Anyone else think we could be REALLY good this year?

[VaDukie]

My name is VaDukie, and I am a serial optimist.

However, the more I read about this team the more excited I get. I don't expect us to be a top-5 team that's blowing people out (but I do expect it to happen from time to time).

But does anyone else get the vibe from the preseason interviews and early player comments that the players feel like they're the only ones in on the secret of how good we could be? Nelson for one, is constantly using the phrase 'championship' caliber team. And those of you who went to the banquet last year may remember that K all but predicted us to go to the Final Four.

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but does anyone else get this vibe?

[riverside6]

There is certainly potential. The more I look at this roster, it reminds me a lot of the 97-98 team (http://www.scacchoops.com/forms/playerdatabase.asp?team=DU&season=1998) (without Elton Brand).

I'm certainly not saying that they are the same, but after Brand went down that team became very small with a two-headed point guard in Wojo and Avery. Notice how no one on that roster averaged more than 30 minutes per game.

[Classof06]

There's no doubt in my mind Duke is going to be rock solid this year. They're not going to be a sexy preseason pick given their finish last season, but look at the roster and you can't deny there's a lot of talent on this team. The fact that Henderson might not (probably won't, IMO) start should tell you what kind of team we'll have. I never thought I'd say this, but Duke is going to surprise a lot of people.

The two things that excite me the most are that 1) Duke has re-committed itself to transition basketball and 2) the fact that we have the personnel to orchestrate the transition game. Between a healthy Paulus and Smith, I expect to have two guards capable of getting the ball up the floor and distributing it.

IMO, I still don't think we're as weak down low as people make us out to be. Between Zoubek at 7-1, Singler at 6-9, Lance at 6-7/6-8 and King at 6-7, that's adequate height for the college game. The issue there will be foul trouble, particularly for Zoubek and Lance; Singler's game is too versatile to have him stuck on the block for 30 minutes a game.

[Bob Green]

This time of year, every year, I think we are going to be extremely good! If we can stay healthy and run, run, run, then we have a chance to force other teams to adjust to our game, which will be a big advantage. So yes, I do think we will be very good.

[Patrick Yates]

But, for that to happen, Singler and Henderson will have to blow up. I mean, Singler has to be in SERIOUS contention for national ROY, and Hendo would have to be mentioned as a lottery pick caliber player by Christmas. We know that Nelson will be solid, and I think we all agree on what we will get from Scheyer and Paulus. The variables are Singler and Henderson. They have the potential to push us to great heights, but both have to be beyond good to achieve this.

The problem with the above posters' projections (and my blurb above) is that it assumes a best case scenario. I am frequently guilty of "chicken little" mentality, but being a Pollyanna is just as wrong.

We are not, repeat ARE NOT, going to get stellar play out of every position. Someone will have a dissappointing year. Someone important. It might be shooting, Defense, passing, ball handling, or free throw shooting, but something will go south for the team. It happens to every team, every year. If Lance or BZ struggle, the team will be fataly flawed, at least as far as post season success is concerned.

Also, we will probably not go through the season unscathed. Someone will get hurt. The only question is whether that injury will be serious (losing a big chunk of, or the entire, season), or minor (costing only a few games).

Even K's three national title teams had major things they had to overcome, each season. They were talented enough to absorb the hit and win anyways (really the 99 and 03 squads of the recent era fall under this, losing in the NC or FF sucks, but we gave it the ol' college try both times).

I simply think that this team is NOT talented enough to absorb a major hit. Most of our established talent is on the wing. A loss, or dissappointing year, would be easier to absorb here, but it would affect depth. Any injury or subpar year by a big or at the PG and the season tops out in the Sweet 16, tops, or worse.

Sure, if everyone, and I do mean absolutely everyone, gets hot from 3 land in the tourney, we could go on a thrill ride deep into March. But, as the refs let Defenders body up come March, we will have an off shooting night (or at least 2 or so players will), and Duke will be out. That could happen anywhere in the ACCs or NCAAs.

No one, even me, can deny the potential of this team. But to assume that absolutely every thing will work out in some best case possible scenario is every bit as wrong headed as being a chicken little.

Patrick Yates

[SMO]

My name is VaDukie, and I am a serial optimist.

However, the more I read about this team the more excited I get. I don't expect us to be a top-5 team that's blowing people out (but I do expect it to happen from time to time).

But does anyone else get the vibe from the preseason interviews and early player comments that the players feel like they're the only ones in on the secret of how good we could be? Nelson for one, is constantly using the phrase 'championship' caliber team. And those of you who went to the banquet last year may remember that K all but predicted us to go to the Final Four.

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but does anyone else get this vibe?

YES!

[Wander]

I think there's an unusually wide range of potential for this team. Neither being in the Top 5 or completely out of the Top 25 would surprise me (I wouldn't say that about all the other teams with similar preseason rankings, like Texas A&M, Pitt, or Southern Illinois).

At best, we can be Villanova from '06 - a team loaded on the perimeter that is a serious Final Four threat. At worst, we'll be in the same place as last year - a middle of the pack ACC team that makes the tournament and doesn't make any serious noise.

[CDu]

Any team with as many McDonald's All-Americans has this year's team has SHOULD be really good. Yes, I'm aware that those high-school honors don't guarantee college success, but they are an indicator that the players on the roster have exhibited star talent at some point.

If a number of the following things go right, this team has the potential to be very fun:

- If Paulus can handle the point guard duties better along with his improved scoring game.
- If Thomas or Zoubek (or both) can contribute consistent quality minutes at the center position.
- If Henderson or Scheyer (or both) can continue to develop and become a consistent offensive threat.
- If Singler is as good as advertised and can become an impact player as a freshman.
- If King can provide a dangerous 3-point threat while being able to defend the big forward spot (aka the 4, or the power forward).
- If Nelson can figure out how to convert his athleticism into more finishes on offense and go from just being a solid offensive contributor to being an upper-echelon scorer.
7. If we can get healthy and stay healthy.

Not all of these things have to happen (if they did, we'd be VERY good). But I think that at least a few need to happen to make that jump. Remember - we weren't elite last year and we lost a big part of our team in McRoberts.

I'm most interested to see what Singler and King can do, but the development of Scheyer, Henderson and Thomas interests me as well.

[jlear]

My name is VaDukie, and I am a serial optimist.

However, the more I read about this team the more excited I get. I don't expect us to be a top-5 team that's blowing people out (but I do expect it to happen from time to time).

But does anyone else get the vibe from the preseason interviews and early player comments that the players feel like they're the only ones in on the secret of how good we could be? Nelson for one, is constantly using the phrase 'championship' caliber team. And those of you who went to the banquet last year may remember that K all but predicted us to go to the Final Four.

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but does anyone else get this vibe?

I think we can go Final Four with a shot at the title and next year we are the team to beat! Of course I have similar feeling most years. LGD! That said I am looking forward to one game at a time and I will enjoy each and every win!

We will be in the NCAAs longer than UNC...in fact i bet on it!

