-2007, 01:28 PM
What college team has the most PFs/Cs on NBA rosters this season? I am not certain, but Duke is probably right up there with UNC.

Duke- Brand, Boozer, Williams, Shav, McJosh. That's 5. Does Deng play any PF for Chicago? Howe about Battier? Certainly those guys were PFs in their college careers. Should they count in this argument?

Other contenders would be...

UConn- Okafor, Villanueva, Josh Boone, Hilton Armstrong. Is Donyell Marshall a PF? I suppose he is like Deng and Battier. Wait, I just looked it up and Jake Voskuhl is still in the NBA so UConn has as many big men as we do in the NBA.

UNC- Jamison, Sheed, May, Haywood. Marvin Williams is one of those inside-out big men like Deng and Robinson.

Arizona- They've got a lot of guards but I think the only big men are Channing Frye and Luke Walton.

Kansas- Collison, Gooden, Pollard, LaFrenz, Simien... but not a single one of those guys is a big star like several of the Duke guys are.

Georgetown- Harrington, Mutumbo (he is like 58 years old, right?), Mourning (another old dude), Mike Sweetney is earning a paycheck. Anybody else?

Regardless, the notion that Duke does not produce big men who can make it in the NBA is laughably foolish.

--Jason "Brand and Boozer are 2 of the top 5 PFs in the league... but Duke can't develop big men?!?!?" Evans

grossbus
10-15-2007, 01:58 PM
truly a specious statement.

i never hate to agree with jumbo and i do.

i am always proud to agree with jason and i do.

Lulu
10-15-2007, 02:02 PM
As long as we have Wojo coaching big men people will always assume that any big man who actually does well did so despite Wojo, and all who don't live up to expectations did so because of Wojo.

Jumbo
10-15-2007, 02:13 PM
I kind of hate to agree with Jumbo, but I will on this post.

Um, thanks?

Clipsfan
10-15-2007, 02:13 PM
Wow, I can't believe that I read through most of this thread, especially given that it seems to rehash many of the same arguments which have been taking place as long as I remember (and definitely during the summer). I'll just throw out that I agree that we would have liked to have landed Monroe, but that it isn't a disaster that he didn't come. I believe that Zoubek and Thomas will improve, and if it was not for the injury to Zoubek I'd have high hopes for that improvement to impress people. Someone posted that they didn't adjust to the speed of the game well, and I'd respond by saying that adjusting is one of the biggest changes that can happen between the first and second year. We never have and never will get EVERY recruit that we want. I think that Duke will be more than fine and look forward to watching these guys play.

Lulu
10-15-2007, 02:23 PM
Why in the world was my comment deleted? I think it is a legitimate argument that Wojo is a liability when it comes to big man recruiting. People will always say that Brand and Boozer were future NBA'ers no matter where they went to college, while most of that list above never lived up to their potential because of Wojo. I wouldn't doubt if other coaches recruiting against Duke don't fail to make this point.

Is this board public or private? I really can't see how Grossbus' comment above has any value greater than my post except that he/she agreed with Jumbo and Jason.

VaDukie
10-15-2007, 02:47 PM
One key element we're forgetting in Monroe's recruitment is that if UNC had finished off Georgetown then maybe the Hoyas wouldn't have earned the 'program on the rise' label.

I never thought Roy's inept coaching in the tournament would come back to haunt us. Talk about unintended consequences. :D

Jumbo
10-15-2007, 03:07 PM
Why in the world was my comment deleted? I think it is a legitimate argument that Wojo is a liability when it comes to big man recruiting. People will always say that Brand and Boozer were future NBA'ers no matter where they went to college, while most of that list above never lived up to their potential because of Wojo. I wouldn't doubt if other coaches recruiting against Duke don't fail to make this point.

Is this board public or private? I really can't see how Grossbus' comment above has any value greater than my post except that he/she agreed with Jumbo and Jason.

Not sure why it was deleted. I un-deleted it. Seems to me you were trying to say that Wojo is in a no-win situation. If a big man does well, he gets no credit. If a guy's a bust, he gets blamed. Did I read you correctly?

Devilsfan
10-15-2007, 03:12 PM
it's all Wojo's fault for not being 6'10". Wait then it must be his parents fault because he's got their genes, or is it his grandparents fault, or maybe his great-great grandparents fault. If anyone remembers Wojo's play he had the heart and fight of a marine.
You never know what's inside somebody until he's given an opportunity to show it.

Wander
10-15-2007, 03:19 PM
it's all Wojo's fault for not being 6'10". Wait then it must be his parents fault because he's got their genes, or is it his grandparents fault, or maybe his great-great grandparents fault. If anyone remembers Wojo's play he had the heart and fight of a marine.
You never know what's inside somebody until he's given an opportunity to show it.

This is completely irrelevant.

watzone
10-15-2007, 04:40 PM
First it was the cheerleaders, now it's Wojo. Yeah, Wojo is to blame for Monroe going elsewhere (sc). Quick, somebody tell how tall this legend is? While you are at it, why not go up and down all the coaches in the nation and bring back the names of a bunch of tall guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Newell

Jumbo
10-15-2007, 04:55 PM
First it was the cheerleaders, nor it's Wojo. Yeah, Wojo is to blame for Monroe going elsewhere (sc). Quick, somebody tell how tall this legend is? While you are at it, why not go up and down all the coaches in the nation and bring back the names of a bunch of tall guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Newell


I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in this thread was criticizing Wojo. I think Lulu was commenting on the way people have criticized him in the past, and the fact that he can't win for trying. Or, I could be reading things wrong.

greybeard
10-15-2007, 05:29 PM
First it was the cheerleaders, now it's Wojo. Yeah, Wojo is to blame for Monroe going elsewhere (sc). Quick, somebody tell how tall this legend is? While you are at it, why not go up and down all the coaches in the nation and bring back the names of a bunch of tall guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Newell

Didn't I tell you guys that Larry Brown is the best tall-guy coach ever, and how tall is he. But, did anybody agree with me that short guys make great tall guy coaches, nooo. (I'm trying for John Belushi here, the newscaster routine on SNL, so cut me some slack). BTW, I think that JTIII is maybe 2-3 inches taller than Wojo. You know what they say, it's not the height in the man, it's the . . . . ;)

throatybeard
10-15-2007, 06:06 PM
Holy God, Newell is old! Almost Wooden old.

jimsumner
10-15-2007, 06:23 PM
RE: Wojo as a big man coach. Is it time for my Pete Newell rant again?

