PDA

View Full Version : 2017-18 Minutes Discussion (Post-Duval)



Pages : [1] 2

Troublemaker
05-15-2017, 11:13 AM
Assuming no Bamba (although I would love to be wrong and have to revise this to incorporate him):




Starters

Rotation

in blowouts


32
Fr Duval



Fr Goldwire


34
Sr Allen
22
Fr Tucker

Fr O'Connell


32
Fr Trent



rSo Robinson


30
Fr Carter
20
* So JMD / So White

So JMD / So White


24
So Bolden
6
Jr Vrankovic





* predicting 1 of DeLaurier or White to get backup PF minutes, but don't know which. (Many think it's Javin easily, but I think Jack will put up a fight)

So, a 7.5 man rotation. JTuck's going to have to be good immediately because he's going to be playing about half the game as the primary perimeter sub. When Trevon rests, Grayson will be the PG. When Marques rests, Wendell will mostly be the C, but I'm also going out on a limb and giving Vrank some 7.5th-man minutes.

scottdude8
05-15-2017, 11:31 AM
Assuming no Bamba (although I would love to be wrong and have to revise this to incorporate him):




Starters

Rotation

in blowouts


32
Fr Duval



Fr Goldwire


34
Sr Allen
22
Fr Tucker

Fr O'Connell


32
Fr Trent



rSo Robinson


30
Fr Carter
20
* So JMD / So White

So JMD / So White


24
So Bolden
6
Jr Vrankovic





* predicting 1 of DeLaurier or White to get backup PF minutes, but don't know which. (Many think it's Javin easily, but I think Jack will put up a fight)

So, a 7.5 man rotation. JTuck's going to have to be good immediately because he's going to be playing about half the game as the primary perimeter sub. When Trevon rests, Grayson will be the PG. When Marques rests, Wendell will mostly be the C, but I'm also going out on a limb and giving Vrank some 7.5th-man minutes.

The key IMHO is developing one or more of Tucker, White, DeLaurier or a surprise into someone who can play 10-15 minutes a game at the 3 off the bench. That'll allow our three starting guards (Duval, Allen, Trent) the rest they need and help with potential foul trouble.

I actually hope Coach K commits to the two big lineup and basically uses a 3 man rotation for the two big man spots with Vrank getting 15-20 minutes a game. I think if he develops as I expect him too we'll have the ability to impose our will down low with that group. The issue will be getting the fourth guy in the rotation for the three guard/wing spots. I think that's more of an unknown/issue going forward than Vrank, but I may be in the minority there.

With today's news and all of the attrition throughout college basketball (the only top 25 teams from last year without debilitating losses that I can think of are MSU and Michigan (assuming Wagner and Wilson return, and it's trending that way)), I think we are a legit title contender if that bench wing player develops. If he doesn't we're going to be biting our nails every game with foul trouble, fatigue, and injuries, but still could contend for the ACC.

scottdude8
05-15-2017, 11:44 AM
The key IMHO is developing one or more of Tucker, White, DeLaurier or a surprise into someone who can play 10-15 minutes a game at the 3 off the bench. That'll allow our three starting guards (Duval, Allen, Trent) the rest they need and help with potential foul trouble.

I actually hope Coach K commits to the two big lineup and basically uses a 3 man rotation for the two big man spots with Vrank getting 15-20 minutes a game. I think if he develops as I expect him too we'll have the ability to impose our will down low with that group. The issue will be getting the fourth guy in the rotation for the three guard/wing spots. I think that's more of an unknown/issue going forward than Vrank, but I may be in the minority there.

With today's news and all of the attrition throughout college basketball (the only top 25 teams from last year without debilitating losses that I can think of are MSU and Michigan (assuming Wagner and Wilson return, and it's trending that way)), I think we are a legit title contender if that bench wing player develops. If he doesn't we're going to be biting our nails every game with foul trouble, fatigue, and injuries, but still could contend for the ACC.

To clarify my (minor) differences with Troublemaker's predictions, here's what I'd like to see as the ideal rotation:

Starters: Duval, Allen, Trent, Carter, Bolden

Sixth Man: One or a combo of Tucker/White/DeLaurier plays 10-15 minutes a game at the 3. This allows Duval to take a rest with Allen at PG, and also allow Allen and Trent a rest when a more tradition SF comes in off the bench at one of the wing positions.

Bench Big: Vrank comes in to spell both Bolden and Carter, probably for 10-20 minutes a game depending on the foul situation. So Duke will always have two near 7-foot, true bigs on the floor. This should allows us to dominate the boards, hopefully similarly to what UNC did the past few years.

8th man: Depending on foul trouble or effectiveness, I imagine the Tucker/White/DeLaurier combo gets another 10 minutes or so at the 3 or 4.

The main point I have is this: I don't think Duke has a true "stretch-four" on the roster this year like it has over the past handful. Despite the fact that that has been the trend in college and NBA basketball over the past half a decade, I think it would be a major mistake to try to shoehorn one of those players into our rotation if it doesn't develop. Instead, I hope we stick with a 3 guard, 2 traditional big lineup, going with our strengths, and I think (hope) I've shown that we have the roster to maintain that type of lineup even when the bench is utilized.

UNC (unfortunately) showed last year that you can win with two bigs if you dominate the boards and make penetrating the lane a major pain. I think we have a similar roster, plus a national player of the year contender in Grayson. That's a contender right there.

bob blue devil
05-15-2017, 12:39 PM
Assuming no Bamba (although I would love to be wrong and have to revise this to incorporate him):




Starters

Rotation

in blowouts


32
Fr Duval



Fr Goldwire


34
Sr Allen
22
Fr Tucker

Fr O'Connell


32
Fr Trent



rSo Robinson


30
Fr Carter
20
* So JMD / So White

So JMD / So White


24
So Bolden
6
Jr Vrankovic





* predicting 1 of DeLaurier or White to get backup PF minutes, but don't know which. (Many think it's Javin easily, but I think Jack will put up a fight)

So, a 7.5 man rotation. JTuck's going to have to be good immediately because he's going to be playing about half the game as the primary perimeter sub. When Trevon rests, Grayson will be the PG. When Marques rests, Wendell will mostly be the C, but I'm also going out on a limb and giving Vrank some 7.5th-man minutes.

nice list. i'd take the over on grayson and duval. grayson especially, if he can stay healthy. he played 37 mins his sophomore year. luke played 36 last year. quinn played 36 his sr. year with tyus at 34.

atoomer0881
05-15-2017, 12:43 PM
To clarify my (minor) differences with Troublemaker's predictions, here's what I'd like to see as the ideal rotation:

Starters: Duval, Allen, Trent, Carter, Bolden

Sixth Man: One or a combo of Tucker/White/DeLaurier plays 10-15 minutes a game at the 3. This allows Duval to take a rest with Allen at PG, and also allow Allen and Trent a rest when a more tradition SF comes in off the bench at one of the wing positions.

Bench Big: Vrank comes in to spell both Bolden and Carter, probably for 10-20 minutes a game depending on the foul situation. So Duke will always have two near 7-foot, true bigs on the floor. This should allows us to dominate the boards, hopefully similarly to what UNC did the past few years.

8th man: Depending on foul trouble or effectiveness, I imagine the Tucker/White/DeLaurier combo gets another 10 minutes or so at the 3 or 4.

The main point I have is this: I don't think Duke has a true "stretch-four" on the roster this year like it has over the past handful. Despite the fact that that has been the trend in college and NBA basketball over the past half a decade, I think it would be a major mistake to try to shoehorn one of those players into our rotation if it doesn't develop. Instead, I hope we stick with a 3 guard, 2 traditional big lineup, going with our strengths, and I think (hope) I've shown that we have the roster to maintain that type of lineup even when the bench is utilized.

UNC (unfortunately) showed last year that you can win with two bigs if you dominate the boards and make penetrating the lane a major pain. I think we have a similar roster, plus a national player of the year contender in Grayson. That's a contender right there.

very well said. i agree, i think you showed we do have the roster to maintain that 3 guard, 2 traditional big lineup, even when the bench is being utilized. so question is, would you even want Bamba coming, or would you rather we develop Vrank more?

Kedsy
05-15-2017, 02:11 PM
I could back up the following with numbers, grids, and charts, but people would just tell me that recruiting rankings aren't everything, so I'll just say it:

(all of the following is based on not having Bamba (though I'm still hoping), and no major injuries (knocking on some hard, dense substance))

The third big will be Javin, not Antonio. Antonio will play nowhere near 15-20 minutes. Without a fair amount of garbage time, he may not even reach Troublemaker's 6 mpg.

The fourth perimeter player will be a competition among Jordan T, Jack, and Alex. The two guys who lose that competition will barely play in competitive games. My vague guess is Jordan T wins that competition, but there's little rational basis for prediction and it won't be decided until after the exhibition games, so there's no real point in guessing now. Whoever it is, though, they won't top 15 mpg, probably closer to 12 mpg.

Also, note that if Jordan T or Alex make the rotation, they would be the very first Duke freshman ranked outside the top 35 to do so in the RSCI era. If Jack makes the rotation, he'll be the first Duke guy outside the top 150 to do so in the same timeframe (not counting Seth Curry, but he was a transfer so that's different). So, no matter who wins the fourth perimeter player competition, it will be a first at Duke in at least the past 20 years.

As others have alluded, I'll be very surprised if Trevon and Grayson don't play 35+ mpg (and if Gary isn't close to that) and if all five starters don't play 30+ mpg (though obviously foul trouble for Wendell and Marques could have a say in that last one).

whereinthehellami
05-16-2017, 08:53 AM
Here are some random thoughts on next year's team:


I think Duval, Allen, and Carter together will be better than any other 3 players a team can match. Add Trent in that 4 and Duke will be as good as any 4 that a team can match. The issue will be Duke's 5th player. I want it to be Bolden because he fulfills his potential. The thought of him with a couple of inside go-to moves, rebounding, rim protecting, and getting garbage points is exciting. But I'm intrigued by DeLaulier, he might be a better fit with the other 4. An energy guy who rebounds, play defense, and gets garbage points.


I'm really excited to see Carter operate down low and in the mid-range. He is going to be a load and appears to be a very good and willing interior passer. He could make Bolden look really good. I hope the offense goes through Carter. He will require a double and is a good passer. Put Allen on that side and let them work the defense.


I'm also really excited at the thought of Duval penetrating with Bolden and Carter down low, off the blocks and Allen and Trent on the wings. Lots of options and lots of pressure on the defense.

Saratoga2
05-16-2017, 09:37 AM
I could back up the following with numbers, grids, and charts, but people would just tell me that recruiting rankings aren't everything, so I'll just say it:

(all of the following is based on not having Bamba (though I'm still hoping), and no major injuries (knocking on some hard, dense substance))

The third big will be Javin, not Antonio. Antonio will play nowhere near 15-20 minutes. Without a fair amount of garbage time, he may not even reach Troublemaker's 6 mpg.

The fourth perimeter player will be a competition among Jordan T, Jack, and Alex. The two guys who lose that competition will barely play in competitive games. My vague guess is Jordan T wins that competition, but there's little rational basis for prediction and it won't be decided until after the exhibition games, so there's no real point in guessing now. Whoever it is, though, they won't top 15 mpg, probably closer to 12 mpg.

Also, note that if Jordan T or Alex make the rotation, they would be the very first Duke freshman ranked outside the top 35 to do so in the RSCI era. If Jack makes the rotation, he'll be the first Duke guy outside the top 150 to do so in the same timeframe (not counting Seth Curry, but he was a transfer so that's different). So, no matter who wins the fourth perimeter player competition, it will be a first at Duke in at least the past 20 years.

As others have alluded, I'll be very surprised if Trevon and Grayson don't play 35+ mpg (and if Gary isn't close to that) and if all five starters don't play 30+ mpg (though obviously foul trouble for Wendell and Marques could have a say in that last one).

I agree with you that Javin is the most likely first big sub in the game. At around 6'9" and 225 pounds with athletic prowess he is plenty big and if he has developed and can stay out of foul trouble he should succeed. Vrank is most likely to get less minutes (6?) but he is still a valuable player on the team.

I believe the 5 starters are as mentioned, barring a pickup ob Bamba. Beyond them, I believe White, O'Connell and Tucker will vie for opportunites to fill in for Trent and Allen. All are between 6'6" and 6'7" and can shoot. Who plays will depend on wheher they can defend. With Allen filling in the PG duties when Duvall sits, there should be some reasonable minutes for those three mentioned above to get some game PT. Goldwire is a wildcard here and a lot will depend on whether he develops or perhaps how quickly he can develop. Don't expect a lot this coming season but sometimes these guys can fool you.

Let us hope that this year isn't fraught with the injury nightmares we exerienced last year.

flyingdutchdevil
05-16-2017, 09:54 AM
I agree with you that Javin is the most likely first big sub in the game. At around 6'9" and 225 pounds with athletic prowess he is plenty big and if he has developed and can stay out of foul trouble he should succeed. Vrank is most likely to get less minutes (6?) but he is still a valuable player on the team.

I believe the 5 starters are as mentioned, barring a pickup ob Bamba. Beyond them, I believe White, O'Connell and Tucker will vie for opportunites to fill in for Trent and Allen. All are between 6'6" and 6'7" and can shoot. Who plays will depend on wheher they can defend. With Allen filling in the PG duties when Duvall sits, there should be some reasonable minutes for those three mentioned above to get some game PT. Goldwire is a wildcard here and a lot will depend on whether he develops or perhaps how quickly he can develop. Don't expect a lot this coming season but sometimes these guys can fool you.

Let us hope that this year isn't fraught with the injury nightmares we exerienced last year.

IMO, what Duke needs is 7 players: 5 starters, a guard/wing back-up and a big man back-up. Coach K is very comfortable with this style. It's what he used in 2015 (MP3 added a little value, not a lot). It's close to what he used in 2010 (two big men back-ups instead of 1).

The good news is that there are candidates for these positions. It's either DeLaurier or Vrank as the big man back up (and my guess - along with is it's DeLaurier. He's higher ranked and can play both the 4/5. This is key because Carter can also play the 4/5 but Bolden can only play the 5).

The question is the backcourt. I have nooooooooo idea who will fill out that spot (and one thing we can agree on is that this will not be by committee. Coach K doesn't do that). They all bring something unique:

White: Sophomore with a year of practice under his belt. Good 3pt shooter. Great size (height and college-ready body). Big question is defense.
Tucker: Excellent 3pt shot. Really good size. Huge question marks about defense and intangibles. Highest rated recruit of the three.
O'Connell: Arguably the most "skilled" with the best handle. Strength is clearly the biggest issue, and he'll likely get pummeled on D.

Unfortunately, our back-up guard/wing will likely not be a strong defender. Let's hope our starting 5 is excellent at D.

JasonEvans
05-16-2017, 10:06 AM
I am a bit surprised at how many folks seem to just be writing Alex O'Connell off and assuming Jordan Tucker will be the backup wing. Though Tucker is the higher rated recruit (he's about #40), O'Connell is not that much behind him as about the #60 recruit. Now, if we were talking about a 20-spot difference between a top 10 guy and a top 30 then I could see the discarding of Alex, but the difference in #40 and #60 just isn't that great.

O'Connell and Tucker actually have fairly similar profiles from a skill standpoint -- both are known as very good outside shooters who need to work on their handle. O'Connell is a little bigger and longer, but also really needs to add some strength. O'Connell likely has a little better mid-range game, while Tucker is probably better from 3.

I'm not saying that I am taking Alex over Jordan in this battle for time as the backup wing, I'm just saying I think it is too early for us to even pretend to have a winner in mind... and I think Alex should not be overlooked.

I also think it is very possible Coach K may actually adhere to what he said in his post-season comments about needing to give more time to more players. I hope he will give opportunities to more than just 6 or 7 players to see who is playing well on a game-by-game basis. I may be crazy for saying this, but I truly hope we see 9 or 10 Blue Devils get some kind of playing time every game.

jipops
05-16-2017, 10:13 AM
Allen
Duval
Carter
Trent
Bolden
Vrankovic

Six guys, that will be the rotation. We're going to be very thin, especially on the perimeter, but at least we'll have options with size. I actually really like Vrankovic. Reminds me of a more mobile version of Zoubek. If he stays healthy I actually think he can make an impact this season. Allen and Duval should expect to log very heavy minutes.
I suppose it is likely that Javin will get some early season minutes but my bet is he will still be way too limited offensively to make an impact once conference play starts and K will have him riding the pine by then. I'm also betting on guys like Tucker and Goldwire not being ready to contribute at this level quite yet. Their abilities will be realized in later seasons.

This is all mostly guesses based on past performance, K's rotation preferences, and incoming recruit ratings. Once practice begins we may get some buzz about somebody being a pleasant surprise. Tucker, Jack White? Who knows? But right now my money is on a 6-man rotation.

chriso
05-16-2017, 10:27 AM
Allen
Duval
Carter
Trent
Bolden
Vrankovic

Six guys, that will be the rotation. We're going to be very thin, especially on the perimeter, but at least we'll have options with size. I actually really like Vrankovic. Reminds me of a more mobile version of Zoubek. If he stays healthy I actually think he can make an impact this season. Allen and Duval should expect to log very heavy minutes.
I suppose it is likely that Javin will get some early season minutes but my bet is he will still be way too limited offensively to make an impact once conference play starts and K will have him riding the pine by then. I'm also betting on guys like Tucker and Goldwire not being ready to contribute at this level quite yet. Their abilities will be realized in later seasons.

This is all mostly guesses based on past performance, K's rotation preferences, and incoming recruit ratings. Once practice begins we may get some buzz about somebody being a pleasant surprise. Tucker, Jack White? Who knows? But right now my money is on a 6-man rotation.
I think (hope) it will be 8. Very excited about Duval. He obviously fills a need and will give us some easy buckets while the youngsters develop, esp. the bigs. Grayson as backup PG. I like Vrank, DeLaurier and White off the bench. I think those 3 will surprise some people. Not sure if the others are ready yet, but they will be in time. :) O'Connell reminds me of Dunleavy. If he's ready to go from the start look out.

bob blue devil
05-16-2017, 11:17 AM
are there any historical precedents for a 6 man rotation - i'm guessing there is, but i don't have a good memory for this stuff. i'm skeptical that is a solution here because coach would probably need 4 guards and 2 bigs to pull that off, whereas our bigger question mark/potential weakness is probably the 4th guard rather than the 3rd big. that said, maybe jdl is athletic enough to guard the 3 and carter is a good enough shooter to spread the floor for some time - i really have no idea. thinking this through, it would also probably be pretty dependent on the personnel of our opponent. i'll leave this for people who know more than i to opine on.

kAzE
05-16-2017, 11:39 AM
I'd just like to clear something up with people who are penciling Jordan Tucker in for shooting guard minutes. He is not a guard:

7421

He's reportedly 6'7", but this photo of him standing next to Wendell Carter (who is 6'10") suggests he could be even taller (unfortunately, too far away from the wall to use cinderblocks), and he might still still be growing.

I'm hopeful that he could improve his perimeter defense and ball handling enough to be a small forward when needed, but I'm very skeptical that he could get guard minutes, especially as a freshman. He is not particularly quick or explosive, which would make it pretty difficult for him to stay in front of quicker guards.

To me, his long term role would be a combo forward. Ideally, he adds enough strength to become a solid rebounder, so that he can be a full time stretch 4. The bigger he can play, the more valuable he becomes. His shooting ability would allow him to take opposing big men out of the paint area.

Avvocato
05-16-2017, 11:40 AM
I agree with Jason above about no overlooking O'Connell. Similarly, I don't know if he will earn rotation minutes this year or not, but he seems to have the skill set to earn some.

While I agree that I hope we go with the two-big man front line, I think DeLaurier will likely need to be an important piece on the defensive end. While we are discussing how our front line can dominate boards, etc., and hopefully it will, defensively, we could have trouble playing teams that have their own stretch 4. Having an athletic guy like Javin may be valuable for us in those spots if such a player is giving us trouble. Assuming he's ready for the minutes, that's why I see Javin playing more minutes than Vrank, since we are playing this guessing game.

CDu
05-16-2017, 11:41 AM
are there any historical precedents for a 6 man rotation - i'm guessing there is, but i don't have a good memory for this stuff. i'm skeptical that is a solution here because coach would probably need 4 guards and 2 bigs to pull that off, whereas our bigger question mark/potential weakness is probably the 4th guard rather than the 3rd big. that said, maybe jdl is athletic enough to guard the 3 and carter is a good enough shooter to spread the floor for some time - i really have no idea. thinking this through, it would also probably be pretty dependent on the personnel of our opponent. i'll leave this for people who know more than i to opine on.

At Duke? Yeah. Many of our teams have had 6-man rotations. The 2010 championship team played essentially a 6-man rotation, with the entire bench playing just 17 minutes combined in the title game.

Duke95
05-16-2017, 11:45 AM
Allen
Duval
Carter
Trent
Bolden
Vrankovic

Six guys, that will be the rotation. We're going to be very thin, especially on the perimeter, but at least we'll have options with size. I actually really like Vrankovic. Reminds me of a more mobile version of Zoubek. If he stays healthy I actually think he can make an impact this season. Allen and Duval should expect to log very heavy minutes.
I suppose it is likely that Javin will get some early season minutes but my bet is he will still be way too limited offensively to make an impact once conference play starts and K will have him riding the pine by then. I'm also betting on guys like Tucker and Goldwire not being ready to contribute at this level quite yet. Their abilities will be realized in later seasons.

This is all mostly guesses based on past performance, K's rotation preferences, and incoming recruit ratings. Once practice begins we may get some buzz about somebody being a pleasant surprise. Tucker, Jack White? Who knows? But right now my money is on a 6-man rotation.

I expect Delaurier will play quite a bit, as will Jack White. Not expecting much out of anyone else yet.

DukieInKansas
05-16-2017, 11:48 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb here - I think there will be 200 minutes each game. There is a chance it will be 225. ;)

Now back to your regularly scheduled off season obsessing. I'll go back to reading about lacrosse. :D

Troublemaker
05-16-2017, 11:59 AM
Allen
Duval
Carter
Trent
Bolden
Vrankovic

Six guys, that will be the rotation.

That's impossible. Even if Coach K's an idiot, you'd have to give him credit for not playing Duval, Allen, and Trent 40 minutes a game. Somebody (most likely Tucker) will play the Andre Dawkins role from 2010, even if it's just 10-15 mpg.

Also, it looks like a mod extracted the post-Duval posts into another thread but didn't lock this thread. So now we have two minutes threads! The more the merrier?

kAzE
05-16-2017, 12:04 PM
PG: Duval (32), Allen (8)
SG: Allen (28), Trent (12)
SF: Trent (20), Tucker (14), White (6)
PF: Carter (20), DeLaurier (20)
C: Bolden (28), Carter (12)

This is basically a 7 man rotation, with Jack White in the Bolden role from last year, playing 5-6 minutes a game. If this ends up being the final roster, I feel pretty good about this rotation, and would probably submit this for the minutes contest (barring injuries).

I posted an explanation (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=981501#post981501) in the other rotation thread (did we really need 2 threads?) about why I don't think Jordan Tucker will play guard minutes. So if there ends up being an injury to one of our guards (God forbid/knock on wood) or really bad foul trouble in the back court, I think O'Connell would probably be the 4th guard.

This is a really unconventional Coach K team, because we're basically only 3 deep in the back court, with tons of forwards and centers. Kind of like 2010, but instead of a bunch of juniors and seniors with a couple of freshman in the rotation, we have a bunch of freshmen and sophomores with one senior. It now seems like we're setting new precedents for "youngest Duke team ever" pretty much every other year. It's going to be a wild ride . . .

brlftz
05-16-2017, 12:04 PM
...O'Connell is a little bigger and longer...

wait, what? per 247 O'Connell is 6'5" 170lb, and Tucker is 6'7" 200lb

DukieInBrasil
05-16-2017, 12:11 PM
Assuming no Bamba (although I would love to be wrong and have to revise this to incorporate him):




Starters

Rotation

in blowouts


32
Fr Duval



Fr Goldwire


34
Sr Allen
22
Fr Tucker

Fr O'Connell


32
Fr Trent



rSo Robinson


30
Fr Carter
20
* So JMD / So White

So JMD / So White


24
So Bolden
6
Jr Vrankovic





* predicting 1 of DeLaurier or White to get backup PF minutes, but don't know which. (Many think it's Javin easily, but I think Jack will put up a fight)

So, a 7.5 man rotation. JTuck's going to have to be good immediately because he's going to be playing about half the game as the primary perimeter sub. When Trevon rests, Grayson will be the PG. When Marques rests, Wendell will mostly be the C, but I'm also going out on a limb and giving Vrank some 7.5th-man minutes.
I would slot Jack into the rotation or blowout SF slot rather than PF. He could certainly be a stretch 4, but since we have 4 PF/C types already, i would think that Jack's highest utility would be at SF. Tucker seems to be just as much of a SF option as a SG option.
I don't really disagree with your prediction, i just think that a couple of guys offer more flexibility than your schema shows.

cato
05-16-2017, 12:12 PM
I also think it is very possible Coach K may actually adhere to what he said in his post-season comments about needing to give more time to more players. I hope he will give opportunities to more than just 6 or 7 players to see who is playing well on a game-by-game basis. I may be crazy for saying this, but I truly hope we see 9 or 10 Blue Devils get some kind of playing time every game.

But he didn't say that. He said his team needs to be deeper.

Is Coach K going to suddenly change his philosophy about earning playing time in practice and playing your best players as much as possible? Perhaps. But I doubt it.

My take is that Coach K is focused on how he can field a team where more players demand playing time based on the performance, not that he is going to give players more game time in hopes of them developing to the point where they deserve it.

jimsumner
05-16-2017, 12:13 PM
I'd be stunned if Vrankovic plays more minutes than DeLaurier.

Six-man rotations? Georgia Tech in 1990. Made the FF and came a lot closer to beating UNLV than did Duke, which admittedly is a low bar.

It helped that three of those six players, Dennis Scott, Kenny Anderson and Brian Oliver, were among the best players in the country. Karl Brown, Johnny McNeil and Malcolm Mackey got most of the other minutes in competitive games, with some other guys getting mop-up minutes. Those six guys played 194 minutes against Vegas, with Daryl Barnes getting the other six.

Cremins learned from Frank McGuire, who was (in)famous for sticking with his starters. McGuire's philosophy was that he was starting his five best players so why should he sit one for someone not as good as one of the starters?

My freshman year (1969) Duke beat South Carolina in an ACC Tournament game in which neither team used a single sub.