[ACCBBallFan]

Any team with as many McDonald's All-Americans has this year's team has SHOULD be really good. Yes, I'm aware that those high-school honors don't guarantee college success, but they are an indicator that the players on the roster have exhibited star talent at some point.

If a number of the following things go right, this team has the potential to be very fun:

- If Paulus can handle the point guard duties better along with his improved scoring game.
- If Thomas or Zoubek (or both) can contribute consistent quality minutes at the center position.
- If Henderson or Scheyer (or both) can continue to develop and become a consistent offensive threat.
- If Singler is as good as advertised and can become an impact player as a freshman.
- If King can provide a dangerous 3-point threat while being able to defend the big forward spot (aka the 4, or the power forward).
- If Nelson can figure out how to convert his athleticism into more finishes on offense and go from just being a solid offensive contributor to being an upper-echelon scorer.
7. If we can get healthy and stay healthy.

Not all of these things have to happen (if they did, we'd be VERY good). But I think that at least a few need to happen to make that jump. Remember - we weren't elite last year and we lost a big part of our team in McRoberts.

I'm most interested to see what Singler and King can do, but the development of Scheyer, Henderson and Thomas interests me as well. All good points but you left off perhaps the most important one. For Villanova guard oriented small ball to work, need constant on the ball pressure that Nolan Smith and Nelson in tandem can bring. He, along with Singler might be the missing ingredient from last year along with a healthy Greg Paulus and Gerald Henderson.

That would be quite a bench with (Henderson and Scheyer) or (Paulus and Scheyer) or (Paulus and Henderson) both anxious to sub in and show they can play the pressure defense needed to regain a starting spot.

[ACCBBallFan]

There is certainly potential. The more I look at this roster, it reminds me a lot of the 97-98 team (http://www.scacchoops.com/forms/playerdatabase.asp?team=DU&season=1998) (without Elton Brand).

I'm certainly not saying that they are the same, but after Brand went down that team became very small with a two-headed point guard in Wojo and Avery. Notice how no one on that roster averaged more than 30 minutes per game.Yes, I see some similarities, but as you mention Brand and also Burgess do not have clones, and on the flip side, not sure Taylor King does.

Several current year guys seems a bit shorter or less muscular.

Trajan - perhaps combo of Scheyer/King/Nelson
Wojo - Paulus
Batteir - Singler
McLeod - Henderson
Brand -
Carrawell - Lance
Avery - Nolan
Chapelle - perhaps combo of Nelson/Scheyer
Burgess -
Domzalski - Zoubek
Price - Marty ??/Nelson
Nate James - McClure/Nelson
??- King

[weezie]

It all depends on LT. Lance has a good year, Duke has a good year.

[VaDukie]

It all depends on LT. Lance has a good year, Duke has a good year.

I agree. I think Lance's development may be the most important of any other player. I'm confident we know what we're getting in a lot of other guys - Nelson, Singler, Henderson, Paulus, etc. - but Lance could go either way.

The CNNSI article has a comment by Scheyer that Lance had 'come out of his shell'. If he has, watch out.

[CDu]

Yes, I see some similarities, but as you mention Brand and also Burgess do not have clones, and on the flip side, not sure Taylor King does.

Several current year guys seems a bit shorter or less muscular.

Trajan - perhaps combo of Scheyer/King/Nelson
Wojo - Paulus
Batteir - Singler
McLeod - Henderson
Brand -
Carrawell - Lance
Avery - Nolan
Chapelle - perhaps combo of Nelson/Scheyer
Burgess -
Domzalski - Zoubek
Price - Marty ??/Nelson
Nate James - McClure/Nelson
??- King

There are some parallels, but I see some key differences between the 1997-1998 team and this year's team:

1. That 1997-1998 team was very experienced. We had a senior point guard, an elite junior shooting guard and a senior power forward. This year's team has a senior shooting guard who's had just one season as a major contributor and an inconsistent junior point guard.
2. The freshman class was on the short list of strongest classes in history (Brand, Battier, and Burgess were all national POY of some sort, and Avery was an impact point guard).
3. The 1997-1998 team was a lot bigger. We had Brand, Battier, McLeod, Chappell, Burgess, and Domzalski all 6'8" or taller. And we had James and Carrawell who were both 6'6". This year's team has three guys over 6'8", and just four at least 6'6". And in spite of that added size, we were still REALLY athletic. The Brand team probably had more athleticism from their bigs.
4. Largely due to point #3, the Brand team was much better inside. Brand was probably the best post player in the country not named Jamison that year, despite the injury. But not counting Brand, we still had McLeod and Burgess, both of whom could score in the paint. This year's team just doesn't have an inside scoring presence yet.
5. We had more proven consistent scorers. Langdon and McLeod were both top-tier scorers. Brand proved to be pretty good too. This year's team has Nelson (a decent scorer) and a bunch of potential, but no proven weapons yet.

That's not a reason to despair - that 1997-1998 team was one of the better teams I've seen (just bad fortune that we ran into UK who exploited Wojo). That team was so good that a senior McD's All-American and 1,000 point scorer (Price) didn't crack the regular rotation, and we had a 3rd-string junior center who was a McD's all american. We could do a lot worse than not quite living up to the results of that 1997-1998 team and I'd still be pleased.

[mepanchin]

I think this team has the potential to beat any team in the country this year.

I also think this team has the potential to lose to teams we should really beat.

[mgtr]

The one thing I believe is certain -- we will be much better than last year. How good is that -- well, pretty good, in my view.

[YmoBeThere]

Anyone else think we could be REALLY good this year?

Yes (darn 10 character minimum)

[hurleyfor3]

I hope we're not REALLY good. I hope we're pretty good. Really good would only set me up for disappointment.

Or put another way: I can take losing in the first couple rounds as a five or six seed. I'd love to be a three or four seed and get past the Sweet 16, if only for one round. But a one seed? Let someone else take the pressure.

[pfrduke]

Yes (darn 10 character minimum)

what he/she said.

[throatybeard]

I hope we're not REALLY good. I hope we're pretty good. Really good would only set me up for disappointment.

Or put another way: I can take losing in the first couple rounds as a five or six seed. I'd love to be a three or four seed and get past the Sweet 16, if only for one round. But a one seed? Let someone else take the pressure.

Beware the face-plant!

[hurleyfor3]

Beware the face-plant!

You betcha. I'm kinda sick of being February's Team.

[pamtar]

I think this team has the ability to win it all - whether or not that happens is a different story. I base my opinion by comparing our personnel to that of the Tarheels. Since they're picked ACC #1, top 5 Nationally, and are favored to win the NC - who else would be a better comparison? Sure Hans will give you 25 a night and Lawson will be the consistent aggressive leader, but other than that they have only Ellington as a proven threat. We have 4 players who are capable of dropping 20 every game in Paulus, Gerald, D, Scheyer, and from the looks of it, Singler - wait a minute, that's 5. Not to mention the roll playing of Lance, McClure, and Zoubek. Lets not forget Marty and our other new additions King and Smith. Below is my head-to-head match up of UNC players and their better looking counterparts to the north. I've even given Hans THREE guys to offset is Pschyo-ness (whetever the hell that is). IMO, our personnel should offset theirs easily. The games still have to be played though. This list still makes me happy.