Clay Buckley was a top-100 recruit but not a top-50 recruit. He had chronic back problems at Duke and essentially took off every summer in attempts to get healthy.

yancem
10-15-2007, 06:25 PM
And once more, for the record, I very much resent the "entitlement" comment. That is a straw man, on top of the fact that it's judgmental on your part. Wanting the best for Duke doesn't mean I have a sense of entitlement. Just not the same thing.

I'm starting to wonder what some of think a "sense of entitlement" is. It comes across very strongly that you feel that Duke should be landing guys like Monroe and if we aren't then someone or something needs to change. How is this not a sense of entitlement?

I want what is best for Duke too and would love for Coach K to sign not only sign every one of his top targets but for them to also prosper, become All-Americans, become lottery picks and all pros.

This simply isn't realistic. There are entirely too many quality programs offering all kinds of different experiences. To think that simply because Coach K come calling they should line up is arrogant and smacks of entitlement. No one convinces all of their targets to sign.

So be disappointed, heck be concerned about the impact that this or other misses may have on the program, but be realistic about how incredibly difficult it is to routinely recruit and sign high caliber prospects. In this decade Duke has sign as many or more McDonald AA's than any other program (and before anyone starts the rankings don't matter results do argument, Monore isn't really any more highly touted than McRoberts was coming out of HS, he just hasn't had the chance to live up to or not live up to the hype. Besides McDonalds has a pretty impressive record of selecting it AA's so if a few of them don't live up to expectations don't blame the Duke staff), won 5 or 6 ACC championships, won 1 national title and been to another final four. No one can claim better conference success and I believe that only Florida can claim a better NCAA run during this time. If you don't think that is enough success than yes, I believe there is a sense of entitlement.

duketaylor
10-15-2007, 07:06 PM
Not happy about it at all. He's likely one-and-done anywhere, if that's any consolation-it's not to me. We've missed on three straight big men that were our number 1 priority and that just sucks. Brandan Wright, Pat Patterson and now Monroe. Not sure why as we have had great successes with bigs since Elton, now we can't even get them. Plenty weird, IMO. FWIW, I don't consider Kyle as a "big" as he's more of a 3/4 player but can play the post from what I've seen, especially on D. We could actually field a team that can play post D, yet everybody on O plays perimeter to some extent, save Zou and McClure. That actually could give other teams fits. I think K will simply play a little smaller and run more, which I like. I wish I could be at the coaches' clinic Saturday but I'll be working. I'll be looking forward to reports from other folks and will pass them along here.
Thank goodness practice has started and the season awaits. I received tickets for a few games today;)

Indoor66
10-15-2007, 07:53 PM
RE: Wojo as a big man coach. Is it time for my Pete Newell rant again?

Clay Buckley was a top-100 recruit but not a top-50 recruit. He had chronic back problems at Duke and essentially took off every summer in attempts to get healthy.

And his dad is a '63 grad starter on the Final 4 team that year - and he is a doctor.

jimsumner
10-15-2007, 08:05 PM
I did an article on the Buckley family for BDW last year. Fascinating family. Jay (Class of '64, btw), brother Bruce of UNC, and Clay have seven Final Fours among them. Think of the great players who never made the FF. Think of the programs that never made a Final Four. And they've got SEVEN.

Jay is a rocket scientist. I realize it's a punchline but it's true. He really is.

watzone
10-15-2007, 08:24 PM
I may be wrong, but I don't think anyone in this thread was criticizing Wojo. I think Lulu was commenting on the way people have criticized him in the past, and the fact that he can't win for trying. Or, I could be reading things wrong.

I am guilty of not reading through the thread carefully. IOW, I assumed too much.

throatybeard
10-15-2007, 08:46 PM
I want Angelina Jolie to be idling outside Cameron in a cherry-colored convertible for our 3rd best big man each summer.

throatybeard
10-15-2007, 08:47 PM
Jay (Class of '64, btw)


My mother claims to have ridden in a VW Bug with him. He's '6-10".

_Gary
10-15-2007, 08:59 PM
I'm starting to wonder what some of think a "sense of entitlement" is.

And I'm starting to wonder if people are reading other people's posts, or just formulating opinions without really reading things thoroughly. No offense, but this "entitlement" issue, at least with regards to my posts, is really beyond the pale. It smacks of a judgmentalism that cannot be justified by reading a few scant posts. What's happening is that people are taking one point and imposing their own thoughts on top of it, thus creating strawman arguments that they can then attack. It's just that simple in this instance.



It comes across very strongly that you feel that Duke should be landing guys like Monroe and if we aren't then someone or something needs to change. How is this not a sense of entitlement?

Having a sense of entitlement would be saying something like this:

"I can't believe Monroe didn't come to Duke. How dare he pick another school. Everyone knows Duke is the best and this guy is an idiot for not accepting our offer. We all know Duke is supposed to get every recruit it offers a scholarship to."

Now, if you can point me to any of my posts where I said that, then I'll apologize. But you can't do that because I never said that. You'd have to "read into" my posts with some type of presupposition on your part to come to that conclusion. But the reality is that I never said anything like that and I don't believe that.



I want what is best for Duke too and would love for Coach K to sign not only sign every one of his top targets but for them to also prosper, become All-Americans, become lottery picks and all pros.

Wait a minute! You "want what is best for Duke"? Aren't you exhibiting a sense of entitlement? You must be because that's all I've wanted as well. So then, wanting the team to get the best players isn't exhibiting this sense of entitlement, is it. Good then. We are actually on the same side. We both want Duke to get the best players they can, but we don't expect it to happen every time. That's where we are at right now.