Of course, there was no shot clock in 1969. But there was in 1990, when Cremins rode a six-player rotation pretty deep into the tournament.

bob blue devil
05-16-2017, 12:22 PM
At Duke? Yeah. Many of our teams have had 6-man rotations. The 2010 championship team played essentially a 6-man rotation, with the entire bench playing just 17 minutes combined in the title game.

not sure about the 2010 example - scheyer, smith, singler, thomas, and zoubek, with dawkins and plumlee(s) off the bench. the sub pattern varied a fair amount depending on the game, but if you say 6, then 6 is plumlee and we all know dawkins made a few shots that year that weren't in mop-up time... the title game was the least bench minutes we played the whole season - a bit of a special case, right?

dukebluesincebirth
05-16-2017, 12:22 PM
Could you guys help me out with Trent Jr.? I don't really know what to expect from him. I've heard:

#1 shooting guard in the country
not a great 3 point shooter
not that fast or athletic
will definitely start
plays the 2 and the 3
One and done player

I've watched some videos of him and seen a shot that goes in, but those are highlight videos from high school. What kind of competition did he play against for the most part? What are his elite skills? What made him the best player in the country at his position?

Just trying to get an idea of his game, thanks!

bob blue devil
05-16-2017, 12:25 PM
not sure about the 2010 example - scheyer, smith, singler, thomas, and zoubek, with dawkins and plumlee(s) off the bench. the sub pattern varied a fair amount depending on the game, but if you say 6, then 6 is plumlee and we all know dawkins made a few shots that year that weren't in mop-up time... the title game was the least bench minutes we played the whole season - a bit of a special case, right?

just to add, plumlees and dawkins combined for about 40mpg that season - i could see the argument that we were going 7 deep b/c often one of the 3 was buried on the bench, but i don't think it's fair to say we were going 6 deep.

kAzE
05-16-2017, 12:28 PM
Could you guys help me out with Trent Jr.? I don't really know what to expect from him. I've heard:

#1 shooting guard in the country
not a great 3 point shooter
not that fast or athletic
will definitely start
plays the 2 and the 3
One and done player

I've watched some videos of him and seen a shot that goes in, but those are highlight videos from high school. What kind of competition did he play against for the most part? What are his elite skills? What made him the best player in the country at his position?

Just trying to get an idea of his game, thanks!

He's not an awful shooter (34% for his HS career), just not an elite one. I would still expect him to take open shots.

He's probably overrated on ESPN (#7). For reference, he's #19 on scout.com (he was previously #17, so he's been falling in their rankings), which would make him the #3 SG behind Hamidou Diallo and Lonnie Walker.

He's very strong and very tough. He's reputedly a good defender. I really hope he can defend. We need good perimeter defenders badly. I actually expect him to be kind of a beast in the paint. Hopefully he has a little bit of a back to the basket game to take advantage of smaller guards. I think he will be a nice scorer (12-15 PPG), but he will be more efficient in the paint than from 3.

Lastly, I don't see him as a OAD. He's not the type of quick or explosive athlete that screams OAD. He may be at Duke for 2-3 years.

That's just my impression, and I fully admit I could be wrong.

Troublemaker
05-16-2017, 12:29 PM
I posted an explanation (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=981501#post981501) in the other rotation thread (did we really need 2 threads?) about why I don't think Jordan Tucker will play guard minutes.

Tucker seems to be just as much of a SF option as a SG option.

Yeah, I definitely agree that Tucker is a SF, and all the minutes I'm projecting for Tucker would be at SF. I just visually centered him with the perimeter players to denote that he's the sub for all of them. But when he subs for Duval, then Allen and Trent would shift to the 1 and 2, respectively, with Tucker coming in as the 3.

budwom
05-16-2017, 12:31 PM
I could back up the following with numbers, grids, and charts, but people would just tell me that recruiting rankings aren't everything, so I'll just say it:

(all of the following is based on not having Bamba (though I'm still hoping), and no major injuries (knocking on some hard, dense substance))

The third big will be Javin, not Antonio. Antonio will play nowhere near 15-20 minutes. Without a fair amount of garbage time, he may not even reach Troublemaker's 6 mpg.

The fourth perimeter player will be a competition among Jordan T, Jack, and Alex. The two guys who lose that competition will barely play in competitive games. My vague guess is Jordan T wins that competition, but there's little rational basis for prediction and it won't be decided until after the exhibition games, so there's no real point in guessing now. Whoever it is, though, they won't top 15 mpg, probably closer to 12 mpg.

Also, note that if Jordan T or Alex make the rotation, they would be the very first Duke freshman ranked outside the top 35 to do so in the RSCI era. If Jack makes the rotation, he'll be the first Duke guy outside the top 150 to do so in the same timeframe (not counting Seth Curry, but he was a transfer so that's different). So, no matter who wins the fourth perimeter player competition, it will be a first at Duke in at least the past 20 years.

As others have alluded, I'll be very surprised if Trevon and Grayson don't play 35+ mpg (and if Gary isn't close to that) and if all five starters don't play 30+ mpg (though obviously foul trouble for Wendell and Marques could have a say in that last one).

That's the way I see it, too. Starters plus DeLaurier plus a wildcard wing TBD. As for the notion of an eighth man....well, we'll see.

House P
05-16-2017, 12:33 PM
Six-man rotations? Georgia Tech in 1990. Made the FF and came a lot closer to beating UNLV than did Duke, which admittedly is a low bar.

It helped that three of those six players, Dennis Scott, Kenny Anderson and Brian Oliver, were among the best players in the country. Karl Brown, Johnny McNeil and Malcolm Mackey got most of the other minutes in competitive games, with some other guys getting mop-up minutes. Those six guys played 194 minutes against Vegas, with Daryl Barnes getting the other six.



Thanks for the perspective/history lesson. How about this boxscore (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/boxscores/1990-03-23-georgia-tech.html) from Georgia Tech's overtime win in the Sweet 16 that year?



Player
Minutes


Kenny Anderson
45


Dennis Scott
45


Brian Oliver
43


Johnny McNeil
37


Karl Brown
29


Malcolm Mackey
25


Darryl Barnes
1



Sadly, not even a token appearance by James "Oh no, not Munlyn!", the 6-11 center who appeared in 29 games that season and shot .323 from the field and .435 from the FT line.

CDu
05-16-2017, 12:36 PM
just to add, plumlees and dawkins combined for about 40mpg that season - i could see the argument that we were going 7 deep b/c often one of the 3 was buried on the bench, but i don't think it's fair to say we were going 6 deep.

The Plumlees made up most of those 40 mpg. And that was because we couldn't settle on the frontcourt. Neither the Plumlees nor Zoubek could lock down the C spot. By the time Zoubek got locked in, we basically ran a 6.5 man roation.

Same thing in 2001. We played essentially a 6.5-man rotation then too.

Both of those teams played less deep than this team will with DeLaurier, one of Tucker/O'Connell/White, and Vrankovic making a 7.5-man rotation.

Matches
05-16-2017, 12:36 PM
not sure about the 2010 example - scheyer, smith, singler, thomas, and zoubek, with dawkins and plumlee(s) off the bench. the sub pattern varied a fair amount depending on the game, but if you say 6, then 6 is plumlee and we all know dawkins made a few shots that year that weren't in mop-up time... the title game was the least bench minutes we played the whole season - a bit of a special case, right?

Dawkins played spot minutes a lot of the time and drew DNPs every so often. MP1 and MP2 got enough minutes that it's fair to call them "rotation players" on that team, although as noted MP2 played only a spot role in the title game.

I'd argue we had a 6-man rotation in 2015-16 after Amile got hurt - they kept trying to get minutes from Jeter but he never really became a guy who would play for more than a few minutes at a time.

The 1999-2000 team comes to mind as well, once the rotation solidified. Early in the year K played more guys but after Boozer got healthy and established himself, the starting 5 plus Dunleavy played most of the minutes. (Kind of similar to 2016 - they kept trying to get minutes from Christensen, Horvath and Sanders but without much success.)

A 6-man rotation is feasible but really tough these days because there are so many fouls being called. You also need a lot of positional versatility. Bobby Cremins used to play 6 guys at GT but the 6th guy was almost always someone who could play 3-4 positions.

flyingdutchdevil
05-16-2017, 12:36 PM
Could you guys help me out with Trent Jr.? I don't really know what to expect from him. I've heard:

#1 shooting guard in the country
not a great 3 point shooter
not that fast or athletic
will definitely start
plays the 2 and the 3
One and done player

I've watched some videos of him and seen a shot that goes in, but those are highlight videos from high school. What kind of competition did he play against for the most part? What are his elite skills? What made him the best player in the country at his position?

Just trying to get an idea of his game, thanks!

I've bolded what are near-certainties. Everything else is debatable. Let me try to answer a few of the questions:

Not a great 3 point shooter: He is not Luke Kennard. But I disagree with many who think he isn't a 3pt threat. He is best shooting off the dribble and he is a true "triple threat". Put this into perspective. At Apple Valley, Trent shot 40.4% from 3pt range as a junior. Tyus Jones shot 57% his senior year from 3 (holy cow). Tyus is a great shooter, and clearly cerebral enough to only shoot high percentage 3pt shots. Bottomline, I think Trent will be an asset at the 3, but he isn't a knockdown shooter like Tyus, Kennard, or Allen.

Not that fast or athletic: He isn't Trevon Duval, if that's what your asking (and neither is Allen. Allen is highly athletic in college. Duval is 99.5% percentile). He's not overly quick, but he's very physical. I expect that the best wing will be guarded by Trent. Did I mention that his coaches have raved about his defensive potential?

One and done player: He's top 10, he's the top ranked SG. So, yeah, the writing is on the wall that he's OAD. But he doesn't have insane athleticism and he won't be a ~20ppg scorer his freshman year either. If he leaves, it's because he Carter/Duval both left and because he had a really good year. But he's not a clear cut OAD like Tatum or Duval.

flyingdutchdevil
05-16-2017, 12:51 PM
The Plumlees made up most of those 40 mpg. And that was because we couldn't settle on the frontcourt. Neither the Plumlees nor Zoubek could lock down the C spot. By the time Zoubek got locked in, we basically ran a 6.5 man roation.

Same thing in 2001. We played essentially a 6.5-man rotation then too.

Both of those teams played less deep than this team will with DeLaurier, one of Tucker/O'Connell/White, and Vrankovic making a 7.5-man rotation.

I always use "10 minutes per game" as my metric for a true rotation player. Post-Maryland, when Zoubek blew up, MP1 and MP2 averaged 14.2 and 12.6 minutes per game (http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/players/logs.php?playerid=2734&season=2009-10 and http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/players/logs.php?playerid=2740&season=2009-10). And given that both averaged 16.4 and 14.1mpg, respectively, throughout the year, the LT/Zoubek front court didn't as much an affect as you'd think.

To me, the 2009-10 team absolutely featured a 7-man rotation, with Andre Dawkins being a little used sub when any of the 3 Ss were in foul trouble or needed a break.

JasonEvans
05-16-2017, 12:53 PM
wait, what? per 247 O'Connell is 6'5" 170lb, and Tucker is 6'7" 200lb

Sorry, the "bigger" was a mistake. But O'Connell is really long. Have a look.
http://www.hoopseen.com/sites/default/files/styles/extralarge/public/2016-03/Hoopseen_Elite_Preview_2K16_LR-2116.jpg?itok=B3yOrljN

bob blue devil
05-16-2017, 12:58 PM
The Plumlees made up most of those 40 mpg. And that was because we couldn't settle on the frontcourt. Neither the Plumlees nor Zoubek could lock down the C spot. By the time Zoubek got locked in, we basically ran a 6.5 man roation.

Same thing in 2001. We played essentially a 6.5-man rotation then too.

Both of those teams played less deep than this team will with DeLaurier, one of Tucker/O'Connell/White, and Vrankovic making a 7.5-man rotation.

when you say plumlees made up "most of" the minutes, you are technically correct, but really only because 2 of 3 players combined should get "most of" the minutes. miles played 16, mason played 14, andre played 13. i can see the argument of 6.5 if you call andre 0.5 and the combined plumlee rotation 1.0. i don't think it's 6 man rotation, however.

but if we're calling 13 mpg a 0.5 rotation player, then i don't think we should project vrank as a 1.0 rotation player (i personally doubt he'll get enough mpg to count as 0.5 rotation player assuming he doesn't supplant bolden).

and i suspect the best of tucker/o'connell/white will take-on more of that andre dawkins role of sometimes we need you and sometimes we don't. so maybe 6.5 rotation players is the right number to guess going into this season.

kAzE
05-16-2017, 01:17 PM
Sorry, the "bigger" was a mistake. But O'Connell is really long. Have a look.

I think you might be mistaking his skinniness for length . . .

Maybe he's suddenly sprouted longer arms in the past few months, but he was measured in July 2016 at the Nike basketball academy (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Alex-O-Connell-92111/) with a 6'3.5" wingspan, which is below average for a basketball player of his height (6'4.5")

He's very, very skinny, but in terms of his actual measured length, he's not that long. If you just look at the picture you posted, the guy guarding him has way longer arms.

Regardless, Jordan Tucker has a 6'7" wingspan, so Alex O'Connell is neither bigger nor longer than Jordan Tucker. But I don't really think either of them play the same position anyway. JT is definitely a forward, and Alex is clearly a guard.

For the record, I don't think Alex plays much this year, unless there is a back court injury (hope not) or major back court foul trouble. JT is much more physically ready to compete at this level as a freshman.

jipops
05-16-2017, 01:27 PM
That's impossible. Even if Coach K's an idiot, you'd have to give him credit for not playing Duval, Allen, and Trent 40 minutes a game. Somebody (most likely Tucker) will play the Andre Dawkins role from 2010, even if it's just 10-15 mpg.

Also, it looks like a mod extracted the post-Duval posts into another thread but didn't lock this thread. So now we have two minutes threads! The more the merrier?

I missed the other thread, but I didn't think the topic was necessarily minutes but who are going to be the guys that actually play. I guess that could go hand-in-hand with minutes discussion.

I could see the possibility of Tucker coming in for a few possessions in the first half during ACC play. But I have no expectation he will see any meaningful minutes. I can see his burn being similar to Jeter this past season before injury...a decent bit in the early part of the season and then almost nothing afterwards. If you want to consider that a part of the rotation, fine. But in my opinion we'll only see 6 guys playing any meaningful minutes.


I'd be stunned if Vrankovic plays more minutes than DeLaurier.

While I have to defer all inside knowledge to you, I'm going on a hunch here this will be the case just by going from what I have seen. It's basically a perception based hunch. Vrank showed himself to be pretty decent on the boards in his limited play and he has some offensive skill. And we're going to need all the help we can get on the boards this year. It also helps he's a solidly build 7-footer. Unless Javin has added something substantial to his offense or shows himself to be a reliable defender, I think these assets give Vrank the edge. I'm also not totally convinced that Bolden will have solved his high foul rate from last season.

CDu
05-16-2017, 01:31 PM
when you say plumlees made up "most of" the minutes, you are technically correct, but really only because 2 of 3 players combined should get "most of" the minutes. miles played 16, mason played 14, andre played 13. i can see the argument of 6.5 if you call andre 0.5 and the combined plumlee rotation 1.0. i don't think it's 6 man rotation, however.

but if we're calling 13 mpg a 0.5 rotation player, then i don't think we should project vrank as a 1.0 rotation player (i personally doubt he'll get enough mpg to count as 0.5 rotation player assuming he doesn't supplant bolden).

and i suspect the best of tucker/o'connell/white will take-on more of that andre dawkins role of sometimes we need you and sometimes we don't. so maybe 6.5 rotation players is the right number to guess going into this season.

I didn't consider Vrankovic a 1.0 rotation player. He was the 0.5. I think DeLaurier will be a rotation player and one of Tucker/White/O'Connell will be a rotation player. Vrankovic and another of the wing trio will be available for the 0.5 spot as needed.

Troublemaker
05-16-2017, 01:38 PM
I could see the possibility of Tucker coming in for a few possessions in the first half during ACC play. But I have no expectation he will see any meaningful minutes. I can see his burn being similar to Jeter this past season before injury...a decent bit in the early part of the season and then almost nothing afterwards. If you want to consider that a part of the rotation, fine. But in my opinion we'll only see 6 guys playing any meaningful minutes.

No, I would definitely NOT consider that being part of the rotation. My point was more that you are wrong about your rotation projection; it wasn't an argument over the semantics of what counts as being in or out of the rotation.

Tucker will at least receive Andre Dawkins' 12 mpg from 2010, but probably more because Duval and Trent won't have the upperclassman stamina that Scheyer, Smith, and Singler had.

Coach K's just going to have to bite the bullet on this one. I know Tucker typically isn't someone he would play 15-20 mpg as a freshman, but he'll do it because he's not insane.

ChillinDuke
05-16-2017, 01:48 PM
No, I would definitely NOT consider that being part of the rotation. My point was more that you are wrong about your rotation projection; it wasn't an argument over the semantics of what counts as being in or out of the rotation.

Tucker will at least receive Andre Dawkins' 12 mpg from 2010, but probably more because Duval and Trent won't have the upperclassman stamina that Scheyer, Smith, and Singler had.

Coach K's just going to have to bite the bullet on this one. I know Tucker typically isn't someone he would play 15-20 mpg as a freshman, but he'll do it because he's not insane.

Agreed that someone is going to receive Andre-like minutes. I would expect those minutes to be totally up for grabs - probably between Jordan, Alex, and Jack. That said, I end up agreeing with you again that Jordan is most likely to win that battle, based on what little I've seen of the three of them.

- Chillin

flyingdutchdevil
05-16-2017, 01:52 PM
Agreed that someone is going to receive Andre-like minutes. I would expect those minutes to be totally up for grabs - probably between Jordan, Alex, and Jack. That said, I end up agreeing with you again that Jordan is most likely to win that battle, based on what little I've seen of the three of them.

- Chillin

Yeah, exactly my thinking. Someone is getting minutes. I just have no idea who. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Duke gets a proven grad transfer at the last second.

kAzE
05-16-2017, 01:53 PM
Agreed that someone is going to receive Andre-like minutes. I would expect those minutes to be totally up for grabs - probably between Jordan, Alex, and Jack. That said, I end up agreeing with you again that Jordan is most likely to win that battle, based on what little I've seen of the three of them.

- Chillin

One of those 3 is going to be in the 7 man rotation playing 10+ minutes, and my bet is on Tucker. I think Jack White gets the "Andre" or "Bolden from last year" minutes.

flyingdutchdevil
05-16-2017, 01:56 PM
One of those 3 is going to be in the 7 man rotation playing 10+ minutes, and my bet is on Tucker. I think Jack White gets the "Andre" or "Bolden from last year" minutes.

Tucker seems like the natural choice, given that he's the highest ranked.

But which ever player plays the best D is likely to get the role. Unfortunately, neither of the 3 players comes with a defensive reputation. So let's see how this plays out in practice. My vote? Tucker...

budwom
05-16-2017, 01:58 PM
I think you might be mistaking his skinniness for length . . .

Maybe he's suddenly sprouted longer arms in the past few months, but he was measured in July 2016 at the Nike basketball academy (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Alex-O-Connell-92111/) with a 6'3.5" wingspan, which is below average for a basketball player of his height (6'4.5")

He's very, very skinny, but in terms of his actual measured length, he's not that long. If you just look at the picture you posted, the guy guarding him has way longer arms.

Regardless, Jordan Tucker has a 6'7" wingspan, so Alex O'Connell is neither bigger nor longer than Jordan Tucker. But I don't really think either of them play the same position anyway. JT is definitely a forward, and Alex is clearly a guard.

For the record, I don't think Alex plays much this year, unless there is a back court injury (hope not) or major back court foul trouble. JT is much more physically ready to compete at this level as a freshman.

Yup, I think O'Connell has Scheyer Neck. More elongated than long, if that distinction can be made.

flyingdutchdevil
05-16-2017, 02:09 PM
Yup, I think O'Connell has Scheyer Neck. More elongated than long, if that distinction can be made.

That's a massive disservice to Scheyer. "Scheyer Neck" is one of the most unique features of any athlete ever. That's like saying Trevon Duval is as beautiful as Winslow. People have died for saying less!

O'Connell's neck isn't close to the 8th natural wonder.

/rant over

kAzE
05-16-2017, 02:11 PM
That's a massive disservice to Scheyer. "Scheyer Neck" is one of the most unique features of any athlete ever. That's like saying Trevon Duval is as beautiful as Winslow. People have died for saying less!

O'Connell's neck isn't close to the 8th natural wonder.

/rant over

If I'm being totally honest (and I mean absolutely no disrespect to Alex in any way), I think his slight face/head makes his limbs (and neck) look longer than they really are. Again, just from the picture Jason posted, the guy guarding him has a massive head by comparison.

Also, Scheyer Face is way more of a natural wonder than Scheyer Neck :)

7422

Troublemaker
05-16-2017, 02:17 PM
When you compare the recently posted photos of Alex and Jordan, you can see why it's a relatively easy call to project Jordan in the rotation and not Alex.

Jordan is 19 yrs old (and will turn 20 the day after the 2018 national championship game) (http://www.nbadraft.net/players/jordan-tucker) and 205-lbs of good, toned muscle. Alex is 18 years old (14 months younger than Jordan) (http://www.nbadraft.net/players/alex-oconnell), is very thin, and is about 165-lbs.

I mean, if either Luke or Frank had returned for next season, Alex would've been a candidate for a redshirt.

sagegrouse
05-16-2017, 02:38 PM
Not trying to be controversial, but if DeLaurier and Jack White are not in the rotation next season, I believe they will decamp to another school. The logic is as follows: While it's OK to sit as a rookie behind more highly rated freshmen -- and Jayson was and is a phenom -- and more accomplished upperclassmen, that won't work sophomore year. Moreover, Duke is returning only Grayson and maybe Marques with college experience. DeLaurier is a very athletic college power forward and Jack White is a physically mature and athletic wing player. I don't see them "sitting still" for "sitting on the bench."

I actually expect both to play, in part because I am highly suspect (that's an understatement) of the abilities of incoming freshmen, no matter the ranking, to play Duke-style defense and in part because I think they are legitimate ACC players who will earn their minutes.

Kedsy
05-16-2017, 02:53 PM
are there any historical precedents for a 6 man rotation - i'm guessing there is, but i don't have a good memory for this stuff.

In 2016, out of 22 close (< 20 pts) games after January 1, we had 6 or fewer guys playing 10+ minutes in 19 of those games (86%) -- truly a 6-man rotation. In 2002, we only played 11 such games, and had 6 guys playing 10+ minutes in 8 of the 11 (73%). In 2000, it was 11 of 16 games (69%); in 1985, it was 10 of 19 games (53%); in 2001, it was 8 of 16 (50%); and in 2015, it was 10 of 20 games (50%). Those are the closest we've had to 6 or 6.5 man rotations under Coach K.

jipops
05-16-2017, 03:17 PM
No, I would definitely NOT consider that being part of the rotation. My point was more that you are wrong about your rotation projection; it wasn't an argument over the semantics of what counts as being in or out of the rotation.

Tucker will at least receive Andre Dawkins' 12 mpg from 2010, but probably more because Duval and Trent won't have the upperclassman stamina that Scheyer, Smith, and Singler had.

Coach K's just going to have to bite the bullet on this one. I know Tucker typically isn't someone he would play 15-20 mpg as a freshman, but he'll do it because he's not insane.

And I thought my wife was the only one questioning my sanity...

Dawkins was a 5-star guard who played 12 mpg for a team that only had 2 other guards on its roster and another perimeter player in Singler. Tucker is a 4-star perimeter player (true he is not strictly a guard) coming to a team that has more than 2 other perimeter players. We'll see. Your argument based on the experience of Scheyer, Smith, and Singler in comparison to our current guys certainly holds water. But I feel like we see this board get burned every year banking on the production of a player that has come in less heralded than others. I just don't see Tucker as being a guy K leans on for very much this upcoming season. We don't even know if he is even ready for this level of competition. Semi Ojeleye was all everything in the state of Kansas yet he came to Duke not ready to contribute. If K decides to run with 6 and/or not go with Tucker it won't be from insanity, it may be because he has no other options.

jipops
05-16-2017, 03:41 PM
Not trying to be controversial, but if DeLaurier and Jack White are not in the rotation next season, I believe they will decamp to another school. The logic is as follows: While it's OK to sit as a rookie behind more highly rated freshmen -- and Jayson was and is a phenom -- and more accomplished upperclassmen, that won't work sophomore year. Moreover, Duke is returning only Grayson and maybe Marques with college experience. DeLaurier is a very athletic college power forward and Jack White is a physically mature and athletic wing player. I don't see them "sitting still" for "sitting on the bench."

I actually expect both to play, in part because I am highly suspect (that's an understatement) of the abilities of incoming freshmen, no matter the ranking, to play Duke-style defense and in part because I think they are legitimate ACC players who will earn their minutes.

This really depends on the players themselves and how much they have worked to improve their games. I know there are many, maybe most, on this board that expect DeLaurier to be a significant rotational contributor next season. But that seems to make some assumptions about what he's going to bring to the table. We know he's long (6-9 or 6-10 now?) and a good run and jump guy. But that's pretty much it. He very briefly took part in 2 ACC games last season. It seems like playing to Javin's strengths would be an offense that gets out a lot in transition. But I don't see that happening with this year's team with its youth and lack of perimeter depth. So a lot depends on how much he has improved his offensive game in half court. And I really have no idea what to expect of him defensively. Maybe he can block some shots, provided he's not foul prone. You can't just assume a guy is going to be strong defensively just because he's an athlete. Javin was a top 50 guy coming in so he may very well have the expectation of getting significant minutes in his 2nd year. So I can see how he would feel let down if that doesn't happen.

Jack White, on the other hand, may have a different outlook. He wasn't even in the top 100 coming out of high school so I'd be surprised if he was coming in to this season expecting significant minutes as a sophomore.

Troublemaker
05-16-2017, 03:43 PM
And I thought my wife was the only one questioning my sanity...

Dawkins was a 5-star guard who played 12 mpg for a team that only had 2 other guards on its roster and another perimeter player in Singler. Tucker is a 4-star perimeter player (true he is not strictly a guard) coming to a team that has more than 2 other perimeter players. We'll see. Your argument based on the experience of Scheyer, Smith, and Singler in comparison to our current guys certainly holds water. But I feel like we see this board get burned every year banking on the production of a player that has come in less heralded than others. I just don't see Tucker as being a guy K leans on for very much this upcoming season. We don't even know if he is even ready for this level of competition. Semi Ojeleye was all everything in the state of Kansas yet he came to Duke not ready to contribute. If K decides to run with 6 and/or not go with Tucker it won't be from insanity, it may be because he has no other options.