Hansbrough - McClure/Thomas/Zoubek
Ty Lawson - Paulus/Smith
Wayne Ellington - Gerald
Marcus Ginyard - Demarcus
Bobby Frasor - Scheyer
Quenton Thomas - King
Deon Thompson - Singler
Danny Green - Pocius/McClure (because he's that good he gets two)

[YmoBeThere]

I hope we're not REALLY good. I hope we're pretty good. Really good would only set me up for disappointment.

Or put another way: I can take losing in the first couple rounds as a five or six seed. I'd love to be a three or four seed and get past the Sweet 16, if only for one round. But a one seed? Let someone else take the pressure.

Don't wanna be really good? Afraid to succeed because there inevitably will be disappointment later?

I guess I am optimistic this year, I'm thinking we can win every game!

[elvis14]

I'm not sure I'll go that far, but does anyone else get this vibe?

I'm another optimist. I really like the make up of this team and I can't wait to see what they can do once the season starts. Like others, there are a few things that I think need to happen:

- Gerald needs to be turned loose on the offensive end. If let him break down score/dish etc in the 1/2 court, teams will be beside themselves trying to figure out what to do with him (which opens things up for everyone else). In the open court he'll just be nasty. He's that good.
- Lance needs to have a really good season (and I think he's going to). I saw flashes of brilliance from Lance last season. I'd love to see him cut down on the fouls and use his quickness to give opponents serious difficulty!
- Paulus...I don't want to start any more Paulus bashing so lets just say I'd like to see him improve on all those dead horses we have beat to death!
- K needs to do a good job of sharing minutes, keeping guys fresh, exploiting opponents weaknesses with our versatility, etc.

I'm not willing to give up on an ACC championship this year either. Screw UNC. We may be getting picked 2nd but anyone that thinks we will have another mediocre year like last year should be in for a rude surprise when we challenge for the title and in the tournament!

[hurleyfor3]

Don't wanna be really good? Afraid to succeed because there inevitably will be disappointment later?


I'd just like to go back to peaking in March. You know, like we did when you (and I) were there.

[johnb]

I'm happy to take the pressure of being a one seed and not happy to lose in the first round as a 5th seed, but that may be idiosyncratic.

It seems to me that no one person is indispensible, but we do need a couple of our guys to play their way onto some all american lists. It may not even matter if it's Henderson, Singler, Paulus,Thomas, Smith, Nelson, or Scheyer, but, for us to compete with the Carolinas, we need at least one of them to separate himself from the rest of our solid team.

[Troublemaker]

Hmmm, I think I'd rather be a 1 seed and really good than a 5 seed and mediocre. I put a lot of thought into it, too.

And YES, Duke will be really good this year. As I said in another thread, I expect Duke to be a top-5 team. I'm glad the bandwagon is starting to fill but there's still plenty of room.

[ACCBBallFan]

I think this team has the ability to win it all - whether or not that happens is a different story. I base my opinion by comparing our personnel to that of the Tarheels. Since they're picked ACC #1, top 5 Nationally, and are favored to win the NC - who else would be a better comparison? Sure Hans will give you 25 a night and Lawson will be the consistent aggressive leader, but other than that they have only Ellington as a proven threat. We have 4 players who are capable of dropping 20 every game in Paulus, Gerald, D, Scheyer, and from the looks of it, Singler - wait a minute, that's 5. Not to mention the roll playing of Lance, McClure, and Zoubek. Lets not forget Marty and our other new additions King and Smith. Below is my head-to-head match up of UNC players and their better looking counterparts to the north. I've even given Hans THREE guys to offset is Pschyo-ness (whetever the hell that is). IMO, our personnel should offset theirs easily. The games still have to be played though. This list still makes me happy.

Hansbrough - McClure/Thomas/Zoubek
Ty Lawson - Paulus/Smith
Wayne Ellington - Gerald
Marcus Ginyard - Demarcus
Bobby Frasor - Scheyer
Quenton Thomas - King
Deon Thompson - Singler
Danny Green - Pocius/McClure (because he's that good he gets two)

Tyler will be the key.

Not sure the QT-King match up is germane, but that's the least of Duke's and UNC's mutual concerns.

Lawson will be assigned to Nelson/Smith. Paulus when in the game would guard Ellington, Ginyard or Green.

I do think it makes sense to match up former HS team mates Lawson/Smith and Ellington/Henderson leaving Nelson/Scheyer/Paulus to counter Ginyard/Green, as well as give Nolan-Gerald an occasional rest.

Would not be surprised to see K sometimes go with Singler and King together to counter Deon/Alex and Tyler.

Nothing is going to work to stop Tyler other than double and triple teaming him and forcing UNC to hit from perimeter, but might as well at least score some points on match ups at other end.

[jawk24]

i agree with you CDU, we have no proven pg and no proven post player.

[blazindw]

I think we could be incredible this year, but this is truly the first Duke team in a long time where I didn't have any real expectations coming into the season. Sure we had a rough (by Duke standards) season last year, but those battle wounds have healed and our boys are now one year tougher, stronger and better (both mentally and physically). They will know how to handle the pressure. It will be a struggle in the first half of the season not in the win-loss column, but to see where everyone falls in the rotation. We will have a chance to run with Smith handling the ball on the court, and if Z and Lance can be formidable in the post, we will be able to have a great frontcourt rotation by including Singler & King, and we won't have to worry about sliding Markie down to play the 4 or 5 like we did last year.

Bottom line, it may take a few pieces of canvas and some frustrating nights early, but these guys have the chance to paint a masterpiece of the season. And the best thing is, all these mysteries about our team make this year even that much more exciting to me.

[dukestheheat]

VaDukie-

Duke will be more competitive this year, overall, than last year imo.

We will have to:

1) Play much better defense in the half-court, especially from that PG spot (whoever is there needs to be a killer). Duke is so much better when we worry people to death on defense.
2) Keep our bigger guys in games (Zoubek, Henderson, Singler) and have them consistently hitting their free throws; the whole team must dedicate themselves to hitting free throws.
3) Somehow go back to a basic idea: we have lost our swagger in recent years and someone on this team needs to step into that role. Bottom-line:

Duke needs a bad-I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this. this year. A tough competitor who will not back down, who will assert when we need it, who can fire up the crowd and spark our team and bring Duke's will to win BACK.

that's my $.02 and you know what they all say about that, dth.

[ACCBBallFan]

At this point I am comfortable saying good, not yet comfortable saying really good, but can see the potential.

[YmoBeThere]

I'd just like to go back to peaking in March. You know, like we did when you (and I) were there.

Agreed, but it is still preseason so anything is possible!

(Those that know me in real life would be a bit shocked at my optimism.)

[shadowfax336]

and then finish better...