This simply isn't realistic. There are entirely too many quality programs offering all kinds of different experiences. To think that simply because Coach K come calling they should line up is arrogant and smacks of entitlement. No one convinces all of their targets to sign.

Again I ask the question: Where did I ever say that recruits should fall at K's feet and worship him as basketball god? I haven't. Not even close. So this isn't about that at all.



So be disappointed, heck be concerned about the impact that this or other misses may have on the program, but be realistic about how incredibly difficult it is to routinely recruit and sign high caliber prospects.

And that's all I have expressed. Disappointment and concern. Because we've had three athletic bigs that would have most likely played the 5 for Duke and we've missed each of them. That's my concern. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. I'm not saying it's any one person's fault this has happened. All I'm saying is that it has happened and it is going to adversely affect our team this year. We are loaded at the 1-4, but not the 5. We didn't have the five last year like we could have had in Wright had come and stayed just two years. Now with not getting Patterson (who I gladly admit we got in late on) we don't have the powerful 5 that I'd like to see. And whiffing on Monroe assures us that we absolutely must see "Z" and Lance progress big time. I hope they do. I'll be rooting hard they do. But it doesn't negate the fact that we are looking at going several years straight without getting our number one priority athletic big (i.e. a guy that would play the five for us). That's my concern. That we may be seeing a pattern develop whereby we aren't able to get those athletic bigs when we really need them.

None of what I wrote is a "sense of entitlement." I don't think a guy should suddenly have his knees buckle when Coach K calls him. I don't think he should automatically just select Duke when he has other options. I know we are going to miss out on some. But these last three were all tough to take, especially when in each instance the word of the street was that they were leaning toward Duke. All of them have surprised and disappointed me. But I don't think that translates into entitlement. Not even close.

Gary

throatybeard
10-15-2007, 09:04 PM
All of them have surprised and disappointed me. But I don't think that translates into entitlement. Not even close.
Gary

Um, OK.

To be fair Gary, folks are aware of the history of your posts, back to the old board too.

_Gary
10-15-2007, 09:17 PM
Um, OK.

To be fair Gary, folks are aware of the history of your posts, back to the old board too.


And again, I'd challenge anyone to produce an actual post of mine that demonstrated that I had a "sense of entitlement." You've actually made my point for me, throaty. That point being that people are assuming things the minute they read a post and adding their own presuppositions. If that is not the case, all I ask is that someone show me where I said any recruit should have come to Duke - only to Duke - because we are the KING of the block and deserve every guy we go after. Don't think you can do it, because it's not there.

Me being disappointed that we didn't land a recruit is NOT the same thing as entitlement. No way, no how. If it is, then we all have a sense of entitlement. You, me, Jumbo, Jason, everyone! Because all of us are somewhat disappointed when we don't land a top recruit. Who the heck wouldn't be? That doesn't mean we think we are entitled to those recruits.

Gary

ACCBBallFan
10-15-2007, 09:21 PM
Count me as one of the people who expects to see significant improvement in Zoubek, this year and into the future.

Projection? Sure. And it may not pan out. Lots of seven-footers start out as projects and end up that way. But a lot of my optimism is based on the opinions of lots of people who know a lot about the subject. You're talking about a 7'1" player with decent mobility, good (not Elton-like) hands, who, by all accounts is smart, works hard, really wants to be good, and has a pretty good grasp of both fundamentals and what he needs to do to dominate at this level.

Besides, you can't teach height.


Man, I would love for that to come to fruition. My best-case scenario for this season is a "center" tandem of Zoubek and King that flusters opponents because of how widely different their games are. Throw in a little bit of Lance, who has a style of his own as well, and I really like the possibilities. Hopefully they become realities.

Of course, I usually agree with these two posters, so not surprisingly I agree here as well. Duke will be a very difficult team to prepare for with so many alternate looks the post defenders by committee can present.

I don't think there is a a center in college who has the range of defensive skills to defend a 7 foot 2 268 pound center with no help since Duke can spread the floor and then also be able to cover Kingsnoggle on perimeter and also Lance's quickness.

Whether any of them can play good enough post defense to stop the opposition is another matter, but if Duke can just hold its own against the post player, there is potential to do better at the other 4 positions.

ACCBBallFan
10-15-2007, 09:35 PM
Not happy about it at all. He's likely one-and-done anywhere, if that's any consolation-it's not to me. We've missed on three straight big men that were our number 1 priority and that just sucks. Brandan Wright, Pat Patterson and now Monroe. Not sure why as we have had great successes with bigs since Elton, now we can't even get them. Plenty weird, IMO. FWIW, I don't consider Kyle as a "big" as he's more of a 3/4 player but can play the post from what I've seen, especially on D. We could actually field a team that can play post D, yet everybody on O plays perimeter to some extent, save Zou and McClure. That actually could give other teams fits. I think K will simply play a little smaller and run more, which I like. I wish I could be at the coaches' clinic Saturday but I'll be working. I'll be looking forward to reports from other folks and will pass them along here.
Thank goodness practice has started and the season awaits. I received tickets for a few games today;) Too bad you have to work, Chuck. I was looking forward to your report.

Maybe someone else can be our eyes and ears, until we get to see the ACC teams in action in less than a month.

yancem
10-15-2007, 09:42 PM
And I'm starting to wonder if people are reading other people's posts, or just formulating opinions without really reading things thoroughly. No offense, but this "entitlement" issue, at least with regards to my posts, is really beyond the pale. It smacks of a judgmentalism that cannot be justified by reading a few scant posts. What's happening is that people are taking one point and imposing their own thoughts on top of it, thus creating strawman arguments that they can then attack. It's just that simple in this instance.

I reread my post and realized that it spoke too directly at you, so I apologize. My intention was not to say you specifically demonstrate a sense of entitlement but that there are several comments from several posters that demonstrate a sense of entitlement. I meant "you" in my post in the more general sense, but I clearly didn't craft my statement very well.

There are several posts countering the sense of entitlement statements which, at least to me, don't hold much weight within the context of parts of this thread. Yours just happened to be the one I read when I couldn't take any more. You very well may have realistic views and expectations but at least a few on this board do not.