Correct, a player of Jordan Tucker's ranking does not usually play as a freshman for Duke. But these are not normal circumstances.

Once you have eliminated the impossible (playing Duval, Allen, and Trent 40 mpg), whatever remains -- no matter how improbable -- must be the truth. Jordan Tucker (or someone) will be in the rotation as the 4th perimeter player.

FadedTackyShirt
05-16-2017, 04:14 PM
...I wouldn't be surprised at all if Duke gets a proven grad transfer at the last second.

Really like Bamba on and off the court, but think a grad student PG would be more valuable. Don't need another big and don't think Goldwire will be ready. Nice luxury to have an experienced PG who can play 5 MPG and/or be used in emergencies. Also useful to test the waters on a grad school transfer.

tbyers11
05-16-2017, 04:31 PM
Really like Bamba on and off the court, but think a grad student PG would be more valuable. Don't need another big and don't think Goldwire will be ready. Nice luxury to have an experienced PG who can play 5 MPG and/or be used in emergencies. Also useful to test the waters on a grad school transfer.

A grad-student transfer playing the role that you describe would be a good thing for Duke. However, I'm not sure how many grad student transfers would want to come into that situation.

Grad student transfers, at least ones who would be good enough to crack the rotation at Duke, seem to fall into 2 camps to me


Power 5 player looking for a situation to get more playing time because of less competition at their position. Think Dylan Ennis going to Oregon from Villanova. Villanova was pretty stacked at PG while Oregon wasn't

Mid-major "stars" looking to upgrade their competition to enhance their professional futures. Think Damion Lee going from Drexel to Louisville.

Perhaps there is the perfect match of a player who is good enough to get playing time at Duke, but satisfied with only 5-10 mpg. This late in the game it doesn't seem like that player is out there, though.

Natty_B
05-16-2017, 05:04 PM
This late in the game it doesn't seem like that player is out there, though.

There isn't. The grad transfer thing isn't happening.

bob blue devil
05-16-2017, 05:15 PM
In 2016, out of 22 close (< 20 pts) games after January 1, we had 6 or fewer guys playing 10+ minutes in 19 of those games (86%) -- truly a 6-man rotation. In 2002, we only played 11 such games, and had 6 guys playing 10+ minutes in 8 of the 11 (73%). In 2000, it was 11 of 16 games (69%); in 1985, it was 10 of 19 games (53%); in 2001, it was 8 of 16 (50%); and in 2015, it was 10 of 20 games (50%). Those are the closest we've had to 6 or 6.5 man rotations under Coach K.

thank you for this. judging by your prior posts, you are in the 6.5 player rotation camp, with javin being first off the bench and the half being tucker (but could easily by someone else)?

CDu
05-16-2017, 05:16 PM
There isn't. The grad transfer thing isn't happening.

Yeah, I don't like using absolutes. But I feel quite strongly that the grad transfer option at PG left when Duval committed. Had we not gotten Duval? Then yeah, a grad PG would make sense for both sides. But not now.

sagegrouse
05-16-2017, 05:28 PM
Jack White, on the other hand, may have a different outlook. He wasn't even in the top 100 coming out of high school so I'd be surprised if he was coming in to this season expecting significant minutes as a sophomore.
This has come up a couple of times. The kid grew up in Australia, for heaven's sake, where he seemed to be highly thought of. What the heck was the basis of assigning him any ranking at all? Not arguing, just assuming I am missing something.

MarkD83
05-16-2017, 05:29 PM
So if Jordan jack and Alex are all in the mix for the 7th spot in the rotation is that not a 9 man rotation. I am still hoping😉

Kedsy
05-16-2017, 05:44 PM
Not trying to be controversial, but if DeLaurier and Jack White are not in the rotation next season, I believe they will decamp to another school.

Let me ask you this: a year from now, will you be saying the same thing about Jordan Goldwire? Because he's not going to be in the rotation as a sophomore (probably ever, but who knows?) and he's not going to transfer. IMO, Jack White has a lot more in common with Jordan G than with, say, Chase Jeter.

Javin DeLaurier, you may have a point. He was ranked #35 out of high school, would have started at most schools in the country, last season. But Jack? He was ranked something like #236 out of high school. He doesn't have a reasonable expectation of rotation minutes as a sophomore, and thus is highly unlikely to transfer out of frustration.


If K decides to run with 6 and/or not go with Tucker it won't be from insanity, it may be because he has no other options.

I'm with Troublemaker on this. The reason your 6-man rotation won't work is because you have three big men (for two positions) and three perimeter players (for three positions). Someone has to back up the three perimeter spots. And even if all three of Grayson, Trevon, and Gary play 36 minutes each, there's still 12 left for the backup. And, to me, 12 mpg is part of the rotation.

In the past seasons when we've played 6-man rotations, one of the six was someone like Mike Dunleavy, who could play either perimeter or interior. It can't work with, e.g., Wendell Carter, Marques Bolden, and Antonio Vrankovic as three of the six.


So if Jordan jack and Alex are all in the mix for the 7th spot in the rotation is that not a 9 man rotation. I am still hoping😉

No, because that's not how Coach K works. If there's 12 mpg available for the 7th man, he's not going to split it 4/4/4 with three guys, he's going to give it to one guy. And even if he did split it, then we'd be back to a 6-man rotation, because playing 4 mpg (or even 6mpg) can't reasonably be considered to be a rotation player.


Really like Bamba on and off the court, but think a grad student PG would be more valuable. Don't need another big and don't think Goldwire will be ready. Nice luxury to have an experienced PG who can play 5 MPG and/or be used in emergencies. Also useful to test the waters on a grad school transfer.

In each of the last several seasons, DBR posters have advocated getting a grad transfer to be a 5 to 10 mpg backup. But as tbyers11 pointed out, that makes no sense. Why would any grad transfer want to do that? These days, grad transfers are in heavy demand. If a kid's going to switch schools for a single season, he's going to do it for a situation where he's going to play a lot (otherwise, why bother?).


thank you for this. judging by your prior posts, you are in the 6.5 player rotation camp, with javin being first off the bench and the half being tucker (but could easily by someone else)?

Well, as I said above, I think one of Jordan T/Jack/Alex is going to get the 12 mpg left over from the three starting perimeter guys, and I expect Javin to get 15 to 25 mpg backup up the two big guys. To me, that's a 7-man rotation. (I'd define a 6.5 man rotation as someone who sometimes plays 10+ and other times doesn't, averaging maybe 8 mpg, but I admit that's arbitrary.)

MChambers
05-16-2017, 05:48 PM
This has come up a couple of times. The kid grew up in Australia, for heaven's sake, where he seemed to be highly thought of. What the heck was the basis of assigning him any ranking at all? Not arguing, just assuming I am missing something.
In Australia, he was ranked #95, but since that's the Southern Hemisphere, it's more or less the equivalent of the RSCI #5 here.

MarkD83
05-16-2017, 05:50 PM
Do you pick between Jordan jack and Alex by their play in practice or give them more minutes in early season games. I think more minutes in games is the better choice.

kAzE
05-16-2017, 05:52 PM
I'm with Troublemaker on this. The reason your 6-man rotation won't work is because you have three big men (for two positions) and three perimeter players (for three positions). Someone has to back up the three perimeter spots. And even if all three of Grayson, Trevon, and Gary play 36 minutes each, there's still 12 left for the backup. And, to me, 12 mpg is part of the rotation.

In the past seasons when we've played 6-man rotations, one of the six was someone like Mike Dunleavy, who could play either perimeter or interior. It can't work with, e.g., Wendell Carter, Marques Bolden, and Antonio Vrankovic as three of the six.

No, because that's not how Coach K works. If there's 12 mpg available for the 7th man, he's not going to split it 4/4/4 with three guys, he's going to give it to one guy. And even if he did split it, then we'd be back to a 6-man rotation, because playing 4 mpg (or even 6mpg) can't reasonably be considered to be a rotation player.

Well, as I said above, I think one of Jordan T/Jack/Alex is going to get the 12 mpg left over from the three starting perimeter guys, and I expect Javin to get 15 to 25 mpg backup up the two big guys. To me, that's a 7-man rotation. (I'd define a 6.5 man rotation as someone who sometimes plays 10+ and other times doesn't, averaging maybe 8 mpg, but I admit that's arbitrary.)

Hey, everything you said sounds a lot like my rotation that I posted back on page 1!

PG: Duval (32), Allen (8)
SG: Allen (28), Trent (12)
SF: Trent (20), Tucker (14), White (6)
PF: Carter (20), DeLaurier (20)
C: Bolden (28), Carter (12)

Only, I don't have Duval and Trent playing 36 minutes each. I gave them 32 each, and split the remaining 8 minutes to Tucker and White.

But I do think 36+ minutes each to Allen/Trent/Duval makes sense for more important games. And I agree that the 7th man (or even one of the starters) will end up taking all of those extra minutes that I currently have going to Tucker & White in that type of situation. (The 12 minutes you mentioned)

For example, it wasn't uncommon for Luke or Matt to play 38-40 minutes in some games last year.

79-77
05-16-2017, 05:55 PM
My 2 cents:

- I agree that the rotation will settle at 7 or 7.5 guys.

- I think both White and Tucker have a shot at the perimeter bench slot. I could see O'Connell making a bid if he shoots like a Curry, but otherwise it's not likely.

- I wouldn't be surprised if White separates himself and wins the spot by showing some Aussie nasty -- although that is really based more on a generalization of Aussie players than on anything White in particular has displayed.

- Similarly, I think both Javin and Vrank have a shot at the post bench slot. I haven't seen anything from either of them to indicate a clear edge over the other.

- I think it's generally harder and less common for freshman bigs to play big minutes than it is for freshman guards, so I kinda expect Carter to play closer to 29-31 min per game than 34-35.

- If Bolden plays 28 min per game and Carter plays 30, that leaves 22 min per game for Javin and/or Vrank.

- I expect Duval and Allen to play 35+ min per game, and Trent about 30, leaving about 18 minutes for White and/or Tucker.

MChambers
05-16-2017, 06:12 PM
Do you pick between Jordan jack and Alex by their play in practice or give them more minutes in early season games. I think more minutes in games is the better choice.

Coach K has usually stressed play in practice.

jipops
05-16-2017, 06:36 PM
This has come up a couple of times. The kid grew up in Australia, for heaven's sake, where he seemed to be highly thought of. What the heck was the basis of assigning him any ranking at all? Not arguing, just assuming I am missing something.

The point I was making there was these two fellas likely had different expectations of themselves coming to Duke. Jack can probably stomach not playing more than Javin.

jipops
05-16-2017, 06:50 PM
Correct, a player of Jordan Tucker's ranking does not usually play as a freshman for Duke. But these are not normal circumstances.

Once you have eliminated the impossible (playing Duval, Allen, and Trent 40 mpg), whatever remains -- no matter how improbable -- must be the truth. Jordan Tucker (or someone) will be in the rotation as the 4th perimeter player.

Correct. Duval, Allen, and Trent will not play 40. Pretty obvious there. So if somebody is filling in spot duty to give someone a breather is labeled as rotation then we'll have that. I just don't see a perimeter player outside of those 3 as making any real impact nor getting much time to do so. Similar to Jeter's impact in games after December. I would not be at all surprised to see our 3 perimeter guys go the entire 2nd half in some ACC games, fouls permitting. In any case we likely have 6 guys on the roster capable of making any significant impact. Those are the types of guys K plays.

jimsumner
05-16-2017, 06:59 PM
I agree that it's likely too late for a quality grad-student option. But our hypothetical transfer could easily be a combo guard, capable of playing both point and off the ball, which might expand the available PT to the 15-20 mpg range.

In any case, there will be 120 mpg available at the 1-3 and Duval, Allen and Trent can't be expected to play more than 100 or so. And none of the post players is likely to play on the perimeter. That leaves a full rotation spot available for a backup perimeter player.

sagegrouse
05-16-2017, 07:03 PM
Let me ask you this: a year from now, will you be saying the same thing about Jordan Goldwire? Because he's not going to be in the rotation as a sophomore (probably ever, but who knows?) and he's not going to transfer. IMO, Jack White has a lot more in common with Jordan G than with, say, Chase Jeter.

Javin DeLaurier, you may have a point. He was ranked #35 out of high school, would have started at most schools in the country, last season. But Jack? He was ranked something like #236 out of high school. He doesn't have a reasonable expectation of rotation minutes as a sophomore, and thus is highly unlikely to transfer out of frustration.

The story out of the Aussie press when Jack came to the US was his statement that he was delighted to go to Duke, and he would see if he could make the starting lineup. I have no idea what K told him on the recruiting trail. Jack was enrolled at the Australia Institute of Sport in Canberra, and my assumption is that he's gonna play basketball in America -- if not at Duke, then somewhere else.

Jordan Goldwire knows he's coming to play on the second unit in practice, and his best other opportunity was at Eastern Kentucky. I agree -- he's not going anywhere. I also think he could get some serious minutes before his Duke career is over.

53n206
05-16-2017, 07:25 PM
I want our number one guys, at each position, to playi about 28 minutes per game. That will leave 12 minutes of mop up for every game except Carolina, when we'll have 20 minutes of my mop up. It's about 6:30 in central time and I have not yet started to drink. I may post later and change some of these minutes per game.

jv001
05-16-2017, 08:16 PM
I'm not going to discuss team minutes in detail this early. One thing that does come to mind is Bolden's minutes. Will we see the Marquis that was slated to be in the starting lineup before his injury? Or, will we see the Bolden that seemed to gather fouls quicker than a Curry 3 or a Kyrie crossover? If Marquis does not play up to his potential, we could be in real trouble. As for last season, I thought that Vrank was a more dependable reserve than Marquis. I'm really hoping he comes in motivated and in tip top shape. He could possibly make this a special team. GoDuke!

Troublemaker
05-16-2017, 08:31 PM
To me, his long term role would be a combo forward. Ideally, he adds enough strength to become a solid rebounder, so that he can be a full time stretch 4. The bigger he can play, the more valuable he becomes. His shooting ability would allow him to take opposing big men out of the paint area.

I agree that IF Tucker could play stretch-4, that would make him very valuable on this and future Duke teams.

I don't know if he has the size, though, despite that photo of him being toned and muscular.

Jordan was measured last year as 6'7", 6'7" wingspan, 205 lbs, 8'6" standing reach (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jordan-Tucker-83167/). Now, perhaps he's grown a little bit since then, but unless he's grown A LOT in the past year, I think he's only slightly more appropriate as a stretch-4 than Gary Trent, who is 6'6", 6'8" wingspan, 215 lbs, 8'4" standing reach (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/).

In comparison, Duke's smallest stretch-4 in recent years was Justise, who measured 6'6", 6'10" wingspan, 222 lbs, 8'8" standing reach (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Justise-Winslow-7190/). That superior wingspan and standing reach makes a difference, imo.

I think I'd be most comfortable with JTuck as a full-time SF for this and future seasons.

My hopes for a stretch-4 are with Javin and Jack. One has to learn how to shoot. The other has to show that he's good.

jimsumner
05-16-2017, 09:05 PM
I agree that IF Tucker could play stretch-4, that would make him very valuable on this and future Duke teams.

I don't know if he has the size, though, despite that photo of him being toned and muscular.

Jordan was measured last year as 6'7", 6'7" wingspan, 205 lbs, 8'6" standing reach (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jordan-Tucker-83167/). Now, perhaps he's grown a little bit since then, but unless he's grown A LOT in the past year, I think he's only slightly more appropriate as a stretch-4 than Gary Trent, who is 6'6", 6'8" wingspan, 215 lbs, 8'4" standing reach (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/).

In comparison, Duke's smallest stretch-4 in recent years was Justise, who measured 6'6", 6'10" wingspan, 222 lbs, 8'8" standing reach (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Justise-Winslow-7190/). That superior wingspan and standing reach makes a difference, imo.

I think I'd be most comfortable with JTuck as a full-time SF for this and future seasons.

My hopes for a stretch-4 are with Javin and Jack. One has to learn how to shoot. The other has to show that he's good.

I'm not sure DeLaurier will ever be a stretch 4 in the Shane Battier, Ryan Kelly sense of the word. But he certainly could be a Lance-Thomas-kind of power forward. Rebound, defend, run the court, baskets of opportunity. And down the road maybe he could do a Tony Lang and learn to shoot.

chriso
05-16-2017, 09:30 PM
I'm not sure DeLaurier will ever be a stretch 4 in the Shane Battier, Ryan Kelly sense of the word. But he certainly could be a Lance-Thomas-kind of power forward. Rebound, defend, run the court, baskets of opportunity. And down the road maybe he could do a Tony Lang and learn to shoot.

I agree DeLaurier could be a real good power forward this year and beyond. Even a guy who could be good enough to move on after 3 years. I think Duval is going to make all our guys look better. I am so much more optimistic about our team than I was last week. :)

Kedsy
05-16-2017, 11:27 PM
As for last season, I thought that Vrank was a more dependable reserve than Marquis.

For those who believe Antonio Vrankovic and Jack White are known commodities who have shown they can play at this level, consider this: last season, if you don't count the 50 point blowout against Georgia Tech, Antonio played a total of 10 minutes against ACC competition (he also played 1 minute against ACC competition in 2015-16), and Jack played a total of 6 minutes against ACC competition (for comparison's sake, Marques played 106 minutes against ACC competition, not counting Ga Tech).

So, we have two guys (Antonio and Jack) who were ranked outside the top 200 coming out of high school and who essentially haven't played in any college game that matters. On what, exactly, are people basing their opinions that either of these guys have shown enough to warrant future playing time? I mean, I guess almost anything's possible, but to say that Antonio is going to beat out Marques or Javin for playing time, or that Jack is going to beat out Jordan T or even Alex for playing time, is actually much more of a wild hunch than that of the people who are enamored with the "shiny new toys," because those shiny toys have at least been evaluated as pretty good by the recruiting experts.

jipops
05-16-2017, 11:57 PM
For those who believe Antonio Vrankovic and Jack White are known commodities who have shown they can play at this level, consider this: last season, if you don't count the 50 point blowout against Georgia Tech, Antonio played a total of 10 minutes against ACC competition (he also played 1 minute against ACC competition in 2015-16), and Jack played a total of 6 minutes against ACC competition (for comparison's sake, Marques played 106 minutes against ACC competition, not counting Ga Tech).

So, we have two guys (Antonio and Jack) who were ranked outside the top 200 coming out of high school and who essentially haven't played in any college game that matters. On what, exactly, are people basing their opinions that either of these guys have shown enough to warrant future playing time? I mean, I guess almost anything's possible, but to say that Antonio is going to beat out Marques or Javin for playing time, or that Jack is going to beat out Jordan T or even Alex for playing time, is actually much more of a wild hunch than that of the people who are enamored with the "shiny new toys," because those shiny toys have at least been evaluated as pretty good by the recruiting experts.

Don't forget Javin who played in only 2 ACC games for a grand total of 8 minutes. Also has a lesser PER than White or Vrank.

Kedsy
05-17-2017, 12:02 AM
Don't forget Javin who played in only 2 ACC games for a grand total of 8 minutes.

Yeah but, again, he at least has some cred as a top 35 prospect out of high school. It doesn't mean everything, but it means something.

jipops
05-17-2017, 12:10 AM
Yeah but, again, he at least has some cred as a top 35 prospect out of high school. It doesn't mean everything, but it means something.

Much of the time it can. Many times it doesn't. As K has stated, everyone runs their own race. Plenty of top 40 guys have taken a few years to truly become impact players. I think Javin will get there, I'm just not counting on it for year 2.

arnie
05-17-2017, 07:10 AM
I'm not sure DeLaurier will ever be a stretch 4 in the Shane Battier, Ryan Kelly sense of the word. But he certainly could be a Lance-Thomas-kind of power forward. Rebound, defend, run the court, baskets of opportunity. And down the road maybe he could do a Tony Lang and learn to shoot.

I believed Javin would have major impact to the program the 1st time I watched him in practice. I think the Lance comparison is perfect if he gets the chance and believe year opportunity is coming this year. He could be a sensational defensive stopper by the time he's a senior.

Spanarkel
05-17-2017, 07:44 AM
For those who believe Antonio Vrankovic and Jack White are known commodities who have shown they can play at this level, consider this: last season, if you don't count the 50 point blowout against Georgia Tech, Antonio played a total of 10 minutes against ACC competition (he also played 1 minute against ACC competition in 2015-16), and Jack played a total of 6 minutes against ACC competition (for comparison's sake, Marques played 106 minutes against ACC competition, not counting Ga Tech).

So, we have two guys (Antonio and Jack) who were ranked outside the top 200 coming out of high school and who essentially haven't played in any college game that matters. On what, exactly, are people basing their opinions that either of these guys have shown enough to warrant future playing time? I mean, I guess almost anything's possible, but to say that Antonio is going to beat out Marques or Javin for playing time, or that Jack is going to beat out Jordan T or even Alex for playing time, is actually much more of a wild hunch than that of the people who are enamored with the "shiny new toys," because those shiny toys have at least been evaluated as pretty good by the recruiting experts.

Generally agree. However, Jordan Tucker's rankings (no. 40 in ESPN Top 100/no. 46 in last summer's RSCI) are a "wide chasm fixed" from his not making the Atlanta Journal Constitution's All-Metro team for this past season, even honorable mention for his own county's schools(Cobb County with 16 public high schools and several competitive private schools). By the AJC's evaluation (and I'm not touting the staff there as recruiting experts) Jordan would be no better than the fourth best player on his HS team (Wheeler). His 3 other teammates that did make the AJC's All-Metro teams are headed to Louisville, USC(not the Gamecocks), and Auburn(Class of '18) so he played on a team of considerable talent and maybe the AJC didn't want to stack the All-Metro teams with too many players from the same school. Hopefully the AJC's evaluation is way off and the ESPN experts have Jordan's talents fairly accurately assessed. Let's go, Duke!

http://www.ajc.com/sports/high-school/ajc-boys-all-metro-basketball-teams/uwRQL3hxFs2VxKyYVSr9QN/

bob blue devil
05-17-2017, 07:54 AM
I'm not sure DeLaurier will ever be a stretch 4 in the Shane Battier, Ryan Kelly sense of the word. But he certainly could be a Lance-Thomas-kind of power forward. Rebound, defend, run the court, baskets of opportunity. And down the road maybe he could do a Tony Lang and learn to shoot.

or do a lance thomas and learn to shoot. maybe Javin can have a chat with lance and learn his secrets before turning 26...

jv001
05-17-2017, 08:28 AM
For those who believe Antonio Vrankovic and Jack White are known commodities who have shown they can play at this level, consider this: last season, if you don't count the 50 point blowout against Georgia Tech, Antonio played a total of 10 minutes against ACC competition (he also played 1 minute against ACC competition in 2015-16), and Jack played a total of 6 minutes against ACC competition (for comparison's sake, Marques played 106 minutes against ACC competition, not counting Ga Tech).

So, we have two guys (Antonio and Jack) who were ranked outside the top 200 coming out of high school and who essentially haven't played in any college game that matters. On what, exactly, are people basing their opinions that either of these guys have shown enough to warrant future playing time? I mean, I guess almost anything's possible, but to say that Antonio is going to beat out Marques or Javin for playing time, or that Jack is going to beat out Jordan T or even Alex for playing time, is actually much more of a wild hunch than that of the people who are enamored with the "shiny new toys," because those shiny toys have at least been evaluated as pretty good by the recruiting experts.

I didn't say that Vrankovic would beat out Jordan or Alex for playing time. For one thing, Antonio has Carter and Bolden in front of him at the 4 and 5 spots. Then you throw in Javin who is probably more apt to get minutes than Vrank. My post was more about what we'll get from Marquis. Will it be what we saw this past season or what the coaches saw in preseason practice. He must have done something to earn a place on the starting unit before his injury. I will say this, in my eye test, Antonio in the few minutes that I saw him play, looked like the better player. But of course, Bolden was the bight and shiny toy that had a much higher player ranking. I'll leave the minutes problem to the coaching staff and just root for all the players. No matter their rankings. :cool:GoDuke!

budwom
05-17-2017, 08:41 AM
or do a lance thomas and learn to shoot. maybe Javin can have a chat with lance and learn his secrets before turning 26...

Yeah, some guys learn to shoot (like Lance) and some guys don't, at least so far (like Amile, as much as I love him).

whereinthehellami
05-17-2017, 08:42 AM
I like the Javin to Lang comparison. Javin seems to be growing into more of an inside guy and I could see him developing the equivalent tools that Lang had at the end of his career. IIRC Lang actually had a decent offensive game his last year. More so than Thomas did at Duke. But it was more of an inside to mid-range game than a stretch four role.

The backup perimeter player is most likely going to be a defensive liability. I like what White showed in his limited chances last season. He did not seem to lack confidence and had some toughness. Can he move his feet and stay in front of a 2G and/or a SF? That is going to be a problem for all the perimeter backups though. I wouldn't be surprised if the best option in the end is White.

sagegrouse
05-17-2017, 08:50 AM
For those who believe Antonio Vrankovic and Jack White are known commodities who have shown they can play at this level, consider this: last season, if you don't count the 50 point blowout against Georgia Tech, Antonio played a total of 10 minutes against ACC competition (he also played 1 minute against ACC competition in 2015-16), and Jack played a total of 6 minutes against ACC competition (for comparison's sake, Marques played 106 minutes against ACC competition, not counting Ga Tech).

So, we have two guys (Antonio and Jack) who were ranked outside the top 200 coming out of high school and who essentially haven't played in any college game that matters. On what, exactly, are people basing their opinions that either of these guys have shown enough to warrant future playing time? I mean, I guess almost anything's possible, but to say that Antonio is going to beat out Marques or Javin for playing time, or that Jack is going to beat out Jordan T or even Alex for playing time, is actually much more of a wild hunch than that of the people who are enamored with the "shiny new toys," because those shiny toys have at least been evaluated as pretty good by the recruiting experts.

I'll take that challenge.

First, [all together now] "RSCI is prologue, not destiny." If only the Bard had been around to post on DBR! Still trying to figure out how anyone was able to put a ranking on a player who never played here -- but, whatever. Vrank is the classic late bloomer, whose coordination is still developing, and whose HS play was fairly wooden, and I don't mean John.

Second, why will Vrank and Jack play in 2018? Because they are two of only five players who have been part of the Duke program for more than two weeks and have been taught how K wants to run defense. Casting a gimlet eye at the in-coming crowd: the freshmen will have no clue about Duke-style team defense until January -- at best.

Third, the most underappreciated players going into a new season are the veterans on the bench -- everyone focuses on the rookies and the returning stars.