People tend to forget that heading into ACC play last year we were 12-1, ranked #5 in the nation and had beaten a decent Indiana team, a good Air Force Team, and a Georgetown team that ended up making the final 4, not to mention clobbering a Davidson team that went on to make some noise in March. It was only toward the end of the year, as our thin team got tired and we had some key injuries (Paulus messed up his foot again, Marty got hurt just as he was starting to come on a bit, and I believe Henderson got hurt around this time) that we started to fall apart. Even then, midway through the ACC season, heading into the first UNC game we were 21-3 and ranked #8 (don't believe me, check it out... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/rankingsindex?pollId=null&weekNumber=13&seasonYear=2007)
The late collapse colors everybody's perspective, but we were having a very solid season until the flaws in the team caught up to them. I fully expect Coach K to deal with that, and the players to respond.
I think this year we'll be able to get off to a similar fast start, and hopefully this time we'll be able to sustain it well into March.

[Clipsfan]

I think this team has the ability to win it all - whether or not that happens is a different story. I base my opinion by comparing our personnel to that of the Tarheels. Since they're picked ACC #1, top 5 Nationally, and are favored to win the NC - who else would be a better comparison? Sure Hans will give you 25 a night and Lawson will be the consistent aggressive leader, but other than that they have only Ellington as a proven threat. We have 4 players who are capable of dropping 20 every game in Paulus, Gerald, D, Scheyer, and from the looks of it, Singler - wait a minute, that's 5. Not to mention the roll playing of Lance, McClure, and Zoubek. Lets not forget Marty and our other new additions King and Smith. Below is my head-to-head match up of UNC players and their better looking counterparts to the north. I've even given Hans THREE guys to offset is Pschyo-ness (whetever the hell that is). IMO, our personnel should offset theirs easily. The games still have to be played though. This list still makes me happy.

Hansbrough - McClure/Thomas/Zoubek
Ty Lawson - Paulus/Smith
Wayne Ellington - Gerald
Marcus Ginyard - Demarcus
Bobby Frasor - Scheyer
Quenton Thomas - King
Deon Thompson - Singler
Danny Green - Pocius/McClure (because he's that good he gets two)

Now, all we have to do is play 12 guys at once...

[Bluedawg]

Michael Moore (http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/10/23/Column/Get-Excited.For.Your.20072008.Blue.Devils-3050107.shtml) [no, not that one] seems to think so.



To be fair, everyone thinks their team is going to shock the world at media day. But the Blue Devils' No. 2 preseason conference ranking is not unfounded and they do have reasons to be optimistic.

First, take away the name Duke. It's hard, but try.

An anonymous team that finished .500 in the ACC and made the NCAA Tourney returns every player but one, keeps 80 percent of its scoring and adds the No. 6 recruiting class in the country.

Most people would expect that team to make some serious noise. But because Duke was so over-analyzed and its problems broken down and talked about so much last season, for once, Duke just might be under-hyped

And i tend to agree with him

[Bluedawg]

YES!

how did you get around the 10 character minimum?

[pamtar]

Now, all we have to do is play 12 guys at once...

Good Point!

[Cameron]

I'm not exactly sure how we will finish this season, but, at this point, I don't really care. I just can't wait for it to start. This is going to be one exciting ride. I just have a feeling, as I am sure many others do, that this will be a very memorable year.

For the first time since maybe 2003-04, I really feel we have a loaded roster. I'm not saying we will be as good as that club, but I feel we could be.

Almost here, baby!

[grossbus]

"i agree with you CDU, we have no proven pg and no proven post player"

how about no proven shooter?

[VaDukie]

"i agree with you CDU, we have no proven pg and no proven post player"

how about no proven shooter?

no proven shooter? are you serious?

[mgtr]

Does anybody seriously believe that we won't be better than last year? Of course we lost McBob, but we gained three very good freshmen, our sophs have one more year of experience, and apparently all the broken stuff is fixed. Plus our coach is a genius. We have to be tons better than last year. Go Duke!

[devildeac]

"i agree with you CDU, we have no proven pg and no proven post player"

how about no proven shooter?

What were Greg's and John's % from 3 point range last year?

[yancem]

"i agree with you CDU, we have no proven pg and no proven post player"

how about no proven shooter?

Paulus shot 45% from behind the arc last year, does that not make him a proven shooter?

[The Sandman]

Paulus is unquestionably a proven shooter after what we saw towards the end of last year, but I am of the opinion that his 3-point % is inevitably going to decrease now that we have more scorers to whom he needs to distribute the ball. We don't have anyone like JJ, but we've got at least 3 proven 3-point shooters (Scheyer, King, and Paulus) and 4 who don't focus on outside shooting but have the ability to hit from deep every so often (Gerald, Singler, Nolan, and Marty). I think Paulus's main focus at the beginning of the year will be on avoiding turnovers--then, once we figure out the rotation, he'll start opening up a little more. It wouldn't be a shock if he led the ACC in assists again.

[Bob Green]

It amazes me how many posters on this board overlook DeMarcus Nelson. The Sandman is the latest in a long list so I am not trying to single him out but rather using his post as an example. Nelson was our leading scorer last year at 14 ppg and he shot 36.3 percent from beyond the arc.




We don't have anyone like JJ, but we've got at least 3 proven 3-point shooters (Scheyer, King, and Paulus) and 4 who don't focus on outside shooting but have the ability to hit from deep every so often (Gerald, Singler, Nolan, and Marty).

No mention of DeMarcus Nelson.

King is not a proven 3-point shooter because he has never played a college basketball game in his life. The same goes for Singler and Smith. Gerald made 8 of 25 3-pointers last year, while Marty made 8 of 26. Those are insignificant numbers from a statistical perspective.

I agree with The Sandman that we have "3 proven 3-point shooters" but those three are Greg Paulus (45%), Jon Scheyer (36.5%), and DeMarcus Nelson (36.3%). All three attempted in excess of 120 3-point shots.

In the cases of Gerald and Marty, playing time and injuries contributed to their low number of attempts so I do acknowledge their "potential" to become proven 3-point shooters.

[johnb]

I'm not sure how you define such things, but I'd say we have a roster filled with excellent shooters, solid defensive players, and tough competitors. We just need a couple of them to shift into the JJ, Shelden, Laettner hyperspace, a feat that is difficult to perform.

[evrdukie]

I wish I could be as encouraged as some of the previous posters. A team that (i) isn't at this point certain who will be the starting point guard, and (ii)lacks a dominating inside presence could be in for a long season.

[micah75]

Does anybody seriously believe that we won't be better than last year? Of course we lost McBob, but we gained three very good freshmen, our sophs have one more year of experience, and apparently all the broken stuff is fixed. Plus our coach is a genius. We have to be tons better than last year. Go Duke!

Losing Josh may not be as bad as some think. There's a lot to be said for team chemistry, and I'm not sure we had much of that with Josh on the court. This should be a much-improved team due to the reasons stated above. The big question mark, as always, is avoiding the injury bug which has plagued us for the past so many seasons. Pray for a healthy team and nothing worse than the occasional sprained ankle. PLEEEEASE, no more broken bones this year.