_Gary
10-15-2007, 09:50 PM
I reread my post and realized that it spoke too directly at you, so I apologize. My intention was not to say you specifically demonstrate a sense of entitlement but that there are several comments from several posters that demonstrate a sense of entitlement. I meant "you" in my post in the more general sense, but I clearly didn't craft my statement very well.

There are several posts countering the sense of entitlement statements which, at least to me, don't hold much weight within the context of parts of this thread. Yours just happened to be the one I read when I couldn't take any more. You very well may have realistic views and expectations but at least a few on this board do not.

Thank you. I have no problem owning up to what I do believe about any given situation as it concerns Duke basketball. But I don't like being accused of things I do NOT believe. I think we have some posters who consider themselves omniscient. They believe they can discern every thought and intent in each poster's heart by simply reading a few posts on a given subject. That bothers me terribly. I prefer to discuss the actual issues, not strawman arguments - a favorite ploy of some. See throaty, I also remember other people's posting style from the old board. That cuts both ways. What I was hoping is that with the new boards everyone could get off to a clean start. But apparently that just isn't going to be the case.

Gary

Patrick Yates
10-16-2007, 08:32 AM
Heck, entitlement might be necessary to sustain a dominant program. Not good, or very good, but Dominant.

Let's look at some "entitled" fan bases.

Basketball.

Kentucky. They have a quality guy as a coach in Tubby Smith. They were solidly in the upper echelon of the SEC year-in, year out. Yet, the recruiting was sub par, in the minds of the fans, and the team was not going to Final Fours at the rate to which Big Blue nation was accustomed. Thus, KY showed Tubby the door, and were decried the length and breadth of the land. They brought in Billy G, who has already turned around recruiting, beating our butts for Patterson, and bringing in a brace of talent with virtually no lead time. On a going forward basis, he is building a strong base. We obviously do not have any on-court results to go by, but Billy's history suggests that his on-court results will probably come close to meeting KY's expectations.

UCLA. Their dominance was decades in the past, yet their fans still have near Wooden-esgue expectations. They fire a middling (but no means abject failure) coach, and bring in Howland. The results, two straight FFs, a top 4 team this year, and solid recruiting recently, and a top 4 class this year.

UNC. Ah, those pastel blue warriors. Coach D'oh is hamstrung by the previous regime's recruiting misses/misevaluations. He brings in top flight talent, but fails to deliver immediately with a true head case/locker room cancer (McCants). He is fired. Ol Roy is brought in. A national championship, top flight recruiting, and expected dominance this year are UNC's rewards for being entitled.

Even Indiana, who fired a pretty good coach in Davis, have fared OK. Sure, Kelvin is shady, but he hasn't broken any MAJOR rules (yet?), and he brought in a top flight class last year. This year, IU has a chance in the Big 10, and he will probably have them pointed in the right direction (assuming he stears clear of the NCAA)

Louisville. An aging legend is (way too) politely encouraged to retire so that they can bring in Pitino. And for those here who are complaining about being snakebit by injuries, look at Louisville's woes. Even so, Louisville looks to be on the path back to perennial greatness.

Football.

Florida. Spoiled by the Visor's greatness, a restless fanbase fires Zook, arguably one of the top recruiters in the game, because of unhappiness with with the on field results. In comes Meyer, the recruiting gravy train rolls on, and a National Championship is now gleaming in Gainsville.

Alabama. The Scion of a football family is fired after mediocre results (that all but 2-4 ACC squads would offer human sacrifices to achieve). They go after Nick Satan, er Saban, and the team is already more competitve, with solid recruiting already rolling in. Good Hire (assuming Michigan doesn't poach him).

LSU. Back in the day, LSU was a good, competitive team in a Brutal conference. The fired their coach and brought in the aforementioned El Diablo. A national title ensues.

The OSU. Previous coach, wins 9-10 games annually, has trouble with Michigan. Fire him. In comes Tressel. Good recruiting, a National Championship, Heisman, playing for another NC, and currently ranked No 1 (a joke, but technically correct). He has spanked Michigan so long and so hard that Carr had to basically win the NC this year to have any hope of keeping his job (oopsie).

Texas poaches Mack Brown, who co-dominates recruiting in Texas, wins a NC. Oklahoma Brings in Stoops, who co-dominates recruiting in Texas, wins a NC. Both schools were OK to good prior to these guys coming in, but they were not national elites like the fans wanted. So they brought in guys who would become national elites.

Michigan will be on this list. The App St and Oregon games made it more likely, but Carr would not have survived with even a 10 win season this year. Can you imagine an ACC squad firing a guy whose worst years are 8 win seasons?

In fairness, at Nebraska and Notre Dame this entitlement has backfired. At ND this is perhaps temporary, so they are a maybe. But Nebraska was a Bad AD (now fired, see how this works?) who made a worse hire (new AD will be hired by the end of the season, who will then replace the coach).

All the above programs are among the most entitled in sports. Their fans are passionate, loyal (to the program, which is far greater than any mere coaching staff), and annoying. They expect to win. They genuinely do not understand why they don't get the lion's share of first team HS AAs every single year. In FB, single loss seasons reguire the head coach to offer up an assistant to be a fatted calf. In BB, too long between FFs (3-4 years, tops), and serious questions are raised.

Have a bad year, or miss on a top recruit, especially a game changing one who professed to love the program, and poo hits the fan. Coaches get called at home. The AD's office has to hire extra temps JUST to answer the phones from Irate Boosters. College athletes, just kids really, are lambasted on the Net, in the Print Media, on Talk Radio, and whenever they go out in public thanks to fans yelling invectives at them whenever, wherever.

Just Win (or else) Baby. That is all these entitled fan bases care about. And guess what? Most every one IS winning, and winning big (or getting ready to make personell changes that will start winning, or else).