I expect both to play a good bit -- although Mo Bamba might affect Vrank's time on the court.

bob blue devil
05-17-2017, 09:08 AM
Yeah, some guys learn to shoot (like Lance) and some guys don't, at least so far (like Amile, as much as I love him).

don't give up on amile yet - he's only 24, he can go to the lance thomas school too!

DukieInBrasil
05-17-2017, 09:17 AM
don't give up on amile yet - he's only 24, he can go to the lance thomas school too!

as much as i love Amile, even LT showed at least a mid-range jumper at Duke. He even hit a couple. Amile i don't think ever attempted one after a miss early in the season. OTOH, Amile had post moves that LT could only dream of.
If, a big, big IF, Amile can develop a reliable jumper, not even a 3pointer mind you, he could become as valuable to an NBA team as LT.

bob blue devil
05-17-2017, 09:24 AM
I'll take that challenge.

First, [all together now] "RSCI is prologue, not destiny." If only the Bard had been around to post on DBR! Still trying to figure out how anyone was able to put a ranking on a player who never played here -- but, whatever. Vrank is the classic late bloomer, whose coordination is still developing, and whose HS play was fairly wooden, and I don't mean John.

Second, why will Vrank and Jack play in 2018? Because they are two of only five players who have been part of the Duke program for more than two weeks and have been taught how K wants to run defense. Casting a gimlet eye at the in-coming crowd: the freshmen will have no clue about Duke-style team defense until January -- at best.

Third, the most underappreciated players going into a new season are the veterans on the bench -- everyone focuses on the rookies and the returning stars.

I expect both to play a good bit -- although Mo Bamba might affect Vrank's time on the court.

i agree in that my uneducated eye test liked vrank last season. it's tricky - my a priori for vrank was very low expectations because of the weak recruiting ranking. that perspective has been supported by the lack of minutes. but the minutes he did get were at the expense of jeter and bolden who were desperate for game time (albeit injuries played a part too) - the competition was pretty fierce and he got on the court on a few occasions where i was really surprised not to see jeter or bolden first. i interpreted that as a sign that vrank probably wasn't that far behind jeter or bolden and was putting in solid work. as you noted, vrank could be a late bloomer - not uncommon for big men. and he is big - very big - and has some athleticism; he's got some of the things you can't teach. and when he did get on the court, again, to my uneducated eye, he looked solid. so, it wouldn't shock me if vrank is a major contributor for duke one day and has a surprisingly productive professional basketball career. but, that's more hope than evidence at this point.

fraggler
05-17-2017, 09:25 AM
I'd be a little disappointed if Javin doesn't make a small leap and push his way into the rotation. I really like his potential as a position 3-5 defender and a quick, bouncy finisher off missed baskets and dump offs. A perfect complement to the higher skilled, but slower front court. I don't see quite the potential in Jack, even though he looks to have a promising 3 pt shot. Doesn't seem to have either the foot speed for a perimeter defender or the size and bounce to do damage down low. As much as I like Vrank and his feel for the game, he is so slow with little lift that I don't see him ever being more than a situational player. Definitely not Zoubek 2.0. Who knows, though. I want all our players to become our best images of them.

chriso
05-17-2017, 10:51 AM
I'll take that challenge.

First, [all together now] "RSCI is prologue, not destiny." If only the Bard had been around to post on DBR! Still trying to figure out how anyone was able to put a ranking on a player who never played here -- but, whatever. Vrank is the classic late bloomer, whose coordination is still developing, and whose HS play was fairly wooden, and I don't mean John.

Second, why will Vrank and Jack play in 2018? Because they are two of only five players who have been part of the Duke program for more than two weeks and have been taught how K wants to run defense. Casting a gimlet eye at the in-coming crowd: the freshmen will have no clue about Duke-style team defense until January -- at best.

Third, the most underappreciated players going into a new season are the veterans on the bench -- everyone focuses on the rookies and the returning stars.

I expect both to play a good bit -- although Mo Bamba might affect Vrank's time on the court.

I agree completely. I am very bullish on DeLaurier and Vrank and White to a lesser degree. Just having a year of practice is going to put these guys ahead of some; at least at the start of the season. I agree with Vrank being a late bloomer. I think because of the low high school ranking it sometimes may seem like he has no or little upside. He also seems to be a hard worker and knows his strengths and weaknesses. Fundamentally sound. Can't wait to see him and big D blossom this year. I think we will see this happen. Some very good posts before this btw. Go Duke!

jimsumner
05-17-2017, 12:09 PM
as much as i love Amile, even LT showed at least a mid-range jumper at Duke. He even hit a couple. Amile i don't think ever attempted one after a miss early in the season. OTOH, Amile had post moves that LT could only dream of.
If, a big, big IF, Amile can develop a reliable jumper, not even a 3pointer mind you, he could become as valuable to an NBA team as LT.


Lance averaged 4.6 points per game at Duke and attempted as many 3-pointers as you and I combined. I'd be surprised if he made more than five shots from further than 12 feet in his Duke career.

Which makes his post-college improvement all the more laudatory.

Lang, btw, averaged 12.4 ppg as a senior, making third-team All-ACC (in a smaller league). But his offense was 15-feet in. He was 0-3 on 3s for his career. I do think DeLaurier could develop into a better rebounder than Thomas or Lang, both of whom peaked in the 5 rpg-range.

Jack White?

Pretty small sample size at the college level. But he did play for the Australia team in the 2015 FIBA U-19 World Championships, averaging 8.3 points and 3.9 rebounds per game. He also represented Australia in the 2014 FIBA U-17 World Championships and the 2013 U-16 Oceania Championships.

So, he does have some experience playing at high levels of competition. At 6-7, 215, I see him more as a 3/4 than a 3/2. His handle needs to improve to even think about being a primary ball-handler at this level. But I can definitely see him in the forward mix this season.

Troublemaker
05-17-2017, 12:12 PM
Correct. Duval, Allen, and Trent will not play 40. Pretty obvious there. So if somebody is filling in spot duty to give someone a breather is labeled as rotation then we'll have that.

Yeah, but if those breathers add up to 12-15 mpg, that player is in the rotation. You can't just say someone who plays 30-37% of the game is not in the rotation.

Plus, it's likely to be more minutes than even that. You already mentioned foul trouble; I could see the frosh Duval and Trent fouling a bit too much. What about when opponents play zone defense against Duke? I think we're going to see zone A LOT. Tucker (or someone) is going to have to come in to stretch out the zone. And there are probably other things that will pop up during gameplay that will require substitution -- hopefully not injury or a tripping of the opponent.

Kedsy
05-17-2017, 01:08 PM
I'll take that challenge.

First, [all together now] "RSCI is prologue, not destiny." If only the Bard had been around to post on DBR! Still trying to figure out how anyone was able to put a ranking on a player who never played here -- but, whatever. Vrank is the classic late bloomer, whose coordination is still developing, and whose HS play was fairly wooden, and I don't mean John.

Second, why will Vrank and Jack play in 2018? Because they are two of only five players who have been part of the Duke program for more than two weeks and have been taught how K wants to run defense. Casting a gimlet eye at the in-coming crowd: the freshmen will have no clue about Duke-style team defense until January -- at best.

Third, the most underappreciated players going into a new season are the veterans on the bench -- everyone focuses on the rookies and the returning stars.

I expect both to play a good bit -- although Mo Bamba might affect Vrank's time on the court.

OK, this explains why you expect Jack to play over Jordan T and Alex, though personally I haven't seen any evidence that Jack can play adequate defense at this level. Still, I can't argue with your conclusion because I think the three guys (Jack, Jordan T, and Alex) are basically in a dead-heat race for the fourth perimeter spot in the rotation -- whichever of them practices and plays better will get the spot.

But your statement doesn't explain Antonio over Javin at all, since Javin is also one of the five returning players, has much better tools, and was considered a much better player in high school. And if you're suggesting all three of Jack, Antonio, and Javin will see rotation minutes, absent serious injury I'd bet a lot against that, right now.

Also, on what do you base your assessment that Antonio is a "late bloomer"? His 11 career non-garbage time minutes against ACC competition, during which he committed 6 fouls (that's 21.8 per 40 minutes), 2 turnovers, and had just one rebound? I admit he looked pretty good against the likes of Marist (nobody taller than 6'9 and main center weighed 195 pounds) and Appalachian State (only one player taller than 6'9, but that guy only played 7 minutes, and the 6'9 guy weighed all of 200 pounds), but how is that so much more informative than scouting reports of our freshmen against top high school competition?

Finally, you talk about recruiting ranking being prologue, but what about your statement that the freshmen won't understand defense until January? That's not only based on the past, it's based only on the recent past. We've had plenty of freshmen who could play Duke defense from the get-go. It mostly depends on their tools and their mindset. Applying what we've seen in the past to what little we know of both our returnees and our newcomers, I'd say Trevon, Javin, and Marques could be plus (maybe even plus-plus) defenders, right from the start of the season. Gary, Jordan T, Jack, and Alex, will probably not start the season as plus defenders and may not ever be. Wendell could go either way, but he has the tools, so it's just a matter of whether Coach K can instill the mindset.

drummerdevil
05-28-2017, 10:22 AM
I'm probably alone when I say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In my book, Tucker is starting over Trent. The reason is Tucker is the better shooter. From what I've seen/heard of Trent, while he is one of the best shooters, this is a weak shooting class and he is almost inconsistent. I think K wants more shooters on the floor, and therefore will need Tucker and Allen. However, I don't see him playing more than 20-25 mpg and Trent will be off the bench quickly.

Troublemaker
05-28-2017, 11:04 AM
I'm probably alone when I say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In my book, Tucker is starting over Trent. The reason is Tucker is the better shooter. From what I've seen/heard of Trent, while he is one of the best shooters, this is a weak shooting class and he is almost inconsistent. I think K wants more shooters on the floor, and therefore will need Tucker and Allen. However, I don't see him playing more than 20-25 mpg and Trent will be off the bench quickly.

Even though I am also somewhat concerned about Gary's 34%-from-3 number according to DraftExpress, I think Gary will shoot better than that for Duke because we'll improve his shot selection, which apparently is a weakness. If he only takes good 3s, that percentage will be better.

NSDukeFan
05-28-2017, 11:14 AM
I'm probably alone when I say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In my book, Tucker is starting over Trent. The reason is Tucker is the better shooter. From what I've seen/heard of Trent, while he is one of the best shooters, this is a weak shooting class and he is almost inconsistent. I think K wants more shooters on the floor, and therefore will need Tucker and Allen. However, I don't see him playing more than 20-25 mpg and Trent will be off the bench quickly.

You may be alone with that prediction. No guts, no glory?

Kedsy
05-28-2017, 12:53 PM
I'm probably alone when I say this, but I'm going to say it anyway. In my book, Tucker is starting over Trent. The reason is Tucker is the better shooter. From what I've seen/heard of Trent, while he is one of the best shooters, this is a weak shooting class and he is almost inconsistent. I think K wants more shooters on the floor, and therefore will need Tucker and Allen. However, I don't see him playing more than 20-25 mpg and Trent will be off the bench quickly.

OK, I think people might say I rely too much on recruiting rankings, but I think there's no way a freshman ranked #46 in the summer RSCI (and seemingly trending down in the updated services, so when the final 2017 RSCI comes out will probably be ranked worse than #46) will start over a freshman ranked #11 in the summer RSCI (and seemingly trending up in the updated services). What's more, while much has been made on this board of Gary shooting 34% from three in high school, in the stats I found for Jordan T (from his junior year; I couldn't find his senior year stats, hopefully he shot better as a senior), Jordan shot only 34.7% from three, so essentially the same.

I think there's a pretty good chance Jordan T wins the competition with Alex and Jack for the 7th man. I think (absent injury) there's almost no chance he starts or plays ahead of Gary.

drummerdevil
05-28-2017, 08:50 PM
I respect all y'all's opinions, but I'm just trusting my gut on this one

Kedsy
05-28-2017, 09:19 PM
I respect all y'all's opinions, but I'm just trusting my gut on this one

OK. But please tell me, on what information is your gut reaction based? How many times have you seen Gary Trent play? How many times have you seen Jordan Tucker play? Just wondering.

drummerdevil
05-29-2017, 10:36 AM
No info. Just my gut. Not really sure why.

kAzE
05-29-2017, 01:36 PM
I think the reason Trent will start over Tucker is not because he's a better shooter (Tucker is better), but because of his defense and hustle. Trent will quickly win the hearts of the crazies because he's super tough and plays with an edge. He's also just a more well-rounded offensive player than Tucker, who is basically a catch and shoot guy right now. Although he's not a sharpshooter, I think Trent will make a living scoring on smaller wings in the paint, and still average around 10-12 points. I just hope there's enough floor spacing around him for that to be an option.

K4Redick
05-29-2017, 02:50 PM
I think the most interesting thing about the rotation this year is how K manages the 4 and 5. I expect Carter and Bolden to start, but I wonder if one of Bolden or Vrankovic will always be in the game giving Duke a true center at all times. Similarly, we could always play Carter or DeLaurier at the 4 which would give us a more traditional look at the power forward. I think the option of playing traditional power forwards and centers probably suits this year's personnel the best, but I wonder how willing the coaching staff will be to not use a stretch 4 which has been a critical part our offense particularly the last 4 years. If the coaching staff decides to use a stretch 4 in some lineups that would obviously benefit Jordan Tucker and Jack White the most, and hurt Vrankovic and DeLaurier to some extent. Overall, I think this years lineups will hinge on how K uses the 4 and 5 which will also determine our style of play this year which might be very different from recent history.

DukieInBrasil
05-30-2017, 06:05 PM
I think the most interesting thing about the rotation this year is how K manages the 4 and 5. I expect Carter and Bolden to start, but I wonder if one of Bolden or Vrankovic will always be in the game giving Duke a true center at all times. Similarly, we could always play Carter or DeLaurier at the 4 which would give us a more traditional look at the power forward. I think the option of playing traditional power forwards and centers probably suits this year's personnel the best, but I wonder how willing the coaching staff will be to not use a stretch 4 which has been a critical part our offense particularly the last 4 years. If the coaching staff decides to use a stretch 4 in some lineups that would obviously benefit Jordan Tucker and Jack White the most, and hurt Vrankovic and DeLaurier to some extent. Overall, I think this years lineups will hinge on how K uses the 4 and 5 which will also determine our style of play this year which might be very different from recent history.

This year will definitely be a test of K's adaptability. He doesn't have a tested stretch-4 that he can go to, although perhaps either Jack or Jordan will be able to perform that role to K's taste. If neither Jordan or Jack can perform that role adequately, K will have to go with a more traditional 2-big lineup, and he may have to do that for stretches anyway. If he does go withe 2BL, will that use all 4 of those guys, in the format you mentioned, or will he rely principally on only 3 of the 4? Will K make good on the much-analyzed possibly off-the-cuff remark made once about utilizing his bench more?

As far as top-shelf talent/skill goes, Duke is pretty thin this coming year. We've got 3 guys for 2 G spots, Grayson, Duval & Trent; and 2 guys for 2 post spots, Bolden & Carter. Which leaves us without a "typical" SF, although either Grayson or Gary could play that position. After them, we've got a menagerie of guys who are not ranked very highly by recruiting services, have no experience at Duke and/or haven't played very much at Duke (Goldwire, O'Connell, White, Delaurier, Vrank, Tucker & Robinson). Some of those guys may surprise us and really play big/key roles. Some of them are pretty much guaranteed to not surprise us at all. So, depending on what permutations K can dream up and how the pieces fit together, this will be another big challenge for him as a coach, one that i'm sure he relishes.

CDu
05-30-2017, 06:13 PM
I think the most interesting thing about the rotation this year is how K manages the 4 and 5. I expect Carter and Bolden to start, but I wonder if one of Bolden or Vrankovic will always be in the game giving Duke a true center at all times. Similarly, we could always play Carter or DeLaurier at the 4 which would give us a more traditional look at the power forward. I think the option of playing traditional power forwards and centers probably suits this year's personnel the best, but I wonder how willing the coaching staff will be to not use a stretch 4 which has been a critical part our offense particularly the last 4 years. If the coaching staff decides to use a stretch 4 in some lineups that would obviously benefit Jordan Tucker and Jack White the most, and hurt Vrankovic and DeLaurier to some extent. Overall, I think this years lineups will hinge on how K uses the 4 and 5 which will also determine our style of play this year which might be very different from recent history.

Carter is 6'10", 260. He is every bit a center, too. At least one of Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic (mostly the first two) will be in the game for all but garbage minutes, barring extreme foul trouble.

CDu
05-30-2017, 06:16 PM
This year will definitely be a test of K's adaptability. He doesn't have a tested stretch-4 that he can go to, although perhaps either Jack or Jordan will be able to perform that role to K's taste. If neither Jordan or Jack can perform that role adequately, K will have to go with a more traditional 2-big lineup, and he may have to do that for stretches anyway. If he does go withe 2BL, will that use all 4 of those guys, in the format you mentioned, or will he rely principally on only 3 of the 4? Will K make good on the much-analyzed possibly off-the-cuff remark made once about utilizing his bench more?

As far as top-shelf talent/skill goes, Duke is pretty thin this coming year. We've got 3 guys for 2 G spots, Grayson, Duval & Trent; and 2 guys for 2 post spots, Bolden & Carter. Which leaves us without a "typical" SF, although either Grayson or Gary could play that position. After them, we've got a menagerie of guys who are not ranked very highly by recruiting services, have no experience at Duke and/or haven't played very much at Duke (Goldwire, O'Connell, White, Delaurier, Vrank, Tucker & Robinson). Some of those guys may surprise us and really play big/key roles. Some of them are pretty much guaranteed to not surprise us at all. So, depending on what permutations K can dream up and how the pieces fit together, this will be another big challenge for him as a coach, one that i'm sure he relishes.

Trent is 6'6", 215. He is every bit the traditional college SF.

Troublemaker
05-30-2017, 07:24 PM
I think the most interesting thing about the rotation this year is how K manages the 4 and 5. I expect Carter and Bolden to start, but I wonder if one of Bolden or Vrankovic will always be in the game giving Duke a true center at all times. Similarly, we could always play Carter or DeLaurier at the 4 which would give us a more traditional look at the power forward. I think the option of playing traditional power forwards and centers probably suits this year's personnel the best, but I wonder how willing the coaching staff will be to not use a stretch 4 which has been a critical part our offense particularly the last 4 years. If the coaching staff decides to use a stretch 4 in some lineups that would obviously benefit Jordan Tucker and Jack White the most, and hurt Vrankovic and DeLaurier to some extent. Overall, I think this years lineups will hinge on how K uses the 4 and 5 which will also determine our style of play this year which might be very different from recent history.

I would still like Duke to have the ability to utilize both looks. Even if Duke plays two bigs most of the time, we should still utilize a stretch-4 lineup when appropriate.

Kedsy
05-30-2017, 10:08 PM
I would still like Duke to have the ability to utilize both looks. Even if Duke plays two bigs most of the time, we should still utilize a stretch-4 lineup when appropriate.

We'll see, but I think it will be rare. Assuming a rotation of, e.g., Carter, Bolden, DeLaurier, Tucker (or White or O'Connell), Trent, Allen, and Duval, I think the combination of Carter, Bolden, and DeLaurier will take almost all the 80 C/PF minutes. Whoever doesn't win the 7th man spot will not be taking too many minutes away from DeLaurier, meaning we'll utilize just four perimeter players. The only time I'd expect us to use all four perimeter guys at the same time would be during foul shot time at the end of the game or if we're way behind and need to take a zillion threes (and I don't expect the latter to happen too often).

Everyone says Coach K always uses a stretch four, because that's what he's done recently (and in the Olympics), but the fact is we've employed two non-shooting bigs several times over the years, when the roster dictated it (most recently in 2010). With this roster, I expect K to go that route in 2017-18.

LasVegas
05-31-2017, 03:15 PM
My worry is that we will be a slashing heavy team. If carter plays the four and can't spread the defense, how will that impact duval/Trent/Allen? Allen is he only reliable shooter out of the three.

Indoor66
05-31-2017, 03:22 PM
My worry is that we will be a slashing heavy team. If carter plays the four and can't spread the defense, how will that impact duval/Trent/Allen? Allen is he only reliable shooter out of the three.

And you know this how?

LasVegas
05-31-2017, 04:05 PM
And you know this how?

I assume you mean my "Allen is the only reliable shooter out of the three" statement.
Well...
1) Duval and Trent weren't known as shooters at the high school level
2) not sure if this is backed up by data but it seems even "great" HS shooters struggle a little bit their freshman year with the long ball.
3) Duval and Trent haven't played a lick of college ball. So what am I supposed to go off of? It's an assumption on both sides of the argument.

CDu
05-31-2017, 04:14 PM
I assume you mean my "Allen is the only reliable shooter out of the three" statement.
Well...
1) Duval and Trent weren't known as shooters at the high school level
2) not sure if this is backed up by data but it seems even "great" HS shooters struggle a little bit their freshman year with the long ball.
3) Duval and Trent haven't played a lick of college ball. So what am I supposed to go off of? It's an assumption on both sides of the argument.

Yeah, I think your assumptions are completely reasonable. Virtually everyone who has scouted Duval says he's not a great outside shooter. The reports are varied on Trent, but "varied" is enough for reasonable doubt. So, yeah, Allen is the only proven/known shooter of the three.

English
05-31-2017, 04:35 PM
My worry is that we will be a slashing heavy team. If carter plays the four and can't spread the defense, how will that impact duval/Trent/Allen? Allen is he only reliable shooter out of the three.

This is certainly a valid concern, and one I share. Of course, sadly, the team that's been represented in the last two F4s has shown that a fast-paced team with size and little-to-no outside shooting is capable of overcoming such deficiencies when it excels on the offensive glass. I'm eager to see Wendell's storied interior passing ability up close, as well as Duval's ability to get into the lane and make things happen for teammates.

chriso
06-01-2017, 10:35 AM
No info. Just my gut. Not really sure why.

Maybe you could post an x-ray of your gut. :)

jipops
06-01-2017, 10:55 AM
Trent is 6'6", 215. He is every bit the traditional college SF.

Or even the traditional Duke PF.


Edit: I'm sorta kidding in this case. We likely won't have enough perimeter guys to put Trent at that spot.

COYS
06-01-2017, 01:31 PM
I would still like Duke to have the ability to utilize both looks. Even if Duke plays two bigs most of the time, we should still utilize a stretch-4 lineup when appropriate.

I am also of the opinion that Duke will be better if K is able to deploy a stretch-4 look on occasion, especially against teams that don't have the guards to contain the Trevon/Grayson backcourt off the dribble (which I suspect will be a common occurrence). Don't get me wrong, I think that Marques and Wendell will be the starters and be the number one pairing in the post. But I am hopeful that either Jack or Jordan will be enough of a threat from outside to earn a few minutes. I'm reminded of Taylor King's role in the '07-'08 team. Those are not the happiest of memories, overall, but Taylor did hit an incredibly important shot at the end of the first half against Belmont in the first round of the NCAA tournament, despite essentially being the 8th man. He also had his moments throughout the season. Now, neither Jordan nor Jack are on Taylor's level as a shooter (it's hard to think about how good he could've been if he had not had the off the court issues), but they both could be capable of filling a similar role, on occasion . . . Especially if plan A isn't working out or we just need more spacing.

CDu
06-01-2017, 01:35 PM
Or even the traditional Duke PF.


Edit: I'm sorta kidding in this case. We likely won't have enough perimeter guys to put Trent at that spot.

Yeah, if we had gotten Jackson back and not gotten Tucker and Bolden, I think there would have been a real chance that Trent spent some meaningful minutes at the PF spot. But with Bolden returning, Tucker, coming, and Jackson leaving, I think that's a non-issue. But Trent is definitely a SF, and will probably play at least half of his minutes there.

Troublemaker
06-01-2017, 01:54 PM
I am also of the opinion that Duke will be better if K is able to deploy a stretch-4 look on occasion, especially against teams that don't have the guards to contain the Trevon/Grayson backcourt off the dribble (which I suspect will be a common occurrence). Don't get me wrong, I think that Marques and Wendell will be the starters and be the number one pairing in the post. But I am hopeful that either Jack or Jordan will be enough of a threat from outside to earn a few minutes.

I agree. I'm a big believer in Trevon and Wendell, although I don't begrudge anyone who wants to take a cautious approach with freshmen. I think if we can put that 3rd capable shooter on the floor, Duke will against certain opponents be unstoppable when running a Trevon/Wendell pick-and-roll. Or alternatively, put 4 shooters around Wendell and let him go to work in the post; in this alignment, it may be Grayson at PG instead of Trevon. I think we should play a lot of two-big lineups, but I'm hoping we can also still play spacing lineups when appropriate. (And perhaps we can have the best of both worlds if either Wendell or Javin can hit threes at a decent percentage.)

Kedsy
06-01-2017, 05:47 PM
Or alternatively, put 4 shooters around Wendell and let him go to work in the post; in this alignment, it may be Grayson at PG instead of Trevon.

You're suggesting we should regularly use a lineup of Wendell, Grayson, Gary, Jordan T, and either Alex or Jack? That would surprise me, especially if you expect that lineup to be adequate defensively.

Not to mention that (as others have pointed out), we really don't have a firm grasp on how good that "shooters lineup" would be at shooting. Other than Grayson, that group of players has hit a combined total of one (1) three-pointer at the college level.

Troublemaker
06-01-2017, 06:05 PM
You're suggesting we should regularly use a lineup of Wendell, Grayson, Gary, Jordan T, and either Alex or Jack? That would surprise me, especially if you expect that lineup to be adequate defensively.

Not to mention that (as others have pointed out), we really don't have a firm grasp on how good that "shooters lineup" would be at shooting. Other than Grayson, that group of players has hit a combined total of one (1) three-pointer at the college level.

Not regularly, no. But I think there will be occasions where we'll need to put 3 or even 4 shooters on the court. That said, you're right that we'll need Gary, Jack, and JTuck to first prove that they are indeed shooters at the college level. Assuming they are, though, I really wouldn't be surprised to see some 4-out-1-in looks during the season.

House P
06-01-2017, 06:29 PM
Everyone says Coach K always uses a stretch four, because that's what he's done recently (and in the Olympics), but the fact is we've employed two non-shooting bigs several times over the years, when the roster dictated it (most recently in 2010). With this roster, I expect K to go that route in 2017-18.

Good point.

Even the 2015 team, which is often cited as an example of Coach K's strong preference for a stretch four (Winslow), frequently played without a stretch four on the court.