[VaDukie]

I wish I could be as encouraged as some of the previous posters. A team that (i) isn't at this point certain who will be the starting point guard, and (ii)lacks a dominating inside presence could be in for a long season.

1. We aren't certain of who the starting point will be because we've got 2 good options to weigh. We're not in State's shoes of not having anyone with experience in the system trying to learn on the job.
2. How many teams can you honestly say have a dominating inside presence? In the ACC I count UNC and State. And in terms of scoring from the frontcourt, I think Singler certainly has dominant potential. Defense and rebounding will be by committee, but we should be alright.

[OldPhiKap]

Losing Josh may not be as bad as some think. There's a lot to be said for team chemistry, and I'm not sure we had much of that with Josh on the court. This should be a much-improved team due to the reasons stated above. The big question mark, as always, is avoiding the injury bug which has plagued us for the past so many seasons. Pray for a healthy team and nothing worse than the occasional sprained ankle. PLEEEEASE, no more broken bones this year.

My issue with McBob wasn't so much his attitude. Laettner was a royal jerk according to his teammates. BUT, he was willing to step up and be aggressive. McBob never wanted to take the big shot (IMO) and pouted when things didn't go his way. If it was a challenge, he shrank if it wasn't easy to overcome.

I think this team will be AGGRESSIVE. And that is the biggest plus factor to me.

[mgtr]

I have posted in other threads that, vs. last year, we should be lightyears ahead. We lost Josh, but we gained three apparently good freshmen, our freshmen from last year have another years experience. And, at least for now, our injuries and breaks have been fixed. Sounds like a winner to me.

[mepanchin]

Paulus is unquestionably a proven shooter after what we saw towards the end of last year, but I am of the opinion that his 3-point % is inevitably going to decrease now that we have more scorers to whom he needs to distribute the ball. We don't have anyone like JJ, but we've got at least 3 proven 3-point shooters (Scheyer, King, and Paulus) and 4 who don't focus on outside shooting but have the ability to hit from deep every so often (Gerald, Singler, Nolan, and Marty). I think Paulus's main focus at the beginning of the year will be on avoiding turnovers--then, once we figure out the rotation, he'll start opening up a little more. It wouldn't be a shock if he led the ACC in assists again.

Why would his percentage go down if he shoots less often?

Last year we shot 38.1% from behind the arc, which was 2nd best in the ACC behind Maryland, who shot 38.5% (so the difference wasn't huge). We should expect that percentage to be similar or higher, I think. Though we will likely shoot 3s far more often (last year was our lowest frequency of 3 point shots since 1994 when 3 pointers in general were taken far less often).

I also want to point out that while the prevailing wisdom among some seems to be that Paulus took an unusual amount of shots last season because of the absence of a scorer like Redick or Williams like from his first year, Paulus actually improved his offensive efficiency while taking a much bigger part in the offense AND I want to remind everyone that Bobby Hurley, long considered a true pure point guard, used a higher percentage of possessions individually in 1992 than Greg Paulus did in 2007. A lot of Paulus' assist numbers were skewed last year because McRoberts stepped up into a point forward position.

There is no doubt that Greg needs to work on his turnovers this season, but his turnover rate from 06 to 07 actually decreased by 6% (33% his first year, 27% last year), and you always expect point guards to have a higher turnover rate than non-point guards (Lawson, who had what many considered a fantastic freshman season at point, turned it over 21.6% of his possessions while non-point guards always want to shoot for a number under 20%).

[Clipsfan]

Paulus is unquestionably a proven shooter after what we saw towards the end of last year, but I am of the opinion that his 3-point % is inevitably going to decrease now that we have more scorers to whom he needs to distribute the ball. We don't have anyone like JJ, but we've got at least 3 proven 3-point shooters (Scheyer, King, and Paulus) and 4 who don't focus on outside shooting but have the ability to hit from deep every so often (Gerald, Singler, Nolan, and Marty). I think Paulus's main focus at the beginning of the year will be on avoiding turnovers--then, once we figure out the rotation, he'll start opening up a little more. It wouldn't be a shock if he led the ACC in assists again.

Taking less shots is probably actually BETTER for %, as he'll be taking the higher quality shots. Additionally, having more scoring threats should lead to more open shots as people key on the other threats.

[grossbus]

"Paulus shot 45% from behind the arc last year, does that not make him a proven shooter?"

what did he shoot from inside the arc? scheyer also?

i will agree that greg seemed to make a lot of three point shots at the end of the year, but his overall percentage was not that good. my enduring memories of john the enigma is him bricking a lot of wide open threes. check his shooting percentage in games he was our leading scorer. i think you will find some 2 pt percentages in the low 30's.

tell me who on this team you want to take the big shot at crunch time. i don't think we know who that is.

[mepanchin]

what did he shoot from inside the arc? scheyer also?

i will agree that greg seemed to make a lot of three point shots at the end of the year, but his overall percentage was not that good. my enduring memories of john the enigma is him bricking a lot of wide open threes. check his shooting percentage in games he was our leading scorer. i think you will find some 2 pt percentages in the low 30's.

tell me who on this team you want to take the big shot at crunch time. i don't think we know who that is.

No, his percentage was actually very good. You can do the math yourself, Paulus shot 68 for 151 from behind the arc last year. His eFG% was highest on the team, 57.5%*. Your enduring memory is wrong.

During our last 8 games, Paulus shot 50 for 97 from the field, which included shooting an astounding 24 for 51 from behind the arc. For the record, over that stretch, Paulus shot about 64% eFG from the field - well above his season average.

* eFG% simply takes into account the appropriate value of a 3 pointer. If you shoot 10 3s and hit 4 of them, you score 12 points, whereas if you shoot 10 2 pointers and make 6, you also score 12. Therefore, 40% from behind the arc is effectively like shooting 60% inside the arc.

[Clipsfan]

Seriously, it's not worth discussing it with Grossbus. Every one of his posts is about how bad the team is going to be.

[grossbus]

not true, every one of my posts tries to counter unwarranted expectations, something that happens often on this board, usually at about this time. i think the team will be good and better than last year, but i do not think forecasts built on nelson being a stud 20+ppg scorer or scheyer lighting it up every night are realistic.

we have apparently good freshment, but they have yet to play a college game. people saying NC this year based on their expected contributions are not being rational.

we have yet to play a game as a team. will the Up-Tempo really happen? will we really use our depth? last year at this time, everyone was saying the same thing, but it didn't happen (injury to paulus probably being the biggest hit to that strategy).

let's wait until we get to the end of december and see how the team and individuals are developing.

if it makes you happy, i will forego posting until that time.