Just being good enough, is never good enough. Not if you expect national championships. Currently most of the media has us in the 13-18 range, which is about right. We'll be the second best team in a historically weak ACC. We are loaded with AA's, most of which are naturally suited to play the 1 or 2 position. We have a couple of 3's (and one of them is more of a 2), and a couple of 3-4s. One center, who was not a AA. We have all the makings of a good team. 95 percent of the rest of college B-Ball would exult in the type of season we are about to have. But we have almost no chance to make the FF.

Is good sufficient to satisfy the posters here? If so, fine. I will keep my opinions to myself. Personally, I want to win the NC ever year. I want to be a top 5 team every year. I want a top 10 class every year. And I am rational when it comes to recruiting, because even casual readers will know that I have written extensively, on why recruits might not choose Duke. I still expect the staff to load up more often than not.

It this irrational? Yes. It may not even be possible given today's climate. But, by demanding greatness every year, you hopefully get it 3 or 4 out of every 5 years. (Some may not like the comparisons, but UNC has now been a national favorite in 3 out of the last 4 years, with the lone low expectation year being the year after a NC with a stud recruiting class inbound and an even better one already committed. Even so, they overachieved that year. I can see why no one likes those UNC comparisons.)

So, I ask you, is a sense of "entitlement" the greatest evil facing the world? No. I would argue that it gets results.

Patrick Yates

Wander
10-16-2007, 09:11 AM
No one's talking about entitlement as wanting to win the national championship every year, or trying to get the best coach or players. People are complaining about the embarassingly condescending attitude in fans saying that a recruit must have made the "wrong" choice when he decides to attend a school other than Duke.

RelativeWays
10-16-2007, 09:35 AM
This thread is rife with optimism. Where is the solidarity among Duke fans? Anyway, I will be glad if Zoubs evolves into a player like Luke Schenscher or Kyle Visser, someone who can net you 10-12 a game and get some rebounds to boot. Some here are a bit too eager to sell him and Lance down the river.

We may miss out on some big recruits, the nature of College BB has changed. I would rather have good players who stick around for 4 years than great players who bolt after 1-2 years. Just curious, but how many of the UF guys were highly recruited before signing with Donovan? They may have all been McDs for all I know, but I bet some of the players were not, yet they succeeded with team play.

I'm not too worried that Greg Monroe didn't sign with Duke. Life goes on. There isn't anything we can do about it. Regardless, I expect the program to be quite good, and still land some excellent recruits.

Cameron
10-16-2007, 10:10 AM
I think Monroe would have made us an instant national title contender next season (that is as long as Gerald and Kyle remained on campus), but, even without him, we'll still have a shot to be somewhere in the realm of title talk. Maybe not a top two or three preseason selection, but who cares. We will have all season to improve and perfect the squad we do have.

I could really see next year's squad being somewhat similar to our Boozerless club in early March of 2001. After he went out with the injury against Maryland, we had to look upon Shane as our do it all "big" man, and boy did he deliver. I think Kyle Singler could fit into this type of role really well for us. Without Boozer in the middle, we had to become a much faster team (if we weren't fast enough already as it was:)) and look to use our athleticism even more as well as our great outside shooting. The Carolina game in Chapel Hill was a great example of this. We poured the triples on the Heels, running up and down the court like the Loyola Marymount teams of old, implenting the "shoot more times than they do in order to gain the final point advantage" philosophy. And, with the type of shooters we will have on our roster in 2008-09--King, Scheyer, Paulus, Singler, Smith, and maybe even Henderson if he improves his outside game--we will have one hell of a long-distance arsenal, our best since 2002.

Some of the other similarities between 2001 and 2008-09 are Williams/Henderson, Dunleavy/King, and Duhon/Scheyer/Smith (if only for their three-point capabilities). The only difference being that we had two incredibly solid floor generals in Williams and Duhon in '01, and not so much right now. Hopefully, though, Greg and/or Nolan prove to become a nice force.

Obviously Shane was a basketball God and Jason the most explosive offensive scorer the college game has seen the last quarter century, but there is still some comparisons:) Mainly the playing a smaller, quicker, more athletic unit part.

Or maybe what I just said means nothing and I'm just bored:)

FewFAC
10-16-2007, 10:48 AM
Wha??? Let's see, we've got three glorified walk-ons on that list (Chrstensen, Buckley, Burgin), so you can cross them off immediately. Beard and Thompson both transferred before they had any chance to develop, and both were lousy at their next stops. So, cross them off too. Boateng transferred after his freshman year -- zap! Zoubek has played one season, and since we're talking about DEVELOPING post talent, he can't go up there either. El-Zappo! And Williams, Boozer and Brand? You're talking about three guys who were absolute studs at Duke, two of whom are among the best power forwards in the NBA. They had great Duke careers. They should be leading the "Duke DOES develop big men" list.

Now, let's see who is left.
Abdelnaby -- His production increased in every single category during his time at Duke. He went from a 6.6 mpg, 3.7 ppg, 1.7 rpg freshman (sound like anyone currently on the roster) to a 24.9 mpg, 15.1 ppg, 6.6 rpg senior who became a first round draft pick and had a decent NBA career. That is the very definition of development.

Meek -- Was injured in a terrible car accident before ever arriving at Duke, so his career was never the same. Yet, he also saw his stats increase every season and averaged 10.3 ppg, 8.3 rpg as a senior and was a second-round pick. It's hard to say he didn't "develop."

Parks -- Uh, what? Let's see, if he doesn't get injured against Cal, Duke doesn't lose in the second round in Hurley's final game. As a junior, he's Duke's second-best player on a team that is a fingernail away from its third national title in four years. And as a senior, his team was lousy, but he averaged 19 ppg and 9.3 rpg and got drafted in the lottery. How he got on this list is beyond me.

Newton -- He's the best argument so far. He was highly rated recruit who clearly underachieved at Duke. He had a good junior year, but we all know about his problems and ultimate benching as a senior. That said, Greg's issues were hardly unique the basktball court. Sure, Duke didn't do a great job of turning him into the next great big man, but could anyone have done that, given his attitude/maturity issues?

Domzalski -- Clearly didn't develop. Apparently, there were various reasons, and he eventually got recruited over (Brand, Burgess). Still, he was a disappointment.