In games after Jan 1 decided by < 20 points that season, the trio of Jahlil, Amile, and Marshall combined to average 60.7 minutes per game. That means that Duke played without a stretch 4 on the court about half the time. If you only look at close games after Amile started coming off the bench, the trio of bigs* still averaged 55.5 mpg. This translates to playing without a stretch 4 almost 40% of the time.

*Of course, Amile had more defensive versatility than we can probably expect from Bolden, Carter, or Vrank, so this may not be the best comparison. Even still the trio of Jahlil, Amile, and Marshall combined to attempt a single three point shot in more than 6000 total minutes played, so I don't think any of them could be considered a classic stretch four.

K4Redick
06-01-2017, 07:03 PM
Good point.

Even the 2015 team, which is often cited as an example of Coach K's strong preference for a stretch four (Winslow), frequently played without a stretch four on the court.

In games after Jan 1 decided by < 20 points that season, the trio of Jahlil, Amile, and Marshall combined to average 60.7 minutes per game. That means that Duke played without a stretch 4 on the court about half the time. If you only look at close games after Amile started coming off the bench, the trio of bigs* still averaged 55.5 mpg. This translates to playing without a stretch 4 almost 40% of the time.

*Of course, Amile had more defensive versatility than we can probably expect from Bolden, Carter, or Vrank, so this may not be the best comparison. Even still the trio of Jahlil, Amile, and Marshall combined to attempt a single three point shot in more than 6000 total minutes played, so I don't think any of them could be considered a classic stretch four.

I think this is an interesting point, while I would be surprised to see Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic playing together. I think we might see see DeLaurier on the floor with 2 of Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic especially against teams that will have more size next year like Louisville and Miami

MChambers
06-01-2017, 08:18 PM
I think this is an interesting point, while I would be surprised to see Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic playing together. I think we might see see DeLaurier on the floor with 2 of Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic especially against teams that will have more size next year like Louisville and Miami

I'd be shocked. There'd be no spacing whatsoever. I just hope Carter and DeLaurier can hit 10-15 ft. jumpers to stretch the defense a little. And on defense, you'd have to play a zone.

CDu
06-01-2017, 11:03 PM
I think this is an interesting point, while I would be surprised to see Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic playing together. I think we might see see DeLaurier on the floor with 2 of Bolden, Carter, and Vrankovic especially against teams that will have more size next year like Louisville and Miami


I'd be shocked. There'd be no spacing whatsoever. I just hope Carter and DeLaurier can hit 10-15 ft. jumpers to stretch the defense a little. And on defense, you'd have to play a zone.

Yeah, I see no way that happens either unless we have a bunch of injuries or serious foul trouble. Very few teams play a big SF. So I would be shocked if we put anyone but Trent/Tucker/White at SF for meaningful minutes next year.

chriso
06-02-2017, 10:13 AM
Yeah, I see no way that happens either unless we have a bunch of injuries or serious foul trouble. Very few teams play a big SF. So I would be shocked if we put anyone but Trent/Tucker/White at SF for meaningful minutes next year.

What I like about next year's team is we have a lot of mix and match capabilities.

budwom
06-03-2017, 10:46 AM
Yeah, I see no way that happens either unless we have a bunch of injuries or serious foul trouble. Very few teams play a big SF. So I would be shocked if we put anyone but Trent/Tucker/White at SF for meaningful minutes next year.

Our fearless leader's front page article touts DeLaurier as a strong possibility for SF, but I agree with you...in fact I see the chances of seeing a Bolden-Carter-DeLaurier frontcourt as zero, barring hideous foul trouble or
pervasive lower extremity issues.

Troublemaker
06-03-2017, 11:04 AM
Our fearless leader's front page article touts DeLaurier as a strong possibility for SF, but I agree with you...in fact I see the chances of seeing a Bolden-Carter-DeLaurier frontcourt as zero, barring hideous foul trouble or
pervasive lower extremity issues.

Right, I second that. The front-page article also wonders who the 5th starter will be. It's going to be Gary. The starters are going to be Trevon-Grayson-Gary-Wendell-Marques.

dukelifer
06-03-2017, 11:51 AM
Right, I second that. The front-page article also wonders who the 5th starter will be. It's going to be Gary. The starters are going to be Trevon-Grayson-Gary-Wendell-Marques.

Hard to believe anyone but Trent in that slot. Maybe Tucker is too good a shooter to leave off the floor but Trent has all the tools- but he will be very inconsistent for a while as will the rest of the Frosh.

CDu
06-03-2017, 02:31 PM
Right, I second that. The front-page article also wonders who the 5th starter will be. It's going to be Gary. The starters are going to be Trevon-Grayson-Gary-Wendell-Marques.

Yeah, I pretty much never go to the front page. And that article is a big part of why. It is awful. From getting the names of UNC's bigs wrong (Johnson left after 2016; it was Meeks and Hicks last year) to suggesting DeLaurier has a shot at SF, to suggesting Robinson might be in consideration, just a complete lack of a feel for the program at the moment.

Trent is going to start at SF, Tucker is likely the backup to Trent. DeLaurier will be in the PF/C backup rotation.

azzefkram
06-03-2017, 04:15 PM
Trent is going to start at SF, Tucker is likely the backup to Trent. DeLaurier will be in the PF/C backup rotation.

I agree Trent is probably the fifth starter. I am looking forward to year 2 of DeLaurier but I would put Tucker and O'Connell ahead of him for a possible fifth starter. I don't even think Coach K could get a starting five of Carter, Bolden, DeLaurier, Duval and Allen to work. Pieces just don't fit.

Based on the final RSCI, I am not sure we can even pencil Tucker in as the backup over O'Connell.

Fish80
06-03-2017, 11:28 PM
Our fearless leader's front page article touts DeLaurier as a strong possibility for SF, but I agree with you...in fact I see the chances of seeing a Bolden-Carter-DeLaurier frontcourt as zero, barring hideous foul trouble or
pervasive lower extremity issues.

Don't say zero. As a probability, at this point in time, it's > 0. By quite a bit.

Javin is very athletic. Long and quick. He can guard multiple positions. We will see this line up. More than once.

Kedsy
06-03-2017, 11:42 PM
I was thinking about this year's roster and how likely it would be that the guys at the end of the bench would play, so I looked at the past 18 seasons (the "RSCI era") to see if I could find a historical trend, using the rating system I have used elsewhere, with players getting a "score," based on a combination of recruiting ranking and experience. Each season has a table that looks like this:



2017 GP Min 7400 score
Luke Kennard 37 1314 17.76% 2.5
Grayson Allen 34 1007 13.61% 2.0
Jayson Tatum 29 966 13.05% 1.0
Frank Jackson 36 896 12.11% 2.0
Amile Jefferson 35 1039 14.04% 1.0
Matt Jones 37 1216 16.43% 1.5
Harry Giles 26 300 4.05% 1.0
Chase Jeter 16 238 3.22% 1.5
Marques Bolden 24 157 2.12% 2.0
Antonio Vrankovic 13 101 1.36% 4.5
Jack White 10 61 0.82% 5.0
Javin DeLaurier 12 85 1.15% 3.0
Justin Robinson 6 10 0.14% 6.5
Nick Pagliuca 5 8 0.11% 5.5
Brennan Besser 1 2 0.03% 6.5
Sean Obi 0 0 0.00% 2.0


Using the above tables, for each season we can calculate the percentage of minutes played by the top 7 guys in the rotation, as well as the number of players on each roster with a score lower than 4.0, as follows:



Year top7% #players < 4.0
2016 95.78 7 not counting Jefferson (injured), Obi (injured)
2006 95.27 7
2004 93.77 9
2007 92.78 9 not counting Boykin (tfr)
2005 92.02 8
2000 92.00 8
2002 91.47 9
2001 91.23 8 not counting Horvath (injured)
2013 90.76 10
2017 91.05 10 not counting Obi (injured)
2015 89.94 9 not counting Ojeleye (tfr) but including Sulaimon (kicked off team after playing 20 games)
2010 89.44 9 not counting Czyz (tfr)
2012 88.99 10
2011 88.74 8 not counting Irving (injured)
2014 87.26 11 not counting Murphy (tfr)
2003 86.65 10
2008 86.64 10 not counting Pocius (injured)
2009 81.80 10


If a player played just a few early games and then transferred or got injured, that player wasn't counted in the "number of players with scores < 4.0."

In the past 18 seasons, we've had 9 or fewer players with a 3.5 or better in 11 seasons, and 10 or more in seven seasons. The top eight seasons in terms of highest percentage of minutes played by the first seven in the rotation are all teams with 9 or fewer "3.5 or better" players. The remaining three such teams were: 2015, which if Rasheed Sulaimon hadn't been kicked off the team probably would have had its top 7 get more than 92% of the minutes; 2011, which if Kyrie Irving hadn't been hurt probably would have its top 7 get just shy of 92%; and 2010, which was probably a real exception due to Coach K employing a four-man interior rotation. Which means that, barring exceptional circumstances, the top ten (in terms of percentage of minutes played by the 7-man rotation) would have all had 9 or fewer "3.5 or better" players, and seven of the bottom eight would have had 10 or more such players. The only two teams in the period with just seven "3.5 or better" players (2016 and 2006) are the top two in terms of highest percentage of minutes played by the 7-man rotation.

Why is this relevant to next year's team? Because our 2017-18 roster will have just six players with a score of 3.5 or better:

Grayson Allen: 1.5
Trevon Duval: 1.0
Wendell Carter: 1.0
Marques Bolden: 1.5
Gary Trent: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 2.5

Jordan Tucker: 4.0
Alex O'Connell: 4.0
Antonio Vrankovic: 4.0
Jack White: 4.5
Jordan Goldwire: 6.0
Justin Robinson: 6.0

With only six such players, it's the fewest we've had in at least 20 seasons, which to me says those six will get as many minutes as they can handle. Along with whoever wins the competition to be 7th man, history suggests the 7-man group will play a percentage of available minutes in the mid-90s.

Perhaps something to keep in mind when making your minute predictions this season...

Skitzle
08-15-2017, 05:17 AM
Bump? ;)

MarkD83
08-15-2017, 06:07 AM
Why is this relevant to next year's team? Because our 2017-18 roster will have just six players with a score of 3.5 or better:

Grayson Allen: 1.5
Trevon Duval: 1.0
Wendell Carter: 1.0
Marques Bolden: 1.5
Gary Trent: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 2.5
Marvin Bagley III: 1.0

Jordan Tucker: 4.0
Alex O'Connell: 4.0
Antonio Vrankovic: 4.0
Jack White: 4.5
Jordan Goldwire: 6.0
Justin Robinson: 6.0

With only seven such players,... which to me says those seven will get as many minutes as they can handle. Along with whoever wins the competition to be 8th man, history suggests the 8-man group will play a percentage of available minutes in the mid-90s.

Perhaps something to keep in mind when making your minute predictions this season...

I fixed this for you. This means there is still hope for my 9-man rotation if Jordan and Alex are really good shooters or if one of them is a good shooter and Vrank subs in for Marques or Wendell up front. :)

CDu
08-15-2017, 07:47 AM
I fixed this for you. This means there is still hope for my 9-man rotation if Jordan and Alex are really good shooters or if one of them is a good shooter and Vrank subs in for Marques or Wendell up front. :)

I would still say next to no chance of a 9-man rotation. If Bagley becomes eligible, he will rotate with Bolden and Carter up front. Vrank and DeLaurier aren't likely to see meaningful minutes in that case. I think a 7- man rotation is way more likely than a 9-man rotation. But probably a 7.5 man rotation is the most likely.

SCMatt33
08-15-2017, 09:18 AM
I would still say next to no chance of a 9-man rotation. If Bagley becomes eligible, he will rotate with Bolden and Carter up front. Vrank and DeLaurier aren't likely to see meaningful minutes in that case. I think a 7- man rotation is way more likely than a 9-man rotation. But probably a 7.5 man rotation is the most likely.

I honestly think that barring something unexpected, we'll see a 6.5 man rotation by January, with Bagley, Carter, and Bolden playing a 3 man rotation up front and Allen, Duval, and Trent Playing the vast majority of backcourt minutes with one of the other perimeter options picking up 5-10 a night to give them a blow. I could maybe see Javin getting in there if he develops a rapport with whoever loses out on a starting spot and we end up with him and that person becoming part of a backup pairing kind of like the Plumlees were circa 2010. But I have a hard time seeing anything other than a 3.5 man rotation for 3 backcourt spots and barring injury or largely unexpected performance, I think we'll see 6.5 men a night in ACC play.

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 09:32 AM
I honestly think that barring something unexpected, we'll see a 6.5 man rotation by January, with Bagley, Carter, and Bolden playing a 3 man rotation up front and Allen, Duval, and Trent Playing the vast majority of backcourt minutes with one of the other perimeter options picking up 5-10 a night to give them a blow. I could maybe see Javin getting in there if he develops a rapport with whoever loses out on a starting spot and we end up with him and that person becoming part of a backup pairing kind of like the Plumlees were circa 2010. But I have a hard time seeing anything other than a 3.5 man rotation for 3 backcourt spots and barring injury or largely unexpected performance, I think we'll see 6.5 men a night in ACC play.

Completely on board with this. I think Tucker/White becomes the 0.5. The only caveat is if Javin or Marvin (the "vins") can play the 3 for extended minutes. If either can, then I think we could see 6 players (without Javin) or 7 (with Javin) and Tucker/White getting squeezed out completely.

Matches
08-15-2017, 10:25 AM
Barring injury I expect the top six guys to get the lion's share of minutes. We can slide Bagley between the 3 and the 4 as needed which allows us to either play three "big" guys or three perimeter players.

Inevitably foul trouble or injuries will force us to give minutes to a seventh guy but I think there's a pretty steep dropoff after the top six, so history tells us K will probably play a pretty short rotation.

Hopefully we'll blow everyone out and everyone can play!

CDu
08-15-2017, 10:57 AM
Barring injury I expect the top six guys to get the lion's share of minutes. We can slide Bagley between the 3 and the 4 as needed which allows us to either play three "big" guys or three perimeter players.

Inevitably foul trouble or injuries will force us to give minutes to a seventh guy but I think there's a pretty steep dropoff after the top six, so history tells us K will probably play a pretty short rotation.

Hopefully we'll blow everyone out and everyone can play!

I don't see Bagley playing any meaningful minutes at the 3. He looks like a 4/5 at the college level. If we are playing Bagley at the 3, I would change my assessment about our shooting ability and floor spacing to become a significant concern. Because that would be awful for floor spacing.

Where it gets interesting is whether we see DeLaurier or one of the freshmen win the minutes at the 3. DeLaurier is quicker than Bagley (as it should be; Bagley is much bigger). It's a question of whether or not he can shoot well enough and move quickly enough to defend smaller wings. Physically, I think he's more likely to be able to do the latter than Bagley. As for the shooting? Idunno.

But I'd expect Bagley to rotate with Carter and Bolden at the 4/5 spots, with DeLaurier providing foul trouble minutes there. Then it just becomes a question of which 1 or 2 of the wings can step up and earn those backup minutes on the perimeter.

Matches
08-15-2017, 11:24 AM
I don't see Bagley playing any meaningful minutes at the 3. He looks like a 4/5 at the college level. If we are playing Bagley at the 3, I would change my assessment about our shooting ability and floor spacing to become a significant concern. Because that would be awful for floor spacing.



I agree Bagley looks like a prototypical stretch 4. If he can handle the ball and shoot, though, which Borzello seems to think he can do, he might end up playing some 3 out of necessity. Someone's got to spell Duval, Allen & Trent eventually, and I just have a hard time seeing Tucker getting a lot of minutes. Whether Bagley could defend at the 3, I dunno, but who knows whether Tucker can either.

FWIW Javin at the 3 creates those same spacing issues. I'd expect to see Bagley there before him.

Kedsy
08-15-2017, 11:38 AM
I honestly think that barring something unexpected, we'll see a 6.5 man rotation by January, with Bagley, Carter, and Bolden playing a 3 man rotation up front and Allen, Duval, and Trent Playing the vast majority of backcourt minutes with one of the other perimeter options picking up 5-10 a night to give them a blow. I could maybe see Javin getting in there if he develops a rapport with whoever loses out on a starting spot and we end up with him and that person becoming part of a backup pairing kind of like the Plumlees were circa 2010. But I have a hard time seeing anything other than a 3.5 man rotation for 3 backcourt spots and barring injury or largely unexpected performance, I think we'll see 6.5 men a night in ACC play.


Completely on board with this. I think Tucker/White becomes the 0.5. The only caveat is if Javin or Marvin (the "vins") can play the 3 for extended minutes. If either can, then I think we could see 6 players (without Javin) or 7 (with Javin) and Tucker/White getting squeezed out completely.

I'm also on board with this. Barring injury or foul trouble, the top six guys in the rotation should get all the minutes they can handle. I'll be very surprised if we "go small" with Gary or Jordan T at PF, except maybe at the very end of games, for free throw purposes.

Having said all that, let's look at the percentage of available minutes played by Duke's top six players in the RSCI era:

2016: 92.0%
2006: 88.1%
2002: 88.0%
2000: 87.7%
2017: 87.0%
2001: 86.4%
2004: 86.1%
2007: 85.8%
2015: 85.0%
2013: 84.6%
2005: 83.7%
2010: 83.4%
2014: 80.8%
2003: 80.6%
2011: 80.3%
2008: 79.3%
2012: 78.8%
2009: 74.2%

Assuming 90% this season (2nd most in the time period), that would still leave 20mpg for the rest of the team.

The leftover 20mpg includes garbage time minutes, which for Duke during the time period have varied from approximately 1% to approximately 5% of team minutes in any given season. Let's say 2%, which would take away 4 minutes from the 20, leaving 16 minutes for the 7th and 8th guy to split. Pretty much all at SF. So if Javin can play SF (or Marvin can and Javin could slide in at PF), then Javin and Jordan T might both play somewhere in the 6 to 10 mpg range, and if neither Javin nor Marvin can play any SF, then Jordan T might be up in the 12 mpg range and garbage time minutes (including Javin) might increase to 4%.


(note: when I say Jordan T, that spot could also go to Alex or Jack, or it could be a combination of the three, meaning none of them will get a significant chunk of mpg; but personally I suspect that Jordan T will grab that 7th/8th man SF spot ahead of the other two.)

kAzE
08-15-2017, 11:48 AM
Where it gets interesting is whether we see DeLaurier or one of the freshmen win the minutes at the 3. DeLaurier is quicker than Bagley (as it should be; Bagley is much bigger). It's a question of whether or not he can shoot well enough and move quickly enough to defend smaller wings. Physically, I think he's more likely to be able to do the latter than Bagley. As for the shooting? Idunno.

I'd be surprised if either of them play a whole lot of minutes at SF, but I disagree that Javin is a better fit there than Marvin. Marvin is bigger, but the reason he's the #1 prospect is because he's very skilled at that size, with much better body control, ball handling, and shooting ability than just about anyone at that size. He's often compared to Anthony Davis.

I love Javin's potential, but I still see his ceiling as a more athletic Amile Jefferson, definitely not someone who should be playing on the perimeter. Marvin actually can take guys 1 on 1 off the dribble and score from all 3 levels. I would also be surprised if Javin were a better perimeter defender than Marvin. Again, this kid moves like a perimeter player. Remember, Anthony Davis was a total beast defending the perimeter at UK. Not saying Javin is incapable of it, but some guys are just special.

In terms of minutes, Bagley's commit unfortunately leaves someone with a massively reduced role. It will most likely be Javin, unless he can outplay Wendell or Marques. One of those guys is going to be stuck with the Marques role from last year, which means averaging 6 minutes or less per game.

Here's how I see it playing out now:

PG: Duval (32), Allen (8)
SG: Allen (28), Trent (12)
SF: Trent (20), Tucker (14), White (6)
PF: Bagley (30), Carter (5) DeLaurier (5)
C: Carter (22), Bolden (18)

Although he's the most versatile big man on the team, I don't really see Bagley playing a whole lot of center or small forward. We're too deep at the 5, and those minutes need to go either Marques or Wendell. Also, I'm not sure any of the big men are an ideal fit at the 3, where there is also a ton of competition for minutes. IMO, Bagley will play 95% of his minutes at the 4.

Where we actually need more depth is at either guard position, where it's really just 3 guys. I have a hard time believing O'Connell or Goldwire will be ready to contribute this year, so an injury to Duval, Allen, or Trent would be costly. Knock on wood!

Kedsy
08-15-2017, 12:08 PM
I'd be surprised if either of them play a whole lot of minutes at SF, but I disagree that Javin is a better fit there than Marvin. Marvin is bigger, but the reason he's the #1 prospect is because he's very skilled at that size, with much better body control, ball handling, and shooting ability than just about anyone at that size.

FWIW, according to MaxPreps, in Marvin Bagley's junior season of high school he took 1.7 three attempts per game and hit 29% of them. In Javin DeLaurier's junior and senior high school seasons combined, he took 1.6 three attempts per game and hit 45% of them. I'm not convinced that Marvin is a better shooter than Javin.

CDu
08-15-2017, 12:13 PM
I'd be surprised if either of them play a whole lot of minutes at SF, but I disagree that Javin is a better fit there than Marvin. Marvin is bigger, but the reason he's the #1 prospect is because he's very skilled at that size, with much better body control, ball handling, and shooting ability than just about anyone at that size. He's often compared to Anthony Davis.

Firstly, I think you're overstating Bagley's shooting ability. Secondly, a comparison to Anthony Davis kind of sums up the argument that he is not a SF. Thirdly, ballhandling isn't a critical component of a SF, even at Duke. Especially if the primary options at PG and SG are terrific ballhandlers.

And I don't think DeLaurier is likely to see much - if any - time at SF either. But I REALLY don't think Bagley will. But if DeLaurier is going to see significant minutes, it will almost have to be at the SF spot.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 12:13 PM
FWIW, according to MaxPreps, in Marvin Bagley's junior season of high school he took 1.7 three attempts per game and hit 29% of them. In Javin DeLaurier's junior and senior high school seasons combined, he took 1.6 three attempts per game and hit 45% of them. I'm not convinced that Marvin is a better shooter than Javin.

I knew someone would pick that nit as I was typing the "scoring at all 3 levels" sentence. Not sure why so many people talk about his 3 point shooting if it's not actually that great. He's a 67% free throw shooter, though, so I would imagine he's decent from mid range. He seems to have pretty good touch from 18 feet and in.

But like I said, I don't envision either Bagley or DeLaurier playing much on the perimeter, anyways.

CDu
08-15-2017, 12:15 PM
I knew someone would pick that nit as I was typing the "scoring at all 3 levels" sentence. Not sure why so many people talk about his 3 point shooting if it's not actually that great. He's a 67% free throw shooter, though, so I would imagine he's decent from mid range. I still believe he will take more jump shots than any power forward we've had since Ryan Kelly.

But like I said, I don't envision either Bagley or DeLaurier playing much on the perimeter, anyways.

You think Bagley will take more jumpshots than Tatum and Ingram did? Hmm, not sure if I agree with that. I do think he'll take a fair amount of jumpshots. But I wouldn't put him quite in the same neighborhood as either of our last two PFs.

That said, I agree that I don't think either Bagley or DeLaurier plays at SF this year. At least not more than for spot minutes in extreme circumstances.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 12:17 PM
You think Bagley will take more jumpshots than Tatum and Ingram did? Hmm, not sure if I agree with that. I do think he'll take a fair amount of jumpshots. But I wouldn't put him quite in the same neighborhood as either of our last two PFs.

That said, I agree that I don't think either Bagley or DeLaurier plays at SF this year. At least not more than for spot minutes in extreme circumstances.

I hate you. I thought of that literally 2 seconds after I posted it, so I changed it, and of course, you quote me on it within seconds. In my defense, Tatum and Ingram are NBA 3s. Bagley and Kelly are NBA 4s.

CDu
08-15-2017, 12:21 PM
I hate you. I thought of that literally 2 seconds after I posted it, so I changed it, and of course, you quote me on it within seconds. In fairness, Tatum and Ingram are NBA 3s. Bagley and Kelly are NBA 4s.

LOL, sorry about that! Caught me at a bad time on my lunch break checking posts. :)

But yes, in terms of NBA PF comps, I probably agree. He may be closer to Ryan Kelly as a shooter than he is to Amile Jefferson. Not 100% sure on that yet, but I'm willing to buy it.

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 12:22 PM
LOL, sorry about that! Caught me at a bad time on my lunch break checking posts. :)

But yes, in terms of NBA PF comps, I probably agree. He may be closer to Ryan Kelly as a shooter than he is to Amile Jefferson. Not 100% sure on that yet, but I'm willing to buy it.

If you take one jump shot, you're closer to Ryan Kelly than Amile Jefferson.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 12:30 PM
If you take one jump shot, you're closer to Ryan Kelly than Amile Jefferson.

What about Duke's all time greatest 3 point shooter Marshall Plumlee?

sammy3469
08-15-2017, 12:36 PM
Firstly, I think you're overstating Bagley's shooting ability. Secondly, a comparison to Anthony Davis kind of sums up the argument that he is not a SF. Thirdly, ballhandling isn't a critical component of a SF, even at Duke. Especially if the primary options at PG and SG are terrific ballhandlers.

And I don't think DeLaurier is likely to see much - if any - time at SF either. But I REALLY don't think Bagley will. But if DeLaurier is going to see significant minutes, it will almost have to be at the SF spot.

I think you're underestimating the ball handling responsibilities of SF. In today's world, the SF (moreso than the SG) ends up being the secondary ballhandler (and while Allen is there for most of the time, there will be times where it's just Duval or Allen on the court). In any case, one of Bagley's strengths is his handle and quickness. I won't be surprised if plays at least some SF next year.

FWIW, here is the draftexpress youtube cut of his strengths for the Oak Hill game. He doesn't look out of place on the perimeter there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1LshWBvbFQ&feature=youtu.be and here are his weaknesses from the same game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FRILZ1LnIE

If he can shoot the ball at all, he can play the 3 athletically.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 12:40 PM
Firstly, I think you're overstating Bagley's shooting ability. Secondly, a comparison to Anthony Davis kind of sums up the argument that he is not a SF. Thirdly, ballhandling isn't a critical component of a SF, even at Duke.

Maybe so, but when the small forward (or even power forward) at Duke CAN handle the ball, he often does so. Particularly when it comes to transition basketball. I'm talking about when guys like Grant Hill, Justise Winslow, and Jayson Tatum grab the defensive rebound, and just take off with the ball. Bagley is 100% capable of grabbing a rebound, putting the ball on the floor, going end to end, and finishing on his own or making a play for someone else. As hyped as he is, he is an underrated passer. Bagley will definitely make some SportsCenter top 10s this year with plays like that.