[mcdukie]

Grossbus I agree with you 100%. We are saying we are going to be so good based on what? I think we will be better than last year but I am not even sure how good we can be. What I do know is that you must have a star somewhere down the line to be very good and that hasn't been established yet. It could be Singler, Henderson or even Scheyer but no one has done it yet. I am also concerned about not having an inside presence and some of us are looking past that. I know McRoberts had an attitude but 6'9 and athletic is not easy to replace. My biggest confidence is that whatever is there, K will make the most of it and I am looking forward to how he puts the pieces together.

[mapei]

There is no doubt that Greg needs to work on his turnovers this season, but his turnover rate from 06 to 07 actually decreased by 6% (33% his first year, 27% last year), and you always expect point guards to have a higher turnover rate than non-point guards (Lawson, who had what many considered a fantastic freshman season at point, turned it over 21.6% of his possessions while non-point guards always want to shoot for a number under 20%).

33% and 27% of what? I'm not sure I've ever seen turnovers expressed as a percentage before. Are you saying he turned the ball over more than 1 of every 4 times he touched the ball??? If so, yikes.

[mepanchin]

Yes, the stat is determined by calculating individual possessions and then finds on what percentage an individual player turns the ball over. As I noted, point guards tend to have a high turnover rate relative to other players because of their role on the team. For example, the revered Bobby Hurley in 1991-1992 turned the ball over on 25.8% of his personal possessions. The reason Hurley is considered fantastic is because his assist rate was much higher than Paulus' last year. Assist rate is the % of baskets made that the player assisted on while on the court.

Oh and its worth noting that as a freshman, Bobby Hurley turned the ball over on 35.1% of his personal possessions and that team made the championship game. As a sophomore, Hurley improved to 29.8%. As a junior, he improved to the aforesaid 25.8%, and as a senior he improved to 21.1%. Turnovers, in my opinion, are one of the stats (if not THE stat) most affected by experience.

As a result, I am not terribly worried about Paulus' turnovers this season. The 07 Duke team as a whole had a very high turnover rate - and that was as much a result of pretty much everyone else except Scheyer having a higher turnover rate than they ought to.

edit: Actually looking back over it, Hurley's freshman stats are actually very similar to Paulus. Both shot poorly from the field, both had tremendously high turnover rates, Hurley assisted more often, but Paulus' assist rate was not shabby at all. They had nearly identical steal rates, played nearly identical minutes, and had nearly an identical individual offensive rating. Comparing their sophomore campaigns, Greg shot better from the field and actually had a lower turnover rate, though a lower assist rate than even his freshman year. However, to be fair, the team as a whole was much less offensively capable. Paulus had a higher steal rate, and again, almost identical individual offensive ratings.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe we shouldn't close the book on Greg Paulus quite yet.

[mepanchin]

Grossbus I agree with you 100%. We are saying we are going to be so good based on what? I think we will be better than last year but I am not even sure how good we can be. What I do know is that you must have a star somewhere down the line to be very good and that hasn't been established yet. It could be Singler, Henderson or even Scheyer but no one has done it yet. I am also concerned about not having an inside presence and some of us are looking past that. I know McRoberts had an attitude but 6'9 and athletic is not easy to replace. My biggest confidence is that whatever is there, K will make the most of it and I am looking forward to how he puts the pieces together.

The reason people are optimistic is that whenever you have a team that wins 22 games against a tough schedule and goes 8-8 in a very tough conference with a very tough conference schedule with most losses being close, and returns over 80% of their minutes (82.4% of Duke's minutes return from last year), you have reason to be optimistic. In most cases, those teams are very good the next year.

People are also optimistic because the only player we lost, when you look closely at what the 07 Duke squad actually did well, was not all that significant. McRoberts was not a particularly good post defender, though a fair shot blocker and a good defensive rebounder. However, given his height and build and considering his freshman numbers rebounding and blocking shots, and considering how freshman typically improve to their sophomore year, I doubt we will miss much in terms of rebounding from his absence (in fact, last year's Duke team was one of the better defensive rebounding teams under Coach K - maybe the best). Last year's team was successful defensively because of perimeter D (as maligned as it was by the end of hte year). We return everyone from that team and add Smith, who could very well become a Duhon like defensive presence. People are also optimistic because we suffered the injury bug last year with a few of our players (I believe Henderson, Paulus and McClure were all injured at various times) and now we are healthy (though McClure is still getting healthy to be fair). People are also optimistic because we've added some horses in the stable who do some really useful things (guard perimeter players tight, shoot 3s, create match-up problems).

In short, there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic and very few to be pessimistic. Besides, it's the pre-season! This is the time for fans of every team to be optimistic. Whether it pans out or not is almost irrelevant because the excitement and anticipation is itself fun.

[grossbus]

"In short, there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic and very few to be pessimistic. Besides, it's the pre-season! This is the time for fans of every team to be optimistic. Whether it pans out or not is almost irrelevant because the excitement and anticipation is itself fun."

well, since no one took me up on the no-posting-until-the-end-of-december offer, i will make another comment.

optimism is fine. what irks me is the expections that get built based on little more than optimism which, when unmet after we enter ACC play, lead to increasing numbers of increasingly negative posts.

i agree all the reasons for your optimism are possible, but they all founded on assumptions. i would rather think they are going to be good and be pleased when they are better than get swept along in a frenzy to conclude they will be great and then be disappointed when they are not.

you cite the returning experience as a positive...and it might be, but given feb/march of last year, i think there are many questions yet to be answered about this team.

[OldPhiKap]

I will be personally devistated if we do not go undefeated.:mad:

[Wander]

People are also optimistic because the only player we lost, when you look closely at what the 07 Duke squad actually did well, was not all that significant.

Uh... seriously?

[jimsumner]

I think that McRoberts is a significant loss. But I think there are plenty of rational reasons for optimism and find myself perplexed at Grossbus' reluctance to acknowlege them.

Last year's Duke team was its youngest in modern history and the ACC schedule was slanted against them. Yet, Duke won 22 games, including victories over Georgetown, Indiana, Gonzaga, Davidson, Air Force, two over Clemson, two over Boston College, and a split with Georgia Tech. Five losses were in overtime or at the buzzer.

Duke returns all but one key player from that team. Included in that list is a pre-season Wooden Award candidate, a two-year starter at point guard, an ACC-all freshman player from last year, and a sophomore wing widely projected to be a future NBA lottery pick. All three incoming freshmen were prep All-Americans and one was a consensus top five pick.

So why the pessimism? Are we making assumptions? Sure. But isn't that the case with UNC, Georgetown, Memphis, everybody else? You always have to make assumptions in these matters. Some assumptions are more grounded in reality than others, some are more informed than others, but to dismiss predictions because they are based on assumptions suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of pre-season predictions.

Note that the people who do this for a living have picked Duke second in the ACC and 11th in the nation. Infallible? Hardly. But it does show that informed observers not linked to Duke share the general perception that last year's dismal finish was a bump in the road.