Sanders -- Duke never maximized his raw ability. However, he was a key figure in Duke's national title run, and had a very underrated senior season (5.2 rpg, 1.6 bpg in only 17.8 mpg; plus seven boards and five blocks in his final college game against Kansas). It's fair to say that he never developed into what we hoped he'd be. But you also have to question whether "hands" can be taught.

Randolph -- No real argument here, other than the fact that he was basically hurt his entire time at Duke.

And, I'll even throw McRoberts onto this list. Meanwhile, let's take a look at some bigs who have clearly developed into outstanding players under K:

Alarie
Ferry
Abdelnaby
Laettner
Parks
Brand
Boozer
Williams

Those guys span just about every season since the 1986 team. The idea that Duke doesn't develop big guys is a myth. Virtually every Duke team has had at least one outstanding big guy.

Also, this post completely lacks context. You can't look at Duke's history in a vacuum. You need to offer other programs as a comparison. Any suggestions?

Like I said, K can use the Gary "why MD doesn't graduate players" Williams argument to justify the development of it's big men. Which is why the recruits go elsewhere. If you want to be a PG, go to Duke. If you're not a PG, you're unlikely to earn K's trust.

greybeard
10-16-2007, 10:59 AM
RE: Wojo as a big man coach. Is it time for my Pete Newell rant again?

Clay Buckley was a top-100 recruit but not a top-50 recruit. He had chronic back problems at Duke and essentially took off every summer in attempts to get healthy.

Does Duke have a "position coach" for developing bigs? Serious inquiry. If so, who is he and how tall?

RelativeWays
10-16-2007, 11:00 AM
I would also argue that feeling of entitlement is genetically encoded into every sports fan. To not feel entitled to some success would mean, at least to me, that you enjoy losing. Entitlement may be stonger with historically winning teams, but it extends to fans of struggling teams as well. Who here doesn't look at Rutgers, Wake or even Northwestern and doesn't at least think "why can't that be Duke football?" The Florida Marlins have two World series championships, the diamondbacks have one. Even long time sufferers like Boston and the White Sox have ended their droughts. Why not the Cubs? This was supposed to be the Saints year to make it to the superbowl, now they are 1-4 and will be lucky to make the playoffs. Why, why WHY?!?!?!?!

Sports fans are predisposed to entitlement. For fans of losing teams, that entitlement is like a lottery ticket. Hopes of millions of dollars are in fact a remote yet real possibility, only to be dashed when the numbers picked are nowhere close to the numbers officially drawn. For fans of a winning team, entitlement is like the blue chip stock that underperfoms yet still yields a profit (much like Duke last season). The key for both is to keep some touch of realism in your expectations and to keep the ensuing bitterness at bay. Nobody wants to end up like John Feinstein (though he has other issues with Duke that extend beyond entitlement, but the feeling is present).

Karl Beem
10-16-2007, 11:35 AM
Does Duke have a "position coach" for developing bigs? Serious inquiry. If so, who is he and how tall?

One of the dancers subs as the big man coach. She's 5-2.

greybeard
10-16-2007, 12:12 PM
One of the dancers subs as the big man coach. She's 5-2.

Which position would that be? ;)

yancem
10-16-2007, 12:23 PM
LOL. Would you even be able to pick these guys out of a lineup? Let's not become obsessed with recruiting rankings and thinking that so-and-so is a must-have and so-so is garbage.

I'm not a big fan of 1-and-dones anyway. That's why I believe you are underrating Echenique. He's got the squatty 6'8", 250-lb body that can be a 4-yr rock for you at center. If you recruit an athletic 6'10", 220-lb guy instead, he can spend one year for you making freshman mistakes, getting pushed around, and occasionally flashing really explosive plays that gets him drafted in the lottery. Big deal. I'd prefer the stability of a Lonny Baxter. One thing about Echenique is that most players with his squatty build don't have near the shot-blocking ability that he has. He'll protect the basket for you, and if Duke nabs him, we should be happy with him.

Who are we actively recruiting in the 2009 class (besides Boyton who is a guard)? I haven't seen many articles as to who we are persuing. If we are focused more on 2009 recruits shouldn't there be more chatter.

Also as an aside, I saw a game on I believe cable featuring Boyton about a moth ago. I can't remember his name but there was a forward/center on Boyton team (AAU) that looked really good. Anyone know who I'm talking about?

Troublemaker
10-16-2007, 12:30 PM
Like I said, K can use the Gary "why MD doesn't graduate players" Williams argument to justify the development of it's big men. Which is why the recruits go elsewhere. If you want to be a PG, go to Duke. If you're not a PG, you're unlikely to earn K's trust.

What !?! This is like non-sequitur #3,872 from you. You're consistently one of the toughest posters to decipher. I completely have no idea what you are talking about and how this is at all a good response to Jumbo's post. Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't think I'm alone.

Troublemaker
10-16-2007, 12:33 PM
Who are we actively recruiting in the 2009 class (besides Boyton who is a guard)? I haven't seen many articles as to who we are persuing. If we are focused more on 2009 recruits shouldn't there be more chatter.

Also as an aside, I saw a game on I believe cable featuring Boyton about a moth ago. I can't remember his name but there was a forward/center on Boyton team (AAU) that looked really good. Anyone know who I'm talking about?

The short answer is that we're recruiting everybody. Guards, wings, bigs. Jim Sumner had a nice rundown on a 2009 thread that should still be on page 1 somewhere. You could also check Scout and Rivals, of course. Keep in mind that even more targets could be added later on. 2009 needs to be a huge class, and the coaching staff knows this.

Troublemaker
10-16-2007, 12:47 PM
Heck, entitlement might be necessary to sustain a dominant program. Not good, or very good, but Dominant.

Let's look at some "entitled" fan bases.


First of all, every single one of your examples have to do with firing a bad coach and replacing him with a good one, which has no relevancy here. If Jim Tressel misses out on his #1 DT prospect three years ago, does he hear grumbling? Probably, but I bet the Buckeye Nation would know that it's just a temporary setback and there are contingency plans to use the talent that IS in place to great effect.