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 12:54 PM
Maybe so, but when the small forward (or even power forward) at Duke CAN handle the ball, he often does so. Particularly when it comes to transition basketball. I'm talking about when guys like Grant Hill, Justise Winslow, and Jayson Tatum grab the defensive rebound, and just take off with the ball. Bagley is 100% capable of grabbing a rebound, putting the ball on the floor, going end to end, and finishing on his own or making a play for someone else. As hyped as he is, he is an underrated passer. Bagley will definitely make some SportsCenter top 10s this year with plays like that.

Without doubt, but why can't Bagley do that as a 4? He will. To me, the issue whether Bagley plays the 3 comes down to spacing. Bagley is not a good 3pt shooter right now. Bolden hopefully will never take a 3pt shot. Carter has a jumpshot but not a reliable 3pt shot. So if Bagley plays the 3, that's three big dudes clogging the lane. It's great for D, but not great for that patented Duke O.

Has Coach K ever had a 3-5 lineup where at least one player couldn't knock down a 3pt shot? I'm struggling to find a comp. It happens with other teams (like UNC), but definitely not at Duke.

dukelifer
08-15-2017, 01:01 PM
All I know is that Freshman foul a lot. Duke will have very unstable lineups until these guys learn to play O and D without fouling. Duke will need all hands on deck this season.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 01:03 PM
Without doubt, but why can't Bagley do that as a 4? He will. To me, the issue whether Bagley plays the 3 comes down to spacing. Bagley is not a good 3pt shooter right now. Bolden hopefully will never take a 3pt shot. Carter has a jumpshot but not a reliable 3pt shot. So if Bagley plays the 3, that's three big dudes clogging the lane. It's great for D, but not great for that patented Duke O.

Has Coach K ever had a 3-5 lineup where at least one player couldn't knock down a 3pt shot? I'm struggling to find a comp. It happens with other teams (like UNC), but definitely not at Duke.

I definitely think he will do so as a 4. I just meant it in the context of Duke forwards in general. When we've had guys at any position who are capable ball handlers, they are usually given the green light to do so. Even Amile Jefferson brought the ball up the court at times. With Bagley, we have a 6'11" guy who can be counted on to handle the rock in the back court, and make plays for himself and others. It's a tremendous advantage.

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 01:11 PM
I definitely think he will do so as a 4. I just meant it in the context of Duke forwards in general. When we've had guys at any position who are capable ball handlers, they are usually given the green light to do so. Even Amile Jefferson brought the ball up the court at times. With Bagley, we have a 6'11" guy who can be counted on to handle the rock in the back court, and make plays for himself and others. It's a tremendous advantage.

I agree with everything you say here, but this is a different argument (Bagley playing point forward). The question is whether Bagley can play the 3, and I'm suspect until I see Bagley hit a 3 that the defense respects. If Carter, Bolden, or Bagley CAN knock down a 3 with consistency, then I think these three dudes can coexist. But that's a big 'if'.

CDu
08-15-2017, 01:14 PM
Maybe so, but when the small forward (or even power forward) at Duke CAN handle the ball, he often does so. Particularly when it comes to transition basketball. I'm talking about when guys like Grant Hill, Justise Winslow, and Jayson Tatum grab the defensive rebound, and just take off with the ball. Bagley is 100% capable of grabbing a rebound, putting the ball on the floor, going end to end, and finishing on his own or making a play for someone else. As hyped as he is, he is an underrated passer. Bagley will definitely make some SportsCenter top 10s this year with plays like that.

You realize that all three of those guys mentioned played the majority of their minutes at the PF spot in college, right?

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I just don't think Bagley will be playing any minutes at SF. I doubt DeLaurier will either, but given his quickness he MIGHT be able to defend that position enough to get some minutes at SF if Tucker/O'Connell/White aren't up to the challenge.

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 01:17 PM
You realize that all three of those guys mentioned played the majority of their minutes at the PF spot in college, right?

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I just don't think Bagley will be playing any minutes at SF. I doubt DeLaurier will either, but given his quickness he MIGHT be able to defend that position enough to get some minutes at SF if Tucker/O'Connell/White aren't up to the challenge.

But I think Bagley is quicker than DeLaurier. Bagley is insanely fast, something that is underappreciated (like his passing, which Kaze pointed out). I truly think Bagley could defend the 3 quite well. But I just don't see how Bagley, Carter, and Bolden coexist on offense at the same time. And with Duval's spotty 3pt shot, it makes defending Duke pretty easy.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 01:18 PM
I agree with everything you say here, but this is a different argument (Bagley playing point forward). The question is whether Bagley can play the 3, and I'm suspect until I see Bagley hit a 3 that the defense respects. If Carter, Bolden, or Bagley CAN knock down a 3 with consistency, then I think these three dudes can coexist. But that's a big 'if'.


You realize that all three of those guys mentioned played the majority of their minutes at the PF spot in college, right?

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I just don't think Bagley will be playing any minutes at SF. I doubt DeLaurier will either, but given his quickness he MIGHT be able to defend that position enough to get some minutes at SF if Tucker/O'Connell/White aren't up to the challenge.

I'm not sure what we are debating at all. We agree. None of us think Bagley is going to be a small forward at Duke. I was actually just responding to CDu's post where he said ball handling is not a critical component of a SF at Duke. I think it can be, depending on the team. Especially when we don't have a true point guard. I didn't mean it in the context of Bagley playing the 3. He's almost the perfect college 4, and should really play as many minutes at the 4 as possible.

CDu
08-15-2017, 01:22 PM
But I think Bagley is quicker than DeLaurier. Bagley is insanely fast, something that is underappreciated (like his passing, which Kaze pointed out). I truly think Bagley could defend the 3 quite well. But I just don't see how Bagley, Carter, and Bolden coexist on offense at the same time. And with Duval's spotty 3pt shot, it makes defending Duke pretty easy.

The videos I have seen of Bagley don't suggest insanely fast to me. Certainly fast for a PF/C. But I haven't seen insanely fast yet. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

In the few minutes I saw of DeLaurier at Duke last year, though, he DID look extremely quick/fast/fast-twitchy. I think he's far less skilled than Bagley. But in terms of raw athleticism, I think he's every bit the athlete if not more.

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 01:27 PM
The videos I have seen of Bagley don't suggest insanely fast to me. Certainly fast for a PF/C. But I haven't seen insanely fast yet. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

In the few minutes I saw of DeLaurier at Duke last year, though, he DID look extremely quick/fast/fast-twitchy. I think he's far less skilled than Bagley. But in terms of raw athleticism, I think he's every bit the athlete if not more.

I think we're looking at the same thing with different eyes. Not saying your eyes are wrong, just saying my eyes aren't wrong ;).

I think Bagley is quicker than DeLaurier, but I may be confusing quickness with sheer speed. I wish there was a platform where we could just have players do drills against one another with us watching (yes, it's stalking. But it would be amazing to watch!).

No need to respond to this post. I think you and I won't agree with this, even if we start posting high school videos of Bagley and DeLaurier.

Troublemaker
08-15-2017, 01:39 PM
Yeah, we're not going to see a monster lineup with Bagley at SF, except perhaps maybe in an exhibition or early season blowout.

Perhaps the #1 reason why I love the Bagley signing is that it allows Carter to play center. At 6'10, 260 lbs, 7'3" wingspan, 9' standing reach, Carter is really a center at the college level and, heck, perhaps at the NBA level, too (think Al Horford). I'd been secretly dreading that Wendell might underachieve playing out of position at PF this season, but now he gets to shine at C. It's pretty simple to me. Bagley's a much better 4 than 3, and Carter's a much better 5 than 4. That's why we're not going to see the super-sized lineup with Bagley at the 3.

Kedsy
08-15-2017, 01:39 PM
I doubt DeLaurier will either, but given his quickness he MIGHT be able to defend that position enough to get some minutes at SF if Tucker/O'Connell/White aren't up to the challenge.

I'm thinking it's more the other way around, i.e., Tucker/O'Connell/White might get minutes at SF if DeLaurier is not up to the challenge.

But I guess we'll see. My gut agrees with you that Javin probably won't see much time at SF. My head says he seems pretty quick, with enough length to make up for mistakes against a smaller, quicker guy, and his high school stats makes SF seem at least plausible. And there's plenty of potential doubt that the other three SF hopefuls are ready to get rotation minutes at an ACC level.

jimsumner
08-15-2017, 01:42 PM
I would like to see Bolden start ahead of Carter simply to reduce the number of freshmen starting from four to three.

Based on what I've heard, I would expect Tucker to be able to adequately handle 12-15 mpg off the bench. There's a reason why lots of heavy hitters were all over him.

O'Connell could be a wildcard here. An advanced skill set, decent run/jump athleticism and a good basketball IQ. When will his body to be ready for the rigors of ACC hoops?

flyingdutchdevil
08-15-2017, 01:42 PM
Yeah, we're not going to see a monster lineup with Bagley at SF, except perhaps maybe in an exhibition or early season blowout.

Perhaps the #1 reason why I love the Bagley signing is that it allows Carter to play center. At 6'10, 260 lbs, 7'3" wingspan, 9' standing reach, Carter is really a center at the college level and, heck, perhaps at the NBA level, too (think Al Horford). I'd been secretly dreading that Wendell might underachieve playing out of position at PF this season, but now he gets to shine at C. It's pretty simple to me. Bagley's a much better 4 than 3, and Carter's a much better 5 than 4. That's why we're not going to see the super-sized lineup with Bagley at the 3.

Poor Bolden :(

Don't disagree with what you said (I too think Carter is the perfect college 5), but it clearly means that Bolden squeezed out of the starting line-up. The good news is that Carter and Bagley are freshman, which means they won't play crazy minutes and are foul-prone, so Bolden better be ready.

whereinthehellami
08-15-2017, 03:23 PM
Really excited to see Bagley, Carter, and Bolden operate in and around the paint. I expect Bagley and Carter to be very productive and efficient with the ball in the key. Carter is a very good interior passer and if Bagley is, these two are going to be fun to watch. Bolden should also be a huge beneficiary of Carter and Bagley's interior passing, I'm thinking lobs/easy dunks here.

I'm a little concerned with Bagley's outside shot, as a stretch 4. I'm hoping the 3 is his last option and least used shot. I could see teams letting him hoist 3's as a heat sink.

Bummed about DeLaurier, as I was hoping for an increased role for him this year at the 4. I think he would have paired well with Carter and his passing ability. I also was intrigued with DeLaurier as a stretch 4, with a lighter usage on the offensive side. I think the kid has a really good attitude and is a reputed hard worker.

I'm also wondering where Bolden is with the Bagley announcement. I think its easy for the fans to gloss over the players expectations and priorities. Hopefully the coaches have a lot of team building activities and exercises planned for this group as outside of health, team bonding/identity is the next most important thing for this group. The DR trip with Bagley would have been ideal but that ship has sailed (not to the DR).

I'm definitely looking forward to this team and the upcoming year but the ending to last year felt like a shot to the solar plexus of this long time fan.

CDu
08-15-2017, 04:47 PM
Poor Bolden :(

Don't disagree with what you said (I too think Carter is the perfect college 5), but it clearly means that Bolden squeezed out of the starting line-up. The good news is that Carter and Bagley are freshman, which means they won't play crazy minutes and are foul-prone, so Bolden better be ready.

Yeah, there should be at least 25 minutes available to a backup big, as I don't expect two freshmen bigs to play 28+ mpg (either could get to 30 mpg, but I think the combination will limit each's minutes some). And 25 mpg seems like a pretty extensive amount of playing time for Bolden anyway given how last year went.

It does put a crimp on the minutes of 2 of the 3 returning bigs though.

MChambers
08-15-2017, 04:49 PM
I guess we can stop talking about which small guy will play the 4! Don't really see much chance that Trent or Tucker plays the 4, except perhaps to close out a game.

I'm still worried about defense generally and floor spacing/outside shooting. Whichever one of our reserve perimeter players can demonstrate 3 and D capabilities will certainly get some time.

kAzE
08-15-2017, 05:40 PM
Yeah, there should be at least 25 minutes available to a backup big, as I don't expect two freshmen bigs to play 28+ mpg (either could get to 30 mpg, but I think the combination will limit each's minutes some). And 25 mpg seems like a pretty extensive amount of playing time for Bolden anyway given how last year went.

It does put a crimp on the minutes of 2 of the 3 returning bigs though.

Well, as long as we're comparing Bagley to Anthony Davis, Davis played 32 minutes a game as a freshman at UK, even with 2 other highly regarded big men on the roster (MKG and Terrence Jones). Bagley will be the best player on the team, and either the leading or #2 scorer (with Grayson being the other major scorer). I would be surprised if he were limited to 28 minutes or less. When given a choice, Coach K usually plays his best players, and he will play them as many minutes as they can handle.

A healthy Grayson is a lock to top 30 minutes a game, but I also expect Tre and Marvin to play at least 30 a game. I'm not worried about too much foul trouble for Marvin. He has superb defensive instincts and phenomenal body control. He will be much better than the typical freshman big man when it comes to avoiding fouls.

Wander
08-15-2017, 05:57 PM
Javin's best chance for minutes is to be ahead of Bolden in the rotation as a backup big. That is probably unlikely to happen, but I don't think it's impossible like is being hinted on DBR. Bolden did not really meaningfully contribute last year - that might be because of his injury, but it also might not. He's not a lock to be a star player this season.

CDu
08-15-2017, 06:59 PM
Javin's best chance for minutes is to be ahead of Bolden in the rotation as a backup big. That is probably unlikely to happen, but I don't think it's impossible like is being hinted on DBR. Bolden did not really meaningfully contribute last year - that might be because of his injury, but it also might not. He's not a lock to be a star player this season.

I agree with this. Beating out Bolden is DeLaurier's best path to PT. Or at least matching Bolden such that both guys play backup minutes (like what wound up happening in 2010) with Bolden backing up the 5 and DeLaurier the 4. Each getting about 10 mpg.

Jeffrey
08-16-2017, 10:58 AM
I would like to see Bolden start ahead of Carter simply to reduce the number of freshmen starting from four to three.


I'd also like to see Bolden start due to his decision to return when we really needed him. I certainly have a strong loyalty bias but I think there are future decision ramifications.

kAzE
08-16-2017, 11:08 AM
I would like to see Bolden start ahead of Carter simply to reduce the number of freshmen starting from four to three.

I understand the sentiment, but I hope whoever is in the starting lineup is in there because they actually earned it in practice or in actual games, and not because of politics or because some people don't want 4 freshman starters. Going by Coach K's track record, there's no reason to believe that he would give minutes to anyone who he doesn't think will help us win games (unless it's for disciplinary or motivational reasons).

If Bolden ends up starting over Carter, then I would expect it's because he's actually outplaying the freshman, not because of tenure or seniority. The best thing about sports is that in it's purest form, it's a meritocracy.

sagegrouse
08-16-2017, 11:16 AM
Yeah, there should be at least 25 minutes available to a backup big, as I don't expect two freshmen bigs to play 28+ mpg (either could get to 30 mpg, but I think the combination will limit each's minutes some). And 25 mpg seems like a pretty extensive amount of playing time for Bolden anyway given how last year went.

It does put a crimp on the minutes of 2 of the 3 returning bigs though.

Agree on limited playing time for all the bigs. Fouls. Lost on defense. I would think, moreover, that the rotation minutes in March would be different from those in December.

Anyway, I will take anything this team gives us this season, but I just want one favor -- no injuries!!

Troublemaker
08-16-2017, 11:17 AM
I'd also like to see Bolden start due to his decision to return when we really needed him. I certainly have a strong loyalty bias but I think there are future decision ramifications.

The one-year sit-out will again be a huge deterrent to Marques transferring, especially since Duke hasn't been recruiting any centers in 2018 that could conceivably beat him out; McCormack seems like a 4-year project player. If the status quo remains the same, there's no way Marques chooses to transfer over becoming Duke's starting center in 2018-19.

If you're thinking about the future, the best thing for Duke's future is for Carter and Bagley to dominate at C and PF and become top-10 picks. Especially after Giles and Bolden disappointed last season. We need Carter and Bagley to murder this season, and they will.

Jeffrey
08-16-2017, 11:22 AM
I hope whoever is in the starting lineup is in there because they actually earned it in practice or in actual games....

I suspect that's exactly what K will do, especially during his last couple of seasons. However, one should expect more and more departures with this approach.

I suspect the expectations K had for Bolden, which affected Bolden's decision to return, have now changed substantially. No doubt, K was completely honest. However, that does not change the fact few are going to want to be the next leapfrogged Bolden.

Jeffrey
08-16-2017, 11:28 AM
The one-year sit-out will again be a huge deterrent to Marques transferring...

Yes, it will be, which is why, IMO, few will want to be the next Bolden. Other than Duke, where does a player, of Bolden's level, seriously need to be concerned about this happening? IMO, it's a rather short list.

flyingdutchdevil
08-16-2017, 11:28 AM
I suspect that's exactly what K will do, especially during his last couple of seasons. However, one should expect more and more departures with this approach.

I suspect the expectations K had for Bolden, which affected Bolden's decision to return, have now changed substantially. No doubt, K was completely honest. However, that does not change the fact few are going to want to be the next leapfrogged Bolden.

Wait, I thought Duke doesn't recruit over existing players ;)

Just like Duke and UK's recruiting strategies are so different ;)

jimsumner
08-16-2017, 11:34 AM
I understand the sentiment, but I hope whoever is in the starting lineup is in there because they actually earned it in practice or in actual games, and not because of politics or because some people don't want 4 freshman starters. Going by Coach K's track record, there's no reason to believe that he would give minutes to anyone who he doesn't think will help us win games (unless it's for disciplinary or motivational reasons).

If Bolden ends up starting over Carter, then I would expect it's because he's actually outplaying the freshman, not because of tenure or seniority. The best thing about sports is that in it's purest form, it's a meritocracy.

Don't confuse starting with finishing or with playing-the-most-minutes. Carter would likely play just as much coming into the game around the first media timeout as coming into the game around the time of the opening tip.

Troublemaker
08-16-2017, 11:36 AM
However, that does not change the fact few are going to want to be the next leapfrogged Bolden.


Yes, it will be, which is why, IMO, few will want to be the next Bolden. Other than Duke, where does a player, of Bolden's level, seriously need to be concerned about this happening? IMO, it's a rather short list.

At the level Duke's recruiting at, our recruits don't lack confidence. I mean, Bagley certainly didn't think twice about joining up after seeing what happened with Giles and Bolden last season (and, of course, injuries played a role there).

As long as Carter and Bagley play well this season and get drafted high, I'm not worried about future ramifications on recruiting.

Jeffrey
08-16-2017, 11:40 AM
At the level Duke's recruiting at, our recruits don't lack confidence. I mean, Bagley certainly didn't think twice about joining up after seeing what happened with Giles and Bolden last season (and, of course, injuries played a role there).

As long as Carter and Bagley play well this season and get drafted high, I'm not worried about future ramifications on recruiting.

What we've got here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about Bolden's decision at the end of last season. In the future, other Duke players will also be in that situation. I'd expect more departures.

NSDukeFan
08-16-2017, 11:48 AM
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about Bolden's decision at the end of last season. In the future, other Duke players will also be in that situation. I'd expect more departures.

I would expect even more if the best players didn't play because of political or loyalty reasons.

Troublemaker
08-16-2017, 11:49 AM
Other than Duke, where does a player, of Bolden's level, seriously need to be concerned about this happening? IMO, it's a rather short list.

I might add that the worst thing I could see "happening" to Marques, if he works hard and stays healthy, is to become a first-round draft pick in the 2019 NBA Draft, which will be depleted due to the weak high school class of 2018. That's not exactly an awful result.

It's true that Marques might've thought of himself as OAD heading into college, but you know, stuff happens. The # of kids who think they're OAD is always greater than the # of kids who are actually OAD-quality. Work hard, stay healthy (not entirely in his control), become a first-round draft pick, and be very close to graduating with a Duke degree. That would be a dream for most 21-yr-olds (he's 19 now).

fgb
08-16-2017, 11:50 AM
The one-year sit-out will again be a huge deterrent to Marques transferring, especially since Duke hasn't been recruiting any centers in 2018 that could conceivably beat him out; McCormack seems like a 4-year project player. If the status quo remains the same, there's no way Marques chooses to transfer over becoming Duke's starting center in 2018-19.

If you're thinking about the future, the best thing for Duke's future is for Carter and Bagley to dominate at C and PF and become top-10 picks. Especially after Giles and Bolden disappointed last season. We need Carter and Bagley to murder this season, and they will.

while i imagine a major goal of bolden's is to get to the nba as quickly as possible, it also might be worth his considering that, were he to play through his junior year and enter the 2019 draft, he'd have a great shot at being one of the first two big men drafted.

kAzE
08-16-2017, 11:51 AM
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about Bolden's decision at the end of last season. In the future, other Duke players will also be in that situation. I'd expect more departures.

That's not on Duke or Coach K though. If Bolden had dominated the way we all thought he would last season, he wouldn't be in this situation. Sure, no one is going to want to be the next Bolden, but no top 25 prospect accepts a basketball scholarship to play at Duke and then assume that they aren't going to crack the rotation. Every highly rated kid coming in to the program expects to work hard and play at a high enough level to reach their goals. That's the core of the issue: he didn't play well. If he did, he'd either be in the NBA, or a lock to start this year. A basketball scholarship to play at Duke is neither a guarantee to playing time nor a free pass to the NBA. You still have to earn everything. The scholarship is merely an opportunity. I think Bolden's decision to come back for his sophomore year illustrates that he understands this.

All of the guys who have voluntarily left the program left because either Duke didn't work out for them, or they perceived that they weren't going to able to reach their goals at Duke. We've always had transfers. We've almost averaged 1 per year in the last decade. When you go to Duke, you know well in advance that you're going to competing for playing time with the best of the best. That includes guys who are younger and aren't even being recruited yet. That's a risk you take. Bolden's situation is neither new nor surprising. His situation won't increase or decrease the number of future transfers.

Troublemaker
08-16-2017, 11:51 AM
What we've got here is a failure to communicate. I'm talking about Bolden's decision at the end of last season. In the future, other Duke players will also be in that situation. I'd expect more departures.

We would just get some stud junior to re-classify and fill the hole left by the transfer. No worries :-)

Jeffrey
08-16-2017, 11:58 AM
We would just get some stud junior to re-classify and fill the hole left by the transfer. No worries :-)

While getting major knee surgery. It's very important to have two good knees when leaping tall buildings in a single bound :D

flyingdutchdevil
08-16-2017, 12:00 PM
While getting major knee surgery. :D

But Coach K only has two knees...

Jeffrey
08-16-2017, 12:06 PM
But Coach K only has two knees...

We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.

flyingdutchdevil
08-16-2017, 12:08 PM
We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We can make him better than he was. Better, stronger, faster.

We didn't have this technology last year with Giles? Shame...

superdave
08-16-2017, 12:27 PM
Poor Bolden :(

Don't disagree with what you said (I too think Carter is the perfect college 5), but it clearly means that Bolden squeezed out of the starting line-up. The good news is that Carter and Bagley are freshman, which means they won't play crazy minutes and are foul-prone, so Bolden better be ready.

Feel like I say this every year in the minutes thread - and it is almost always true: Freshman Bigs get into a fair amount of foul trouble which limits their minutes.

I would expect Bagley, Carter and Bolden to all have some foul trouble early. That will keep their minutes out of the high 30's. I'd bet they are closer to 25 minutes per game the first month or so. There is an opportunity for Javin and Vrank if they can prove themselves in 5-10 minutes per game the first month. Maybe there isnt a late season opportunity for both, but one of those guys can seize a rotation spot.

Kedsy
08-16-2017, 02:17 PM
Maybe there isnt a late season opportunity for both, but one of those guys can seize a rotation spot.

Seize it from whom? If you assume Javin and Antonio are both only suitable for PF or C, and you acknowledge that Coach K only plays three interior players in the rotation (the exception being 2010, but this year's situation is entirely different from 2010), then to "seize a rotation spot," Javin or Antonio would have to beat out one of Wendell, Marvin, or Marques. As others have said, it's remotely possible one of them could beat out Marques, but it's far, far from probable.

Unless you mean, in addition to Wendell, Marvin, and Marques. But there, the thing is that if all three average 25 mpg for the entire season (not just the first month or so), there would still be only 5 mpg available for Javin and Antonio combined at PF/C (unless, e.g., Marvin plays some SF). In other words, if one of Javin/Antonio does not beat out one of Wendell/Marvin/Marques, there's practically nothing to seize.

superdave
08-16-2017, 03:25 PM
Seize it from whom? If you assume Javin and Antonio are both only suitable for PF or C, and you acknowledge that Coach K only plays three interior players in the rotation (the exception being 2010, but this year's situation is entirely different from 2010), then to "seize a rotation spot," Javin or Antonio would have to beat out one of Wendell, Marvin, or Marques. As others have said, it's remotely possible one of them could beat out Marques, but it's far, far from probable.

Unless you mean, in addition to Wendell, Marvin, and Marques. But there, the thing is that if all three average 25 mpg for the entire season (not just the first month or so), there would still be only 5 mpg available for Javin and Antonio combined at PF/C (unless, e.g., Marvin plays some SF). In other words, if one of Javin/Antonio does not beat out one of Wendell/Marvin/Marques, there's practically nothing to seize.

Outside of Allen, Duval and Trent, who else is playing backcourt/wing minutes? Do you expect Tucker or White to play more minutes than Javin or Vrank? Or do you think we're a 6-man rotation by February? Is it more likely that we rotate through a big rotation (similar to 2010, and even bigger with Bagley at the 3 some) or through a smaller rotation (similar to 2016). There seems to be no obvious answer to me, even given Coach K's typical smaller preference.

My point is - articulating now, but not mentioned in my earlier post - outside the top 6, we have a bunch of unknowns who may be able to get minutes (White, Tucker, O'Connell, Goldwire, DeLaurier, Vrankovic). At least 1-2 of those guys HAS to play for us to have 7-8 man rotation.

Curious, Kedsy - What does your RSCI formula say about minute projections? Wave you updatesd it yet? Would be curious to see how the second 6 are ranked and if that suggests clear-cut favorites for the 7-8-9 spots in the rotation.

kAzE
08-16-2017, 03:34 PM
Outside of Allen, Duval and Trent, who else is playing backcourt/wing minutes? Do you expect Tucker or White to play more minutes than Javin or Vrank? Or do you think we're a 6-man rotation by February? Is it more likely that we rotate through a big rotation (similar to 2010, and even bigger with Bagley at the 3 some) or through a smaller rotation (similar to 2016). There seems to be no obvious answer to me, even given Coach K's typical smaller preference.