[Clipsfan]

not true, every one of my posts tries to counter unwarranted expectations, something that happens often on this board, usually at about this time. i think the team will be good and better than last year, but i do not think forecasts built on nelson being a stud 20+ppg scorer or scheyer lighting it up every night are realistic.

we have apparently good freshment, but they have yet to play a college game. people saying NC this year based on their expected contributions are not being rational.

we have yet to play a game as a team. will the Up-Tempo really happen? will we really use our depth? last year at this time, everyone was saying the same thing, but it didn't happen (injury to paulus probably being the biggest hit to that strategy).

let's wait until we get to the end of december and see how the team and individuals are developing.

if it makes you happy, i will forego posting until that time.

This post of yours is reasonable, and I agree with all your points. However, I don't think anyone suggested that Nelson would score 20+, just that maybe he should play some. Scheyer isn't supposed to light it up every night, but he should be better than last year (when he was one of our best players). I think that there is a difference between tempering expectations and negatively commenting on everything. I'm sure that some players will fail to live up to our hopes, not necessarily because they play poorly, but because our hopes/expectations tend to be very hard to fulfill.

[ACCBBallFan]

As usual, Jim Sumner makes a compelling argument for why Duke fans can justifiably be optimistic, as long as they do not carry it to the extreme.

[Indoor66]

As usual, Jim Sumner makes a compelling argument for why Duke fans can justifiably be optimistic, as long as they do not carry it to the extreme.

Extremism on in defense of Duke is a virtue.

[mepanchin]

Uh... seriously?

Can I get something better here to work with? I mean, think of it like this. Would we be better if McRoberts was on the 07-08 team? Sure, almost certainly. Will we be worse because we lose McRoberts? Is he irreplaceable? Emphatically no. To that extent, losing him is not that significant. Losing Redick and Williams, who combined for 55% of our possessions in 06 was significant because there was no one on the roster to pick-up the slack offensively.

However, offense is not where most people think we will miss McRoberts. Whenever I see someone say he was our best defender, I get a little irked, because our 2 best defenders were, very distinctly, Demarcus Nelson and David McClure. To be sure, McRoberts contributed defensively. He had a lot of blocks, but his numbers did not reflect a genuine ability to dominate the paint like Hibbert or Oden did - he just played a lot of minutes compared to those two, so his deflated rate of blocking shots over time created a lot of blocks. The significance of this is that his presence in the paint was not as effective defensively as Hibbert or Oden, who both anchored defenses that were among the best in terms of 2-point FG%. As a post-defender, McRoberts was less effective than others on the team - he was notorious for backing down against stronger defenders. He lacked that killer instinct. Finally, his rebounding is oft cited as an area where we'll suffer. While McRoberts had a high defensive rebounding rate, he was only marginally better than even DeMarcus on the offensive glass. Furthermore, our team as a whole was a very good defensive rebounding team (much better than when we had Shelden) because we had a number of good defensive rebounders. Losing McRoberts may affect our defensive rebounding slightly, but not significantly when you consider the aggregate contributions of Henderson, Nelson, McClure, Thomas, and Zoubek as being the significant portion of the team's defensive rebounding - not to mention whatever our freshmen can contribute.

Like I said, I think we'd be better with McRoberts, but I consider a "significant" loss to be an irreplaceable loss. The strengths of the 07 Duke team did not really center in on what McRoberts brought to the team - it centered on 3 point shooting and defending the perimeter.

[jimsumner]

I don't think "significant" means "irreplaceable." Nobody is arguing that McRoberts is irreplaceable. But when a player ranks number one in rebounds, blocked shots, and minutes played and number two in points, assists, and steals, and is the only player to make all-conference, then I don't think its much of a reach to think that player was significant.

[ACCBBallFan]

I for one am not that enamored with Blocked Shots if they come at the same rate as Personal Fouls. I much prefer the altered shot without the alternating block or foul.

At a minimum get in the neighborhood on the switch or rotation to cover guy who eluded his defender and avoid the matador defense.

[grossbus]

the team chemistry thing aside (because i don't really know how he was affecting it), i think mcbobs would have been better this year than last because the team around him might be sufficiently talented at the offensive end that he would not have to be the go to guy when we needed a big hoop. it was clearly a role he was uncomfortable with and ill-equipped to play (even if it was something he claimed to want). before he left, i had this nice vision of him at the high post making deft passes to singler working low. i think running the offense through him would have been a great option. running it to him, not so much. there is no doubt he could run the floor effectively and he could and would throw it down.

i wish circumstances would have been such that he would have stayed another year, but...

[throatybeard]

optimism is fine. what irks me is the expections that get built based on little more than optimism which, when unmet after we enter ACC play, lead to increasing numbers of increasingly negative posts

Likewise. Every year we get hundreds of people screeching about how awesome we'll be. Come 2nd ACC loss, same people are killing the PG, killing the softest white big guy, and crying about how their birth right of a FF has been sullied.

[throatybeard]

i wish circumstances would have been such that he would have stayed another year, but...

Almost everyone blithely assumes his absence is + by -, but we won't know till we play, and I'd sure like to have him back.

[mepanchin]

I don't think "significant" means "irreplaceable." Nobody is arguing that McRoberts is irreplaceable. But when a player ranks number one in rebounds, blocked shots, and minutes played and number two in points, assists, and steals, and is the only player to make all-conference, then I don't think its much of a reach to think that player was significant.

We can agree to disagree I guess. The nature of the college game is that teams lose players. Almost no teams return all 5 starters and usually 1 of the starters they lose will contribute around 17-22% of the offense while they play (5 players... 20% or so each). Players like McRoberts come and go and are missed, but ultimately replaced fairly easily. Players like Redick (who use 29% of the team's possessions) are not replaced easily at all.

I also made sure to point out that what the 07 Duke team did well was not something that McRoberts indispensably provided. Someone made a terse comment acting as if that was an insane argument to make - so I supported it. When I'm saying that people should be optimistic about this team being better than last year's team, it needs mentioning that the strengths of our team last year were on the perimeter, and we look to be much stronger this year - and return every player (and return to full health with every player).

[pamtar]

Yeah it was Central but !@#$ - after last night, I had to bump it.

[sandinmyshoes]

I will only worry about a team with guards who are difficult to pressure and at least a passable front court. That and an untimely cold shooting game. If things fall right, this team is capable of winning it all. But with a poor matchup or poor shooting night they could be home early.

[dukestheheat]

I will only worry about a team with guards who are difficult to pressure and at least a passable front court. That and an untimely cold shooting game. If things fall right, this team is capable of winning it all. But with a poor matchup or poor shooting night they could be home early.

sandinmyshoes,

I've been watching Smith and I'm impressed with him for several reasons, two of which are his athleticism and his quickness. He'll be the anti-Lawson versus the Holes and this makes us immediately more competitive.

Certainly, I see your point on seeing Duke struggle inside this year, but with the running game in place AND WITH Duke hitting their free throws close to what we did last night, we are going to be competitive game after game.

dth.

PS i like your handle here on DBR; i kiteboard in the ocean and when i'm not there, i sure am thinking about being there, and your name just reminds me of the beach.....thanks!! (with me it's sand in my flip flops as i'm walking down the beach trying to find a place to pump up the kite and get into the water).