Second of all, we're going to be a national championship contending team THIS season and probably pre-season #1 next season if nobody defects. All your concerns about "contending every year" will be rendered moot pretty soon, methinks. Everything is already in place to contend for championships the next 3 or 4 seasons. We could certainly use one more big man, but like I said, there are contingencies even if Zoubek doesn't come through, AND we're probably going to get a good big in 2009 anyway.

Ignatius07
10-16-2007, 12:59 PM
Whether Zoubek pans out has nothing to do with getting a big in the 09 class. Zoubek would be a senior that year, and as it stands he will be the only true big Duke has for the next two season. Coach K will (or at least should) probably look to get two elite bigs in the 09 class.

I don't think the team this year will be contending for a national championship, though I say that only because I would define "contending" as being a consensus top-10 team with a very good chance at making the Final Four. I think this team has the chance to VASTLY improve over last season's edition, with a cap of most likely the Elite Eight (which if nothing to scoff at, of course). Since we are potentially keeping this year's squad more or less intact (hopefully only losing Nelson), this year's experience for Smith, Zoubek, and Thomas could be such to make us strong contenders for the 09 title.

Patrick Yates
10-16-2007, 01:01 PM
Second of all, we're going to be a national championship contending team THIS season and probably pre-season #1 next season if nobody defects. All your concerns about "contending every year" will be rendered moot pretty soon, methinks. Everything is already in place to contend for championships the next 3 or 4 seasons. We could certainly use one more big man, but like I said, there are contingencies even if Zoubek doesn't come through, AND we're probably going to get a good big in 2009 anyway.

No Chance, of either happening.

Us getting Monroe was the lynch pin of Duke being number 1 next year. I can easily see OSU (who is loading up), UCLA, UNC (if they don't lose anybody but they will), and, now Georgetown, being ahead of us. Some others will emerge. Kansas will have decent talent, so will Tennessee, and Florida has good young talent who will get a trial by fire this year, and a steller recruiting class for next year. Not all of the above will be ahead of us, but some definitely will, now.

So, no, next year is not a slam dunk for no. 1 (if it ever was).

As for seriously contending for a NC this year? Wow.

If some of us will get lambasted for thinkng the sky is falling (or being "entitled" or whatever), then there should be equal amounts of scorn for those who view the world through Duke Blue shades, thinking that Duke is a contender no matter who is on the court, and that all is perfect in Durham. It isn't.

Patrick Yates

mgtr
10-16-2007, 01:06 PM
Second of all, we're going to be a national championship contending team THIS season and probably pre-season #1 next season if nobody defects. All your concerns about "contending every year" will be rendered moot pretty soon, methinks. Everything is already in place to contend for championships the next 3 or 4 seasons. We could certainly use one more big man, but like I said, there are contingencies even if Zoubek doesn't come through, AND we're probably going to get a good big in 2009 anyway.

I am very happy to see somebody make this point. I hope we are a national championship contending team this year, but, at a minimum, we will be a far, far better team than last year. And I have a hard time believing that anyone on these boards thinks differently.

RelativeWays
10-16-2007, 01:14 PM
No Chance, of either happening.

Us getting Monroe was the lynch pin of Duke being number 1 next year. I can easily see OSU (who is loading up), UCLA, UNC (if they don't lose anybody but they will), and, now Georgetown, being ahead of us. Some others will emerge. Kansas will have decent talent, so will Tennessee, and Florida has good young talent who will get a trial by fire this year, and a steller recruiting class for next year. Not all of the above will be ahead of us, but some definitely will, now.

So, no, next year is not a slam dunk for no. 1 (if it ever was).

As for seriously contending for a NC this year? Wow.

If some of us will get lambasted for thinkng the sky is falling (or being "entitled" or whatever), then there should be equal amounts of scorn for those who view the world through Duke Blue shades, thinking that Duke is a contender no matter who is on the court, and that all is perfect in Durham. It isn't.

Patrick Yates

But we're about to turn the corner!!!!! Not just any corner, but THE PROVERBIAL CORNER. We're gonna turn that corner like nobody's business. THIS YEAR! Break out the party hats and sharpen them scissors! You are all witnesses to the greatest of corner turnings in the history of sports, professional or amateur! *grabs popcorn and waits*

RepoMan
10-16-2007, 01:26 PM
No Chance, of either happening.

Patrick Yates

Do you really see the world in such white/black terms?

No chance? Really?

Sure, it's unlikely. Heck, it's unlikely for every single team. But we probably have a better chance than all but about 10 teams. That's not no chance.

Look back on past Duke teams that have made it to the Final Four, and while you will find some pre-season no.1 teams, you will find others not nearly so highly ranked. Likewise, you can look at other pre-season no. 1 Duke teams that failed to win it all. In short, it is ludicrous to opine that this team, which is loaded with talented basketball players and is coached by one of the best college basketball coaches of all time, has "no chance." The great thing about being a Duke fan over the past 20 years is that we almost always have a legitimate chance. You should try to enjoy it.

It must be a bummer to have such a negative outlook.

Cameron
10-16-2007, 01:29 PM
I would love to see us become a serious top 7 or 8 team all year long (the ranking position I equate to being national title contending) and be considered a serious threat to reach the Final Four (another equation that I think must be met in order for a team to be considered "title contenders"), but we clearly are not at this point. At least not a serious Final Four threat, anyway. What Duke fans here would classify us as this? Not many, I presume.

Don't get me wrong, though. I think we are in for a wonderful year, probably somewhere along the lines of 25, 26 wins, a possible ACC Championship (the only one that counts, the Grandy Daddy edition, of course:)), and a trip to the Sweet 16 or maybe even Elite Eight. However, I'm just not seeing the "national title contenders" talk as being realistic yet. Let's wait and see how the season starts off before we jump to such glorious predictions.

I remember quite vividly an individual over on Devil's Den in the summer of '06 who started up a thread entitled "Atlanta or Bust: The Official Duke 2007 Final Four Thread." How did that turn out for us?