My point is - articulating now, but not mentioned in my earlier post - outside the top 6, we have a bunch of unknowns who may be able to get minutes (White, Tucker, O'Connell, Goldwire, DeLaurier, Vrankovic). At least 1-2 of those guys HAS to play for us to have 7-8 man rotation.

Curious, Kedsy - What does your RSCI formula say about minute projections? Wave you updatesd it yet? Would be curious to see how the second 6 are ranked and if that suggests clear-cut favorites for the 7-8-9 spots in the rotation.

I believe Kedsy's post assumes that Javin and Vrank are not going to be competing for backcourt/wing minutes, therefore they would need to beat out one of the top 3 bigs in order to crack the rotation. There was a pretty long back and forth earlier in this thread over whether or not Javin or Marvin would play any minutes at small forward, and the consensus was probably no.

The most likely thing to happen is that Grayson, Tre, and Gary play the vast majority of minutes at the guard and wing positions, with Jordan and/or Jack getting some minutes at small forward.

westwall
08-16-2017, 03:40 PM
I might add that the worst thing I could see "happening" to Marques, if he works hard and stays healthy, is to become a first-round draft pick in the 2019 NBA Draft, which will be depleted due to the weak high school class of 2018. That's not exactly an awful result.

This is what I am hoping for Marques. No need for him to concede playing time; he can earn it by playing well.

Kedsy
08-16-2017, 04:52 PM
Outside of Allen, Duval and Trent, who else is playing backcourt/wing minutes? Do you expect Tucker or White to play more minutes than Javin or Vrank? Or do you think we're a 6-man rotation by February? Is it more likely that we rotate through a big rotation (similar to 2010, and even bigger with Bagley at the 3 some) or through a smaller rotation (similar to 2016). There seems to be no obvious answer to me, even given Coach K's typical smaller preference.

My point is - articulating now, but not mentioned in my earlier post - outside the top 6, we have a bunch of unknowns who may be able to get minutes (White, Tucker, O'Connell, Goldwire, DeLaurier, Vrankovic). At least 1-2 of those guys HAS to play for us to have 7-8 man rotation.

Curious, Kedsy - What does your RSCI formula say about minute projections? Wave you updatesd it yet? Would be curious to see how the second 6 are ranked and if that suggests clear-cut favorites for the 7-8-9 spots in the rotation.

In order for the system to predict, it has to know who plays perimeter (4 spots) and who plays interior (3 spots). For example, Javin would be 4th big (and out of the rotation) if he's solely an interior player, but would be clearly in the rotation if he could play the perimeter (as 4th perimeter guy).

FWIW, here are the "scores" of each of our 12 scholarship players this season:

Marvin Bagley: 1.0
Wendell Carter: 1.0
Trevon Duval: 1.0
Grayson Allen: 1.5
Marques Bolden: 1.5
Gary Trent: 2.0
Javin DeLaurier: 2.5
Antonio Vrankovic: 4.0 (started as a 5 because he was outside the top 150)
Jordan Tucker: 4.0
Alex O'Connell: 4.0
Jack White: 4.5 (started as a 5 because he was outside the top 150)
Jordan Goldwire: 6.0 (started as a 6 because he was outside the top 250)

Note the 150 and 250 rules were not explicitly in my original formula (though I essentially used such a rule for Andre Buckner, the only guy before Antonio who would have qualified).

So, the formula would predict Wendell, Marvin, and Marques on the interior, and Grayson, Trevon, and Gary on the perimeter. If Javin can play perimeter, then he's the 7th guy. There's not usually a legitimate 8th guy unless a 5th perimeter player has a score of 2.5 or better, which is not the case this season. If Javin is solely an interior player, then the formula would suggest either Jordan or Alex as 7th guy (but only one will get minutes and the other will only play garbage time), or maybe Jack if my "new" adjustment for outside-150 is incorrect.

IF Marvin can play SF, then we'll either go with a 6-man rotation or Javin can fill in at PF while Marvin is at SF. Hard to say which because there's not much precedent, either way. While we've had lots of projected SFs playing PF, I can't think of a situation where a projected PF played SF for Duke in the RSCI era. (The closest was 2002-03, when Dahntay Jones was a "true" swing forward, sometimes playing SF and sometimes playing PF; if you look at the minutes distribution for that season, it looks like we played a 9-man rotation, but actually it was almost exclusively a 7-man rotation but the 7th man was sometimes Sean Dockery, sometimes Shavlik Randolph, and sometimes Nick Horvath, as Coach K tried different combinations. It was rare that more than one of those guys played 10+ minutes in any one game, except in garbage time situations.)

Regarding 2010, the reason it worked was because only one of the four bigs played 25+ mpg (and Lance only played 25.3). Z played 18.7; MP1 played 16.4; and MP2 played 14.1 (12.0 if you count DNPs as 0 minutes). This season, I don't care how much their freshman-ness keeps them off the court, Wendell and Marvin will certainly play at least 25 mpg, and probably closer to 30mpg. No way you can shoehorn in a fourth big unless the third big is in the 10 to 15 mpg range, which has happened but when it has, the guy playing 3rd big had a 3.0 or worse (usually 3.5 or 4.0) rating, which should not be the case this season.

Saratoga2
08-16-2017, 08:55 PM
while i imagine a major goal of bolden's is to get to the nba as quickly as possible, it also might be worth his considering that, were he to play through his junior year and enter the 2019 draft, he'd have a great shot at being one of the first two big men drafted.

Freshman bigs, no matter how special, are unlikely to get much more than 28 minutes. It leaves plenty of minutes for Bolden to show his value. The guys likely to lose minutes are Javin and Vrank.

Kedsy
08-16-2017, 10:20 PM
Freshman bigs, no matter how special, are unlikely to get much more than 28 minutes. It leaves plenty of minutes for Bolden to show his value. The guys likely to lose minutes are Javin and Vrank.

I agree with you in general regarding freshman bigs, but I would also point out that the following freshmen primarily played either C or PF for Duke in just the past four seasons:

Brandon Ingram: 34.6 mpg
Jayson Tatum: 33.3 mpg
Jabari Parker: 30.7 mpg
Jahlil Okafor: 30.1 mpg
Justise Winslow: 29.1

Granted, four of those five were stretch-fours, but they were still guarding PFs and managed to stay in the game for more than 28 mpg. And Jahlil was a pure center.

Everything else you said, I agree with: plenty of minutes for Bolden; Javin and Antonio are the guys losing the most minutes to Marvin.

flyingdutchdevil
08-17-2017, 08:24 AM
I agree with you in general regarding freshman bigs, but I would also point out that the following freshmen primarily played either C or PF for Duke in just the past four seasons:

Brandon Ingram: 34.6 mpg
Jayson Tatum: 33.3 mpg
Jabari Parker: 30.7 mpg
Jahlil Okafor: 30.1 mpg
Justise Winslow: 29.1

Granted, four of those five were stretch-fours, but they were still guarding PFs and managed to stay in the game for more than 28 mpg. And Jahlil was a pure center.

Everything else you said, I agree with: plenty of minutes for Bolden; Javin and Antonio are the guys losing the most minutes to Marvin.

I think that's a huge consideration. Of your comp list, Okafor is the only one that I'd use. And it's a great comp. But the others, as you mentioned, are stretch fours who aren't exactly defensive-minded (with the exception of Winslow, and I don't think it's a coincidence that he's the bottom of that list in terms of minutes).

Given that Duke's OADs tend to be NBA 1-3s, or college 1-4s, I think Okafor is the only real comp for Wendall and Marvin (Giles was injured, Bolden isn't an OAD, etc etc). Singler is another pretty good comp; he played the 5 during his freshman year. And he averaged 28.6 min per game.

I'd be surprised if either Marvin or Wendell averaged more than 30 min each, especially with an extremely qualified 6th man (Marques) and potentially a solid role player at the 7th/8th man (Javin). Also, without frontcourt depth and a bunch of freshman, there will be lots of penetration, and I hope our bigs are aggressive in protecting the rim, likely leading to more fouls.

rocketeli
08-17-2017, 09:10 AM
It seems like this idea that Bolden was a OAD candidate at any time has overwhelmed the board. I, for one, never thought he was a legit OAD when he started last fall, and was kind of surprised when people started developing this meme.

sammy3469
08-17-2017, 09:15 AM
Seize it from whom? If you assume Javin and Antonio are both only suitable for PF or C, and you acknowledge that Coach K only plays three interior players in the rotation (the exception being 2010, but this year's situation is entirely different from 2010), then to "seize a rotation spot," Javin or Antonio would have to beat out one of Wendell, Marvin, or Marques. As others have said, it's remotely possible one of them could beat out Marques, but it's far, far from probable.

Unless you mean, in addition to Wendell, Marvin, and Marques. But there, the thing is that if all three average 25 mpg for the entire season (not just the first month or so), there would still be only 5 mpg available for Javin and Antonio combined at PF/C (unless, e.g., Marvin plays some SF). In other words, if one of Javin/Antonio does not beat out one of Wendell/Marvin/Marques, there's practically nothing to seize.

Isn't the more correct Coach K assumption that he'll play the "best" 5 players the most? I know historically that's meant guard and wing types (i.e. pushing a 3 to play the 4), but if the 5 "best" players are Bolden, Carter, Bagley, Allen, and Duval which means Bagley gets minutes at SF, I don't think Coach K would shy away from doing that.

The other sort of interesting discussion is that having Bagley be able to defend the 3 with his size is probably sort of important this year against the truly elite teams. For instance, both Bridges at MSU and Mykhailiuk at Kansas figure to get a decent chunk of their minutes at SF. Nothing I've seen says Bagley would get blown by on the dribble from those guys. There's obviously teams with quick, agile SF's where he'd have trouble, but the NCAA landscape (especially at the top) is one with a little more size this year.

Troublemaker
08-17-2017, 09:43 AM
The other sort of interesting discussion is that having Bagley be able to defend the 3 with his size is probably sort of important this year against the truly elite teams. For instance, both Bridges at MSU and Mykhailiuk at Kansas figure to get a decent chunk of their minutes at SF. Nothing I've seen says Bagley would get blown by on the dribble from those guys. There's obviously teams with quick, agile SF's where he'd have trouble, but the NCAA landscape (especially at the top) is one with a little more size this year.

My guess is Gary Trent would defend those guys better than Bagley.

I think folks are underrating Gary's appropriateness for SF at the college level. Gary (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/) isn't that much smaller than Bridges (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Miles-Bridges-81785/), if you follow those links to DraftExpress measurements, and Matt Jones handled Bridges just fine last season at 6'5".

Bagley at the 3 is a bad, awkward lineup that won't be used, imo, except perhaps experimentally in an exhibition or blowout.

flyingdutchdevil
08-17-2017, 10:07 AM
My guess is Gary Trent would defend those guys better than Bagley.

I think folks are underrating Gary's appropriateness for SF at the college level. Gary (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/) isn't that much smaller than Bridges (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Miles-Bridges-81785/), if you follow those links to DraftExpress measurements, and Matt Jones handled Bridges just fine last season at 6'5".

Bagley at the 3 is a bad, awkward lineup that won't be used, imo, except perhaps experimentally in an exhibition or blowout.

I don't think many are suggesting Trent not play the 3 and not be prioritized over the 3. We are suggesting that someone play the 3 when Trent sits. And I don't think Trent will play more than 32 min a game (and likely all at the 3). So that leaves 8 minutes for someone to take. And in a tight game, you want the best possible players.

And given the uncertainty outside our top 6 and given that Coach K loves short line-ups, there are two legitimate choices: use Bagley/Javin at the 3 or use Tucker/White/O'Connell at the 3. Both options have risk and both have upside. I tend to side with the "if Marvin or Javin can play the 3 without clogging up the lane, do it" approach.

jv001
08-17-2017, 10:09 AM
My guess is Gary Trent would defend those guys better than Bagley.I think folks are underrating Gary's appropriateness for SF at the college level. Gary (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/) isn't that much smaller than Bridges (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Miles-Bridges-81785/), if you follow those links to DraftExpress measurements, and Matt Jones handled Bridges just fine last season at 6'5".

Bagley at the 3 is a bad, awkward lineup that won't be used, imo, except perhaps experimentally in an exhibition or blowout.

I'm of the same thinking as Troublemaker on this. Gary Trent is better suited to defend the guys mentioned. I also believe Coach K will have Grayson, Duval and Trent on the floor for major minutes. K loves his perimeter players. GoDuke!

I just see that flyingdutch beat me to the punch. I agree with that post as well. It will be a competition for back up minutes at SF. I think Javin might win that completion. GoDuke!

Kedsy
08-17-2017, 10:27 AM
Isn't the more correct Coach K assumption that he'll play the "best" 5 players the most? I know historically that's meant guard and wing types (i.e. pushing a 3 to play the 4), but if the 5 "best" players are Bolden, Carter, Bagley, Allen, and Duval which means Bagley gets minutes at SF, I don't think Coach K would shy away from doing that.

No, it really isn't. He plays his best four perimeter players (sometimes five in special situations) and his best three interior players, for a seven-man rotation. If his best five players were all centers, do you think he'd play a team of five centers?

sammy3469
08-17-2017, 10:32 AM
My guess is Gary Trent would defend those guys better than Bagley.

I think folks are underrating Gary's appropriateness for SF at the college level. Gary (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gary-Trent-82914/) isn't that much smaller than Bridges (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Miles-Bridges-81785/), if you follow those links to DraftExpress measurements, and Matt Jones handled Bridges just fine last season at 6'5".

Bagley at the 3 is a bad, awkward lineup that won't be used, imo, except perhaps experimentally in an exhibition or blowout.

But the argument (for the most part) isn't Trent versus Bagley at the 3, but Bagley versus your favorite 7th best player for the 10 minutes or so Trent's off the court. I think it's entirely possible Bagley is a better choice for those minutes.

Jeffrey
08-17-2017, 10:42 AM
No, it really isn't. He plays his best four perimeter players (sometimes five in special situations) and his best three interior players, for a seven-man rotation. If his best five players were all centers, do you think he'd play a team of five centers?

I agree, the best five do not play the most, if the majority are bigs.

Raises the question, has K ever had healthy bigs as the majority of his best five?

CDu
08-17-2017, 11:16 AM
I agree, the best five do not play the most, if the majority are bigs.

Raises the question, has K ever had healthy bigs as the majority of his best five?

The closest we've come on that is 2010, when Thomas, Zoubek, and Singler were part of our best 5, and the elder two Plumlees added to make up 5 of our best 7 arguably as bigs. But Singler was skilled enough and athletic enough to play on the wing in college, so it isn't really an applicable case in this scenario. Ultimately, 2 of our top 5 were true bigs and 4 of our top 7. I can't think of a year in which we haven't had at least 3 guards/wings in our top 5. I can probably think of years in which we have had our best 5 players be guards/wings, though.

Jeffrey
08-17-2017, 11:18 AM
I can't think of a year in which we haven't had at least 3 guards/wings in our top 5.

Makes two of us. It's going to be very interesting.

superdave
08-17-2017, 11:18 AM
I agree, the best five do not play the most, if the majority are bigs.

Raises the question, has K ever had healthy bigs as the majority of his best five?

In 2010, the backcourt rotation was Scheyer, Smith and Dawkins. Andre averaged 12 minutes per game but only played 5 minutes in the Title games vs Butler. So he was limited.

Zoubek, Lance, Mason and Miles were the four headed frontcourt. Singler played heavy, heavy minutes at the 3.

My guess is Coach K will play around with bigger lineups early in the season, and may resort to it in foul trouble situations. But it's probably a safer bet that Tucker is the 7th man and Javin is the 8th man. Granted, I've never seen Tucker play but Coach K is a small ball aficionado. The other wildcard could be if Goldwire has a Tyler Thornton type ability to be a really annoying defender.

Kedsy
08-17-2017, 12:40 PM
The other wildcard could be if Goldwire has a Tyler Thornton type ability to be a really annoying defender.

It's probably worth noting that Tyler Thornton wouldn't have played at all as a freshman if Kyrie hadn't gotten hurt. And also that Tyler was ranked some 200+ spots better than Jordan G coming out out of high school.

In other words, I wouldn't count on Jordan G getting any non-garbage-time minutes this season.

uh_no
08-17-2017, 12:45 PM
It's probably worth noting that Tyler Thornton wouldn't have played at all as a freshman if Kyrie hadn't gotten hurt. And also that Tyler was ranked some 200+ spots better than Jordan G coming out out of high school.

In other words, I wouldn't count on Jordan G getting any non-garbage-time minutes this season.

I think for him to get any minutes, we'd have to have four things would all have to happen:
tucker can't go
white can't go
trent can't go
o'connell can't go

actually, never mind. it's not happening. there's just too much in front of him. I would love for him to come out of nowhere, but that's not something to count on with so many other players.

Also of note: It seems the roster is much more balanced this year.....like always, I'm sure K won't go deeper, but it at least SEEMS like we'll be able to deal with any, "unfortunate eventualities" (read: injuries), more gracefully.

rocketeli
08-17-2017, 12:53 PM
It's probably worth noting that Tyler Thornton wouldn't have played at all as a freshman if Kyrie hadn't gotten hurt. And also that Tyler was ranked some 200+ spots better than Jordan G coming out out of high school.

In other words, I wouldn't count on Jordan G getting any non-garbage-time minutes this season.

I agree, Unless there are some significant injuries (which certainly has happened before) Goldwire is unlikely to see much playing time at all. However, he has a reputation as an excellent, aggressive defender and savvy point guard, so he will be very important in practice.

Overall, of course, Duke will give 7.5 players significant minutes, although who those players are can change. We have a lot more front court depth vs back court depth.
Allen, Duval, Trent, Carter, Bagley, Bolden will play (if healthy)
Besser, Robinson, Goldwire, Tucker, O'Connell will sit on the bench for now
Delaurier, White and maybe Vrankovic will be the ones initially in the mix for the rest of the minutes.
So now we are done with the minutes discussion:)

CDu
08-17-2017, 12:58 PM
Also of note: It seems the roster is much more balanced this year...like always, I'm sure K won't go deeper, but it at least SEEMS like we'll be able to deal with any, "unfortunate eventualities" (read: injuries), more gracefully.

Hmm, not sure I agree here. This year's team has 4 top-10 recruits, a top-15 recruit, a top-25 recruit, and a top-35 recruit. They have two other recruits in the 50-70 range. Nobody else was in the top-200 in their class.

Last year's team, for example, had 10 players all among the top-35 recruits in their class, and 8 were top-25 recruits.

I think last year's team was deeper. We just had an absurd number of injuries to overcome.

This year's team has - in theory - tons of frontcourt depth. So in terms of frontcourt injury threats, we might be in good shape. But the backcourt is relatively thin on top-tier talent (especially ballhandlers), so an injury to either Allen or Duval (or both) could be pretty devastating. I should say, an injury to Allen or Duval would force major minutes from a mid-tier freshman wing. An injury to both would leave us without an ACC-ready option at PG at all, and very shaky at SG.

budwom
08-17-2017, 01:08 PM
The closest we've come on that is 2010, when Thomas, Zoubek, and Singler were part of our best 5, and the elder two Plumlees added to make up 5 of our best 7 arguably as bigs. But Singler was skilled enough and athletic enough to play on the wing in college, so it isn't really an applicable case in this scenario. Ultimately, 2 of our top 5 were true bigs and 4 of our top 7. I can't think of a year in which we haven't had at least 3 guards/wings in our top 5. I can probably think of years in which we have had our best 5 players be guards/wings, though.

I could easily see our top five (in terms of minutes) being Allen, Duval, Trent, Bagley and Carter, with Bolden being number six....hence three guard/wings in the top five this year...

kAzE
08-17-2017, 01:44 PM
I could easily see our top five (in terms of minutes) being Allen, Duval, Trent, Bagley and Carter, with Bolden being number six...hence three guard/wings in the top five this year...

I see this team having a somewhat similar composition as UK's 2012 squad: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/kentucky/2012.html

They had basically a 6.5 man rotation with 3 bigs (Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones) averaging around 30 MPG, and a 4th big man (Wiltjer) who played around 11 MPG.

Here was their rotation:

Anthony Davis: 32.0 MPG
Marquis Teague: 32.6
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist: 31.1
Doron Lamb: 31.2
Terrence Jones: 29.3
Darius Miller: 26.1
Kyle Wiltjer: 11.6

No one else averaged more than 2 minutes per game. I think it's very likely we could see a similar 6.5 man rotation with this team.

budwom
08-17-2017, 01:47 PM
I see this team having a somewhat similar composition as UK's 2012 squad: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/kentucky/2012.html

They had basically a 6.5 man rotation with 3 bigs (Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones) averaging around 30 MPG, and a 4th big man (Wiltjer) who played around 11 MPG.

Here was their rotation:

Anthony Davis: 32.0 MPG
Marquis Teague: 32.6
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist: 31.1
Doron Lamb: 31.2
Terrence Jones: 29.3
Darius Miller: 26.1
Kyle Wiltjer: 11.6

No one else averaged more than 2 minutes per game. I think it's very likely we could see a similar 6.5 man rotation with this team.

yup, not hard to imagine, especially if a designated shooter (Tucker?) is not required.

kAzE
08-17-2017, 01:48 PM
yup, not hard to imagine, especially if a designated shooter (Tucker?) is not required.

I think Tucker would have the Kyle Wiltjer role in that analogy

flyingdutchdevil
08-17-2017, 01:50 PM
I see this team having a somewhat similar composition as UK's 2012 squad: https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/schools/kentucky/2012.html

They had basically a 6.5 man rotation with 3 bigs (Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones) averaging around 30 MPG, and a 4th big man (Wiltjer) who played around 11 MPG.

Here was their rotation:

Anthony Davis: 32.0 MPG
Marquis Teague: 32.6
Michael Kidd-Gilchrist: 31.1
Doron Lamb: 31.2
Terrence Jones: 29.3
Darius Miller: 26.1
Kyle Wiltjer: 11.6

No one else averaged more than 2 minutes per game. I think it's very likely we could see a similar 6.5 man rotation with this team.

One major issue with the comp. MKG started and played most of his minutes at the 3. MKG was so versatile that he could play the 2-4 with ease. That allows for a ton of flexibility. Duke doesn't really have a player who can play the 3/4 (unless Mar/Javin can play guard 3s and space the floor on O). Hence, there were minutes available to Kyle Wiltjer (the 3rd "true" big).

Having a Justise Winslow/MKG/Brandon Ingram-type player just adds so much flexibility to your line-up.

uh_no
08-17-2017, 01:59 PM
Hmm, not sure I agree here. This year's team has 4 top-10 recruits, a top-15 recruit, a top-25 recruit, and a top-35 recruit. They have two other recruits in the 50-70 range. Nobody else was in the top-200 in their class.

Only talking about positional distribution. we ended up with a dearth at 6'7 plus. even before injuries, we had

jayson
amile
giles
bolden
vrank

which with 3 freshman, is a lot to fill what you would sometimes want, with 3 on the floor. With just a single injury, you end up toast.

This year,

with bolden and vrank a year older, potential for jack and delaurier to get minutes (i say "potential" in the most literal sense of the word...not the "they'll be world beaters because they have another year" that some might use it as here")
we've added
tucker
carter
bagley

even if you don't count jack, we're looking at more depth there since none of the primary people we're counting on is coming off surgeries on both knees and not having played in 2 years. Bolden and vrank each showed bits of things at times, if it was only glimpses. So I'm skeptical that we won't find 4 serviceable players outside of that crew of 7.

In hindsight, last year opinions were far higher than warranted on both bolden and giles. So we'll see who i'm overly optimistic about this year.

Troublemaker
08-17-2017, 02:21 PM
But the argument (for the most part) isn't Trent versus Bagley at the 3, but Bagley versus your favorite 7th best player for the 10 minutes or so Trent's off the court. I think it's entirely possible Bagley is a better choice for those minutes.

Possible, but still pretty unlikely, imo. The major concern wouldn't be if he could stay in front of the opposing perimeter player in a 1-on-1 situation (although there should be some concern there until proven otherwise). It's really about Kansas/MSU setting off-ball screens to free Mykhailiuk/Bridges for a three-point attempt, or UNC doing that for Cam Johnson (or Justin Jackson last season). You want a perimeter player who's used to navigating those screens to chase those guys. And then on offense, you'd like to see a good 3-pt shooter come off the bench to sub at SF. I think it'll be White or Tucker or perhaps O'Connell if his lack of bulk isn't too big a deterrent.

CDu
08-17-2017, 02:23 PM
Only talking about positional distribution. we ended up with a dearth at 6'7 plus. even before injuries, we had

jayson
amile
giles
bolden
vrank

which with 3 freshman, is a lot to fill what you would sometimes want, with 3 on the floor. With just a single injury, you end up toast.

And Jeter, a sophomore top-15 recruit who saw decent minutes as a freshman. And DeLaurier. And if you are going to include White this year, well, he was 6'7" last year too. On paper, last year's team was definitely deeper than this year's team in the frontcourt. We had 8 options 6'7" or taller, and six of those were clearly PF/C options (only Tatum and White would fall in the SF/PF swing forward mold). It was just a series of injuries and (perhaps injury-related) underperformance to/from a bunch of the guys on the list that resulted in the team being so shallow up front.

This year's team has good depth. But not as much as last year's team. We have Bolden (will he be any better than a sophomore Jeter? I hope so, but it remains to be seen), Carter, Bagley (on paper, that's a wash with Tatum and the theoretical healthy Giles), DeLaurier (a better version of his freshman self, but probably not in the same zip code as grad-student Jefferson), Vrankovic (ditto), Tucker (will he be any more ready than DeLaurier was?), and White (ditto).


In hindsight, last year opinions were far higher than warranted on both bolden and giles. So we'll see who i'm overly optimistic about this year.

Totally agree. The hope was that Giles would be able to alternate between PF and C and be an All-ACC player at either spot, and that Bolden would be a better option than freshman Chase Jeter was as a reserve behind Jefferson and Giles up front. Neither came close to happening. And on top of that Jeter didn't progress enough and DeLaurier wasn't ready.

If I had to venture a guess (and I hope I'm wrong and that everyone will be great), DeLaurier, Bolden, Tucker, and White would seem the candidates to be overestimated. I think Carter and Bagley will both be really good. I'm hopeful that DeLaurier and Bolden will be ready to step into roles as solid contributors. I'm not as confident that Tucker or White will provide much more in terms of readiness than DeLaurier did last year. Not saying they can't, just that it's far from a given that they'll be ready/able to do so.

jimsumner
08-17-2017, 02:25 PM
I agree, Unless there are some significant injuries (which certainly has happened before) Goldwire is unlikely to see much playing time at all. However, he has a reputation as an excellent, aggressive defender and savvy point guard, so he will be very important in practice.