Now I am not trying to loop anyone here in with that lunatic--because he truly was one--but I'm just saying. We have absolutely no idea what to expect from this club, and, on top of that, our supposed best player, according to Coach K, has yet to play a minute of basketball at the D-I level.

Time will be the judge.

RelativeWays
10-16-2007, 01:36 PM
Just remeber that Georgetown did not look like a final four team last December nor did Florida look like a National Championship team in late 05. Its fair to say that Duke typically stays consistently good or they fade in Feb/March but even the 01 championship team lost their first two games of the season (from whatt I remember...I know we lost to Stanford and I though we lost to someone else).

In any event, this team does have a lot of players with legit experience from last season and they have a chip on their shoulders. Justice would be to meet VCU in the 1st round of the NCAA and drub Eric Maynor and Co by 30. Then again, I don't think we've had that rematch with Eastern Michigan from 96.

micah75
10-16-2007, 01:44 PM
I'm not too worried that Greg Monroe didn't sign with Duke. Life goes on. There isn't anything we can do about it. Regardless, I expect the program to be quite good, and still land some excellent recruits.

Yes, this is how I genuinely feel as well. It has nothing to do with being "pollyanna" as some here choose to argue. Sometimes you just have to make the best of the particular hand you're dealt with. Okay, so we're not starting out with pocket Aces (to use a poker metaphor.) But I'd say we've got AK or at the very least, AQ, which ain't too shabby, for at least the next few seasons. Besides, pocket Aces get snapped all the time. To me it's exciting to watch a group of young guys develop and play their hearts out, overcoming obstacles along the way.

As far as Greg Monroe, I wish him the best. I don't feel that K got out-recruited on this one, being that Monroe never even made an official visit to Duke. Apparently he had some sort of epiphany while at Georgetown and most likely made the best decision for him and his basketball future.

VaDukie
10-16-2007, 01:46 PM
Just remeber that Georgetown did not look like a final four team last December nor did Florida look like a National Championship team in late 05. Its fair to say that Duke typically stays consistently good or they fade in Feb/March but even the 01 championship team lost their first two games of the season (from whatt I remember...I know we lost to Stanford and I though we lost to someone else).

In any event, this team does have a lot of players with legit experience from last season and they have a chip on their shoulders. Justice would be to meet VCU in the 1st round of the NCAA and drub Eric Maynor and Co by 30. Then again, I don't think we've had that rematch with Eastern Michigan from 96.

We actually lost the first two games of the 1999-2000 season to Stanford and UConn. But that team of course ended up not too shabby at all, going 29-5, sweeping UNC, losing but ONE ACC game total, a #1 seed, and the sweet 16. So obviously that team was far better than anyone could have hoped after those first two games.

That team had more talent but this one has a lot more depth, which may prove valuable in the NCAA's. If anyone remembers that Florida game in 2000, our guys were simply gased at the end. We only had a rotation of 6 guys and that was with Dunleavy struggling through mono.

Come to think of it, our team this year may look like that 2000 Florida team - lots of horses, fast paced, and with a lot of potential late in the year. Will we go as far as they did? Doubtful, but certainly possible.

Devilsfan
10-16-2007, 01:50 PM
hope we play enough bodies to have some fresh legs in February and March. It's easy to slip back to old ways if games get close or we fall behind. Up tempo may not be the greatest senario for a 6-7 man rotation.

greybeard
10-16-2007, 01:54 PM
Wow, all this talk has my head spinning. Don't any of you just enjoy watching the game and rooting for your team? Results are for when that experience is over and done. There is no more game.

Ah, its the afterglow that you long for, bragging rights, and what leads up to the game. But, watching the play, appreciating all that goes into it, somehow gets lost in the off season talk.

Me, I'm excited to see how K and this team take shape with the personnel on hand. I'm sure that the team will have a different style than last year's, and than any of his teams for some time. Seeing how K helps the team mold and present itself should be a hoot. I'm looking forward to it.

throatybeard
10-16-2007, 02:18 PM
If some of us will get lambasted for thinkng the sky is falling (or being "entitled" or whatever), then there should be equal amounts of scorn for those who view the world through Duke Blue shades, thinking that Duke is a contender no matter who is on the court, and that all is perfect in Durham. It isn't.

False dichotomy much?

Troublemaker
10-16-2007, 02:41 PM
No Chance, of either happening.

Us getting Monroe was the lynch pin of Duke being number 1 next year. I can easily see OSU (who is loading up), UCLA, UNC (if they don't lose anybody but they will), and, now Georgetown, being ahead of us. Some others will emerge. Kansas will have decent talent, so will Tennessee, and Florida has good young talent who will get a trial by fire this year, and a steller recruiting class for next year. Not all of the above will be ahead of us, but some definitely will, now.

So, no, next year is not a slam dunk for no. 1 (if it ever was).

As for seriously contending for a NC this year? Wow.

If some of us will get lambasted for thinkng the sky is falling (or being "entitled" or whatever), then there should be equal amounts of scorn for those who view the world through Duke Blue shades, thinking that Duke is a contender no matter who is on the court, and that all is perfect in Durham. It isn't.

Patrick Yates

LOL. "No chance" of either. I could certainly go into great detail why you're wrong, but what's the point? One of us is going to look foolish when you see what Duke puts on the court this season and next. And it's not going to be me.

The short version of what I think is this. Only 4 teams project to be better than Duke this season - Louisville, UCLA, UNC, and Memphis. All of those teams except perhaps Lousiville project to lose very significant players after this season. So yes, Duke will contend for conference and national championships THIS season and Duke will have a roster that many people will point to as the best next season.

Wander
10-16-2007, 02:57 PM
The short version of what I think is this. Only 4 teams project to be better than Duke this season - Louisville, UCLA, UNC, and Memphis. All of those teams except perhaps Lousiville project to lose very significant players after this season. So yes, Duke will contend for conference and national championships THIS season and Duke will have a roster that many people will point to as the best next season.

Georgetown and Tennessee don't project to be better than Duke this season?

yancem
10-16-2007, 03:05 PM
Georgetown and Tennessee don't project to be better than Duke this season?

And what about Kansas?