Overall, of course, Duke will give 7.5 players significant minutes, although who those players are can change. We have a lot more front court depth vs back court depth.
Allen, Duval, Trent, Carter, Bagley, Bolden will play (if healthy)
Besser, Robinson, Goldwire, Tucker, O'Connell will sit on the bench for now
Delaurier, White and maybe Vrankovic will be the ones initially in the mix for the rest of the minutes.
So now we are done with the minutes discussion:)

I'm not sure why White and/or Vrankovic project to play more than Tucker. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Tucker play more than DeLaurier this season.

whereinthehellami
08-18-2017, 09:16 AM
I'm not really seeing Tucker as the 7th guy. I get the need and wanting him to be a 6-7 shooter who can hold his own on defense. But this a #57 rated RSCI guy who fell 11 spots since the last RSCI update. IIRC Tucker shot about 38% from 3 in HS, keep in mind that DeLaurier had a higher percentage in HS from 3. And from what I have seen of Tucker, his strength and agility are going to take some time to develop. I think he is going to have a really tough time on defense his first year at Duke. With that said, i'm not sure who will get that 7th spot. I just don't think it is going to be Tucker.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 10:38 AM
I'm not really seeing Tucker as the 7th guy. I get the need and wanting him to be a 6-7 shooter who can hold his own on defense. But this a #57 rated RSCI guy who fell 11 spots since the last RSCI update. IIRC Tucker shot about 38% from 3 in HS, keep in mind that DeLaurier had a higher percentage in HS from 3. And from what I have seen of Tucker, his strength and agility are going to take some time to develop. I think he is going to have a really tough time on defense his first year at Duke. With that said, i'm not sure who will get that 7th spot. I just don't think it is going to be Tucker.

If it's not Tucker, then I think will be Jack White. I think Jack is a pretty good shooter as well, and IMO can hold his own on defense in the ACC.

jimsumner
08-18-2017, 11:05 AM
If it's not Tucker, then I think will be Jack White. I think Jack is a pretty good shooter as well, and IMO can hold his own on defense in the ACC.

Jack White is the ultimate wild card. We really don't know anything about him. He did not prep in North America, he did not play in any big all-star games or go to any of the big summer tournaments and he only played in mop-up situations last season. He was a complementary player for assorted Aussie youth national teams.

Perhaps he is a pretty good shooter and perhaps he can hold his own on defense in the ACC but that statement can't be based on any empirical evidence, because we simply don't have any.

I have no idea what to expect from White this season. But I do know that at least one of White, Tucker and O'Connell has to be able to play 15-25 mpg this season and Duke doesn't have the luxury of allowing all of them to develop. Somebody is going to be thrown into the deep end of the pool.

I suspect Tucker will be the one who can tread water the best. That's just an educated guess. But his prep ranking is irrelevant. He's not competing against any top-25 recruits for the role of 7th man. Neither is O'Connell. Neither is White. All three should get a legit chance at seeing rotation minutes.

budwom
08-18-2017, 11:15 AM
I'm not sure I can think of a previous Duke kid upon more unwarranted fan expectations have been heaped than White...I say that not because I dislike him in the least...it's because so many
people have projected him into a meaningful role based on, best I can tell, nothing....so I share Jim's agnostic behavior towards White....I hope he prospers....

flyingdutchdevil
08-18-2017, 11:27 AM
I'm not sure I can think of a previous Duke kid upon more unwarranted fan expectations have been heaped than White...I say that not because I dislike him in the least...it's because so many
people have projected him into a meaningful role based on, best I can tell, nothing...so I share Jim's agnostic behavior towards White...I hope he prospers...

I tend to agree with you.

But Coach K will likely have to break his rotation philosophy and play at least one underclassmen without a reputation plenty of minutes. White, Tucker, and O'Connell are all talented players, but 1 has played a grand total of 61 minutes, another is ranked between 40-68 in his HS class, and the last is ranked 55-92 in his HS class. None of these players would likely play anywhere near 15-25 minutes as an underclassman. But, with 2 freshman starting in the backcourt and an upperclassman who has injured plenty last year, I think it's safe to say there are plenty of minutes available for one of these players.

The wild card is if Javin or Marvin can play the 3. But no one on this forum has any real idea of that either.

budwom
08-18-2017, 11:33 AM
^ yeah, as much as Marvin has been described as a point forward (and for sure he's an incredible talent) I'm just not sure I ever expect to see Bolden, Carter and Bagley on the floor at the same time. But if I do, that's all good.

uh_no
08-18-2017, 11:57 AM
I'm not sure I can think of a previous Duke kid upon more unwarranted fan expectations have been heaped than White...

I mean....two years ago people were talking about how justin robinson was going to give valuable minutes. People earlier in the thread were suggesting goldwire would get minutes.

People in general are terrible at evaluating incoming duke players, and generally think that since they're coming to duke, they must all be the greatest thing. Don't get me wrong, I hope all these guys are great, and they ARE at duke for at least one reason: they're willing to work hard....

agree with jim, though...one of oconnell, jack, or tucker will need to step up....but i imagine most of the minutes will go to trent.

So that leaves only a few unanswered questions in my mind.
1) who of carter, bolden and bagley will come off the bench?
2) who of oconnell tucker and white will mop up minutes at the 3? assuming allen/duval/trent don't each go 40 minutes a game
3) will vrankovic or delaurier good minutes and bump us to 8 rotation players?

kAzE
08-18-2017, 12:56 PM
I mean...two years ago people were talking about how justin robinson was going to give valuable minutes. People earlier in the thread were suggesting goldwire would get minutes.

People in general are terrible at evaluating incoming duke players, and generally think that since they're coming to duke, they must all be the greatest thing. Don't get me wrong, I hope all these guys are great, and they ARE at duke for at least one reason: they're willing to work hard...

agree with jim, though...one of oconnell, jack, or tucker will need to step up...but i imagine most of the minutes will go to trent.

So that leaves only a few unanswered questions in my mind.
1) who of carter, bolden and bagley will come off the bench?
2) who of oconnell tucker and white will mop up minutes at the 3? assuming allen/duval/trent don't each go 40 minutes a game
3) will vrankovic or delaurier good minutes and bump us to 8 rotation players?

We were talking about who will be the 7th man. Trent will be a starter. I believe it will be Jordan Tucker. My previous post was just speculation that if it's not Jordan, I'm guessing it would be Jack. Also, I kind of take offense to the "people in general are terrible at evaluating Duke players" comment. Some of us actually do spend a pretty significant amount of time evaluating these guys.


I have no idea what to expect from White this season. But I do know that at least one of White, Tucker and O'Connell has to be able to play 15-25 mpg this season and Duke doesn't have the luxury of allowing all of them to develop. Somebody is going to be thrown into the deep end of the pool.

I think the 7th man, whoever it ends up being, will probably play around 10 minutes per game. I foresee our top 6 playing a LOT of minutes.


I'm not sure I can think of a previous Duke kid upon more unwarranted fan expectations have been heaped than White...I say that not because I dislike him in the least...it's because so many
people have projected him into a meaningful role based on, best I can tell, nothing...so I share Jim's agnostic behavior towards White...I hope he prospers...

So, my post was basically stating that I don't think Jack White will be in the rotation this year, but in the event he ends up out-performing Jordan Tucker, then he would be the 7th man, playing around 10 minutes a game as a sophomore. I think that's fairly reasonable. But in your opinion, this is "heaping unwarranted expectations" on Jack White? More so than any previous Duke player ever?

Has it occurred to you that maybe you might be underestimating the kid at all? Are you expecting him to sit on the bench for 4 years?

Sorry if these posts were not directed at me personally, but I actually feel that Jack gets an unfair amount of hate, considering pretty much none of us really know he good he is.

Jeffrey
08-18-2017, 01:18 PM
Sorry if these posts were not directed at me personally, but....

Geez, kAzE, are you playing D or not?

budwom
08-18-2017, 01:46 PM
We were talking about who will be the 7th man. Trent will be a starter. I believe it will be Jordan Tucker. My previous post was just speculation that if it's not Jordan, I'm guessing it would be Jack. Also, I kind of take offense to the "people in general are terrible at evaluating Duke players" comment. Some of us actually do spend a pretty significant amount of time evaluating these guys.



I think the 7th man, whoever it ends up being, will probably play around 10 minutes per game. I foresee our top 6 playing a LOT of minutes.



So, my post was basically stating that I don't think Jack White will be in the rotation this year, but in the event he ends up out-performing Jordan Tucker, then he would be the 7th man, playing around 10 minutes a game as a sophomore. I think that's fairly reasonable. But in your opinion, this is "heaping unwarranted expectations" on Jack White? More so than any previous Duke player ever?

Has it occurred to you that maybe you might be underestimating the kid at all? Are you expecting him to sit on the bench for 4 years?

Sorry if these posts were not directed at me personally, but I actually feel that Jack gets an unfair amount of hate, considering pretty much none of us really know he good he is.

whoa, calm down. Definitely not aimed at you, and when I state explicity in my post that I don't dislike White in the least, you accuse me of giving him an unfair amount of hate? Not me, nor anyone else that I know of. Kindly read more carefully.

Dukebasketball2020
08-18-2017, 02:03 PM
I think the only weakness this team has or question mark going into the season is who will be the back up point guard? If Trevon comes out for a break, do you slide Grayson at the 1, trent at the 2 and have tucker play the 3 or jack white? We have good depth at Shooting guard, wing, and big men. Carter, Bagley, Javin, Vrank and Bolden is a deep 4-5 spot rotation .

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
08-18-2017, 02:14 PM
I actually feel that Jack gets an unfair amount of hate, considering pretty much none of us really know he good he is.

You could say the inverse too - Jack gets an unwarranted amount of love, considering we don't know how good he is.

Saying White doesn't crack the rotation next year isn't "hate," - it's testament to the absurd amount of talent on this roster.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 02:15 PM
whoa, calm down. Definitely not aimed at you, and when I state explicity in my post that I don't dislike White in the least, you accuse me of giving him an unfair amount of hate? Not me, nor anyone else that I know of. Kindly read more carefully.

"Hate" was not the best word. Perhaps "doubt" is what I meant. It's hard to convey emotion on a message board, so my post probably seemed more vitriolic than I intended. I was just defending my previous post. My questions were honest.

Also, there's a bit of a history with myself and Jack White. I once posted in Jack's "Welcome to Duke" thread that based on the limited amount of tape that I had seen on him, I believed there was a chance that he could be a rotation player by his 3rd year. This comment was met with pretty harsh ridicule from long-time posters who I generally consider pretty knowledgeable and reasonable.

So, I don't know if that qualifies as "heaping unfair expectations" at a level unprecedented in Duke basketball history, but I thought it was a little ridiculous how much backlash that particular comment drew. This is what I was actually referring to when I was talking about the unfair amount of hate/doubt people around here direct towards the guy.


You could say the inverse too - Jack gets an unwarranted amount of love, considering we don't know how good he is.

Saying White doesn't crack the rotation next year isn't "hate," - it's testament to the absurd amount of talent on this roster.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. To be clear, I also don't think he will crack this year's rotation. I said IF he outplays Jordan Tucker. That's a big if.

I still stand by my belief that next year will be the year he cracks the rotation. Maybe he plays 5-10 minutes a game, maybe more, maybe less. It looks like we're going to be losing a lot of guys from this year's team, so there's an opportunity there if he proves he's worthy.

MChambers
08-18-2017, 02:17 PM
So that leaves only a few unanswered questions in my mind.
1) who of carter, bolden and bagley will come off the bench?
2) who of oconnell tucker and white will mop up minutes at the 3? assuming allen/duval/trent don't each go 40 minutes a game
3) will vrankovic or delaurier good minutes and bump us to 8 rotation players?

Listening the podcast Troublemaker linked in one of these threads, the "experts" really think that Bolden will be behind Carter and Bagley. They essentially said he was a little overrated coming out of high school (I have idea if this is right) and also plays old school center, the way basketball was played 30 or 40 years ago (I agree with this).

They also seemed to think Tucker would benefit from Bagley, by virtue of Tucker's shooting ability.

uh_no
08-18-2017, 02:31 PM
We were talking about who will be the 7th man. Trent will be a starter. I believe it will be Jordan Tucker. You misread my meaning. most of the minutes at the 3 will go to trent, which leaves the other three i mentioned to mop up.

Also, I kind of take offense to the "people in general are terrible at evaluating Duke players" comment. That's on you. making a statement about the general population doesn't preclude counterexamples....and many of the people on this board are. I suppose that's a slight bastardization of the word "general," but that's the general usage. I stand by what I said




I think the 7th man, whoever it ends up being, will probably play around 10 minutes per game. I foresee our top 6 playing a LOT of minutes.The backup SF will get more than 10 minutes. Under your assumption, the three top guards must average 37 minutes a game EACH, leaving 9 minutes for, as you presume, tucker. I find that unlikely. Especially if that 7th guy (tucker) is even mildly serviceable. This also assumes that bolden/bagley/carter can each play 24 minutes a game...something which is possible, but hard to declare with certainty, or alternatively, that the mop up minutes there are evenly split so that neither javin nor vrank hit 10. Given K's propensity for using a shorter rotation, I think both of them getting minutes is less likely than one of them getting 10 minutes.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 02:39 PM
That's on you. making a statement about the general population doesn't preclude counterexamples...and many of the people on this board are. I suppose that's a slight bastardization of the word "general," but that's the general usage. I stand by what I said

Well, in fairness, posting that comment right after my post is probably what tipped me towards that opinion.



The backup SF will get more than 10 minutes. Under your assumption, the three top guards must average 37 minutes a game EACH, leaving 9 minutes for, as you presume, tucker. I find that unlikely. Especially if that 7th guy (tucker) is even mildly serviceable. This also assumes that bolden/bagley/carter can each play 24 minutes a game...something which is possible, but hard to declare with certainty, or alternatively, that the mop up minutes there are evenly split so that neither javin nor vrank hit 10. Given K's propensity for using a shorter rotation, I think both of them getting minutes is less likely than one of them getting 10 minutes.

10 minutes was a little bit of a stretch, I'll admit. I'm not the best at doing math in my head. I posted this after the Bagley announcement:

PG: Duval (32), Allen (8)
SG: Allen (28), Trent (12)
SF: Trent (20), Tucker (14), White (6)
PF: Bagley (30), Carter (5) DeLaurier (5)
C: Carter (22), Bolden (18)

So I actually think there's around 20 minutes for the back up SF. I think it will be split evenly between Tucker and White to start out, and progress towards one of them getting most of those minutes as one or the other proves himself the better option.

However, I would not be surprised if the rotation around the start of the post season had those 3 guards playing 35+ minutes each. Just remember how many minutes Luke and Matt were playing last year. Grayson would have also played more minutes if he had been healthy the whole year.

CDu
08-18-2017, 02:49 PM
"Hate" was not the best word. Perhaps "doubt" is what I meant. It's hard to convey emotion on a message board, so my post probably seemed more vitriolic than I intended. I was just defending my previous post. My questions were honest.

Also, there's a bit of a history with myself and Jack White. I once posted in Jack's "Welcome to Duke" thread that based on the limited amount of tape that I had seen on him, I believed there was a chance that he could be a rotation player by his 3rd year. This comment was met with pretty harsh ridicule from long-time posters who I generally consider pretty knowledgeable and reasonable.

So, I don't know if that qualifies as "heaping unfair expectations" at a level unprecedented in Duke basketball history, but I thought it was a little ridiculous how much backlash that particular comment drew. This is what I was actually referring to when I was talking about the unfair amount of hate/doubt people around here direct towards the guy.

I think you are revising the history a bit here, in a lot of ways, for what it is worth. Which is fine, we all want to view the past more positively on ourselves. But, if I recall, (a) you are underreporting your sales pitch of White here and (b) much of the backlash you received had to do with your tone.

Having gone back to that thread, there was no ridicule of you in that thread. And my recollection is correct that you have undersold how much you liked White's game, saying you see some Singler in him, saying you were sure he would be a good defender, saying you were sure he was going to be better than Pocius (a top-60 recruit).

Like I said, you didn't get heat in that thread. But where I recall you getting heat was where you were calling folks out as having myopic views and not understanding how awesome Aussie basketball was.

If all you had said on the topic was "I think there was a chance he will be a rotation player by his third year", nobody would have ridiculed you. You said much more than that.

whereinthehellami
08-18-2017, 02:49 PM
...I have no idea what to expect from White this season. But I do know that at least one of White, Tucker and O'Connell has to be able to play 15-25 mpg this season and Duke doesn't have the luxury of allowing all of them to develop. Somebody is going to be thrown into the deep end of the pool.

I suspect Tucker will be the one who can tread water the best. That's just an educated guess. But his prep ranking is irrelevant. He's not competing against any top-25 recruits for the role of 7th man. Neither is O'Connell. Neither is White. All three should get a legit chance at seeing rotation minutes.


...They also seemed to think Tucker would benefit from Bagley, by virtue of Tucker's shooting ability.

I find it interesting that Tucker is seen as a shooter, 38% from 3-pt land in HS is pretty mediocre. In limited time last year, I thought White looked pretty good. He moved better than I thought he would and I was surprised by his poise. A lot of guys look tentative and sloppy in limited action, I didn't think White did. What does that mean? I don't know but maybe that gives him an edge over a freshman rated #57 in RSCI?

I thought Jim made mention that O'Connell was looking pretty good in early reports. I think the knock on him is his strength and body? If he can shoot and at least slow them down on defense than maybe he is #7. Plus he is the smallest of the potential candidates and we all know Coach likes to go small.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 02:55 PM
And my recollection is correct that you have undersold how much you liked White's game, saying you see some Singler in him, saying you were sure he would be a good defender, saying you were sure he was going to be better than Pocius (a top-60 recruit).

I'm still 100% behind what I posted. But you mischaracterized my posts and you just straight misquoted me. "I'm sure he's going to be a good defender" is very different than "I could be wrong, but I believe there's no way that he's going to be a bad defensive player."

And to be clear, the Singler comparison was purely based on his toughness, how hard he plays, and his scrappy style. I do NOT project him to be an all-time Duke great.

Here's verbatim what I posted:


I'll get flamed for this, but I see some Singler in him. Clearly not the talent that Singler was, and he's not as big as Singler. But he gives 110% on defense and goes for rebounds hard, even outside of his area. I could be wrong, but I believe there's no way that he's going to be a bad defensive player. I think the one thing that stands out about him is his toughness, which was Kyle's hallmark. I don't think there's any doubt that Jack's a scrapper. And he looks capable of hitting open 3s. I'd bet my DBR avatar that he'll be better than Marty.


Seems like an excessive amount of debate over someone who none of us know much about.

I posted originally that I thought Jack looked like a scrappy rebounding/defensive type of player who could develop into a rotation player by year 3 as a defensive specialist, especially if he can consistently knock down open shots. This view was met with criticism bordering on ridicule on this forum, but I still stand by that. He just looks like a tough competitor, and most coaches like guys like that. That's what I saw in him. I think the Pocius/Czyz comparisons are lazy, and that neither of those guys play as hard as Jack seemingly does, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know (much about) Jack, either.

So who cares what anyone thinks he can or can't do? He's going to do what he's going to do, and we can talk about it after we see him.

Isn't this supposed to be a thread welcoming Jack to Duke? Seems premature to be prophesying his role over his tenure here.

All of that came BEFORE the the post you called out about my tone. So yes, there was some backlash that I thought was unfair based on our limited knowledge at the time.

CDu
08-18-2017, 03:04 PM
I'm still 100% behind all of that. And to be clear, the Singler comparison was purely based on his toughness and scrappy style. I do not project him to be an all-time Duke great.

And that is fine. He might eventually be a rotation guy, especially if we fail to get recruits next year or the following. I am just clarifying a corruption of the facts. You were presenting this "whoa is me" case that all you said was you thought he might eventually play some and folks blasted you for it, when the full story was very different.

CDu
08-18-2017, 03:07 PM
I'm still 100% behind all of that. And to be clear, the Singler comparison was purely based on his toughness, how hard he plays, and his scrappy style. I do not project him to be an all-time Duke great.

Here's verbatim what I posted:





All of that came BEFORE the the post you called out about my tone. So yes, there was some backlash that I thought was unfair based on our limited knowledge at the time. And also, you misquoted me. "I'm sure he's going to be a good defender" is very different than "I could be wrong, but I believe there's no way that he's going to be a bad defensive player."

Yeah, those are your posts. And as I said, there was no harsh ridicule to those posts. It was elsewhere where you went overboard, got testy, and got harsh responses.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 03:25 PM
And that is fine. He might eventually be a rotation guy, especially if we fail to get recruits next year or the following. I am just clarifying a corruption of the facts. You were presenting this "whoa is me" case that all you said was you thought he might eventually play some and folks blasted you for it, when the full story was very different.

I think this is also a mis-characterization . . . I brought up the previous post to explain what I meant by saying people on DBR doubt Jack. It was not to get sympathy points. It was apparent that some people in that thread believed right out of the gate that Jack would be a career bench warmer, which is unfair.

CDu
08-18-2017, 03:44 PM
I think this is also a mis-characterization . . . I brought up the previous post to explain what I meant by saying people on DBR doubt Jack. It was not to get sympathy points. It was apparent that some people in that thread believed right out of the gate that Jack would be a career bench warmer, which is unfair.

If I misinterpreted your point there, I apologize. But that was definitely how it read to me. You have twice now probably used word choice that wasn't best ("hate" vs "doubt"). If we are misunderstanding, maybe a but better initial choice of terms would be best.

Just FYI - you laid into the board about lacking wordly views on White a week before the welcome to Duke thread (in the 2016 Recruiting Thread). At that point, there had been just a handful of posts on him, none even coming remotely close to ridicule, and none even actually responding to your first analysis of him (a day earlier) at all. A few folks questioned his recruitment, given that we seemingly had one scholarship available (Obi and Thornton hadn't left yet) and were heavily recruiting Bolden. So folks were questioning the recruitment of a kid who wasn't a top recruit and wasn't likely to play for a while - if at all - at Duke.

Then, your post on 2-26 in that thread jumped to "Seriously guys? I would have expected this board to have more wordly views on this." That is a sure-fire way to escalate animosity in response. And it sure did escalate from there. I am pretty sure I was one who responded to that post. And I actually was fine with your original post, although I saw a slightly different player (he was, and remains, more Czyz-like in my eyes). But I think the harsh responses you are remembering had nothing to do with you suggesting he might be eventually a rotation player.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 03:51 PM
If I misinterpreted your point there, I apologize. But that was definitely how it read to me.

Just FYI - you laid into the board about lacking wordly views on White a week before the welcome to Duke thread (in the 2016 Recruiting Thread). At that point, there had been just a handful of posts on him, none even coming remotely close to ridicule, and none even actually responding to your first analysis of him (a day earlier) at all. A few folks questioned his recruitment, given that we seemingly had one scholarship available (Obi and Thornton hadn't left yet) and were heavily recruiting Bolden. So folks were questioning the recruitment of a kid who wasn't a top recruit and wasn't likely to play for a while - if at all - at Duke.

Then, your post on 2-26 in that thread jumped to "Seriously guys? I would have expected this board to have more wordly views on this." That is a sure-fire way to escalate animosity in response. And it sure did escalate from there.

And I ended up making amends to the offended people for those posts. It was inappropriate at the time, and I recognize that. That should be water under the bridge already, and wasn't related to what I was talking about in this thread.

On the other hand, I think it's a little hypocritical of you to criticize me about "corrupting the facts" when your description of my posts here . . .


And my recollection is correct that you have undersold how much you liked White's game, saying you see some Singler in him, saying you were sure he would be a good defender, saying you were sure he was going to be better than Pocius (a top-60 recruit).

. . . are quite off base when put in the context of the actual posts, which I quoted above.

I think you're an awesome contributor here, and I definitely respect your knowledge on many subjects, but I feel like calling me out for mis-remembering a couple of posts from 2 years ago (which I admit) in a way that that is aimed to make me look bad is kind of unnecessary.

CDu
08-18-2017, 04:00 PM
And I ended up making amends to the offended people for those posts. It was inappropriate at the time, and I recognize that. That should be water under the bridge already, and wasn't related to what I was talking about in this thread.

I was fine with it being water under the bridge. You brought it back with your comment in this thread. The "harsh responses" you referenced in this thread had nothing to do with you saying you thought he might eventually play. I merely corrected that.


On the other hand, I think it's a little hypocritical of you to criticize me about "corrupting the facts" when your description of my posts here . . .

. . . are quite off base when put in the context of the actual posts, which I quoted above.

I think you're an awesome contributor here, and I definitely respect your knowledge on many subjects, but I feel like calling me out for mis-remembering a couple of posts from 2 years ago (which I admit) in a way that makes me look bad is kind of unnecessary.

I used the exact words you used in some of your posts (not the ones above, but others in those threads). I didn't say you thought he was Singler. I said you said you saw some Singler in him, you saw a guy who was definitely going to be a good defender, and I think your exact words were that you'd bet your avatar he would be better than Pocius. How is that corrupting the facts?

Look, I'm fine to let it go. But you referenced posts from 2 years ago, and I merely pointed out you misremembering the facts in defense of those who you anonymously called out. And I even said that it was no big deal, just clarifying things. I was happy to leave it there. Then you pushed back, which led to the airing of dirty laundry. If you are going to bring up a touchy topic from two years ago, I think there is nothing wrong with someone else responding to your post.

Sorry that this has led to what was an unfortunate stretch of comments in DBR's history. Again, I'm happy to move on.

And to be clear, I think you're a great contributor to these boards. But on this one, I disagree with the way you've presented this discussion.

kAzE
08-18-2017, 04:08 PM
you saw a guy who was definitely going to be a good defender, and I think your exact words were that you'd bet your avatar he would be better than Pocius. How is that corrupting the facts?

Ok, I'm done after this, but again: "definitely going to be a good defender" is completely different than "I could be wrong, but I believe there's no way that he's going to be a bad defensive player."

So if he turns out to be just average, you original characterization of that would imply that I was wrong. Also, betting a DBR avatar does not imply a very high confidence level. I would certainly not bet something of monetary value on that statement. It's definitely not the same as "being sure."


If all you had said on the topic was "I think there was a chance he will be a rotation player by his third year", nobody would have ridiculed you. You said much more than that.

I really didn't . . . Pretty much everything I said was caveated, and I admitted many times that I don't really know how good he is.

And I'm just going to leave it there . . .