[sandinmyshoes]

The strengths of this team will be pressuring on defense and stretching the other teams defense when the break isn't there. That's why I will worry most about guards who are difficult to pressure and big men who can punish us when the guards break down our defense.

But there are not that many teams out there with that kind of combination, and even then it can be offset if our perimeter shots are falling. But we all know that come the NCAAs one poor shooting night can send you home against a team you'd beat 3 out of 5 times.

After last the bit of a stumble last year, it will be nice to be in the hunt again even if not from a dominant position.

[Johnny B]

...with optimism.

Ok. I know we've only played 1 game, but I'm very impressed with the freshmen class and the improvement (health) of the returnees. I won't go over the player details as they are elsewhere on this board, but I really believe we are an elite 8 team. Once you get there then anything can happen.

So ...I predict... Duke, National Champions 2007-2008.

(I know we have a game in 47 minutes, but I just can't keep it in and I can't say it anywhere else:) )

[rthomas]

45 minutes to game time. Carolina is in hell and I'm excited as hell that THE game is on ESPN2. The season begins!

As Borat would say, I'm so excite.

[jzp5079]

:rolleyes:

[rthomas]

:rolleyes:

That's NOT the correct 'tude, dude. It's time to get excite.

[pamtar]

Probably should wait until after tonight but again, a bump is necessary.

[lavell12]

Before the season I thought Duke was a year away now I think that probably is still the case, but I say Duke has a chance at winning the National title. Their is no clear cut favorite or a team with more then one or two dominate players. Duke may have the most depth of any team in the nation and so that is why I give them a chance.

What do you think.

[wisteria]

We are always contenders. But rightnow, I don't feel like saying it or thinking about it. It's almost like I'll jinx them by predicting NCAA performance this early in the season. I say, let's fly under the radar as long as we can..(although after tonight, it's not going to be easy..)

[norduck]

Hope we are not peaking early in the season!

[blazindw]

Hope we are not peaking early in the season!

Too early to tell right now, we just gotta take it one game at a time. But I will tell you this...we look good! :)

[wilson]

...we just gotta take it one game at a time...

Have you been poaching posts from the "Words/Phrases that should be eliminated from sports" thread again?

[blazindw]

Have you been poaching posts from the "Words/Phrases that should be eliminated from sports" thread again?

It is what it is...we can flat-out play ;)

[monkey]

people still might not recognize us .... but that's ok - finger snap -

we're contender's now ....

[feldspar]

All I'm gonna say, folks, is that it's November.

Honestly. It's November.

[wilson]

It is what it is...we can flat-out play ;)

Especially when we leave it all out on the court.

[Troublemaker]

I stated before the season began that this was a top-5 team and I've seen nothing from either Duke or the rest of the country to indicate otherwise. That said, I'm with wisteria in that I prefer not to discuss it. I would rather just keep it to myself and protect it like a dirty secret. I would rather talk Davidson than Duke's NC chances. Remember, we haven't played a road game yet. Our beatdown of Wiscy was in large part due to great shooters shooting against their familiar home background. Duke will blow out a lot of teams in Cameron this season for that very reason but that doesn't necessarily translate to road performance. There will still be some valleys this season to go along with the peaks. There will still be games where we play poorly. There will still be games where we should win but we lose. As feldspar says, it's only November.

[Patrick Yates]

Prior to the season, I would have put Duke's chances in the near-impossible realm with regards to the NC.

I would now upgrade that to possible, but unlikely.

In the Second half, we only won by a single point. That is mainly due to us/them getting bored by a game that was out of hand. Still, their size gave us fits in the second half, and their bigs are not that great (and their entire team apparantly never heard of help D). As size deficient as we are, I do not know that I would take any of their bigs if you gave them to Duke. Even so, once they started to focus on pounding the ball inside and hitting the O-boards, they became very effective against us.

Second, as good as we are from 3 pt land, they won't always fall like that. In a pm earlier, a poster suggested to me that Duke's season will end on a night where the threes are not falling, collectively. The reason I upgraded Duke to possible was that I can see our squad putting together 4-5 games of good outside threes and snaking the NC. I just think that it is unlikely.

Finally, Duke will hit its stride before a lot of teams. I am not saying we will peak prematurely, just that we will hit our stride early. We are loaded at the guard/SF, and those guys seem to gel better, earlier, than bigs. I don't know why, but there you go. And K is a master team builder, if nothing else (and he is a lot of other things), so I expected us to come together fast. Our additions are almost prototypical Duke guys, with high IQ's, so they got it early.

Many of the other top teams are dealing with injury (unc and UCLA), attrition (UNC, UCLA, Gtown), or integrating young studs into existing lineups (UCLA, G-town, Memphis). These teams WILL coalesce (barring injury) and get going at SOME point this year.

However, I really see these teams as the only squads that will definitely be favored over Duke come March. Prior to the season I was not sold on the team, but I know think that the Elite 8 is a real possibility, with a FF bearth not outside the realm of possibility. I just don't see us cutting down the nets. If we are out of our skulls from 3 land, it COULD happen. But our lack of size will get us if we even shoot mediocre from 3 land.

Patrick Yates

[dukestheheat]

Lavell-

While this is a fair question and a natural reaction, in my opinion, to the way that the team is playing right now, I do not feel that Duke is a national title contender just yet. Why? I cannot put a finger on it, but when I read this post I closed my eyes and just thought about it for a moment, and then I had this 'no' feeling about it. I do think it's a good question, but right now I say 'no'.

Duke is very competitive and soooo much fun to watch, however, and I'm just so proud of the team and their accomplishments.

dth.

[VaDukie]

I think we certainly are a contender. At the start of the season I think most of us would have pegged us at the 3-4 seed range, but looking at the landscape now, I feel like we're headed to a 2. UNC, Georgetown, Memphis, UCLA, and Kansas are the only teams I consider on our level right now.

It is still early, but its hard not to like everything we've seen so far.

[xenic]

I would now upgrade that to possible, but unlikely.

Regardless of anything else in this debate, I think that even with the most dominant of teams ever seen, this is an accurate description of their national title chances.

[monkey]

when I watch this team play ... I keep thinking of 1997-1998. That team would have made the final four but for one really bad 10 minute stretch.....

The comparisons aren't exact ... but a bunch of excellent young players in an uptempo offense with a sprinkling of upper classmen. DN gets to play the role of Roshown Mcleod.

[j.j. jones]

Contender? Why not! That thought occured to me near the conclusion of the game, after beating yet another solid top 20 team. Favorites? No. Top 3 or 4? No. But I think we've established that we belong in the top 10. The starting 5 is better than last year, as is the bench. The chemistry is there. The focus seems to be there. Sure, it's November. We still have to face a tough ACC guantlet. But the team is looking mighty fine thus far. Hope springs eternal.

[lavell12]

ya I think Duke's weakness inside could really hurt us. Plus any national title team has a go to guy that can put up points basically every night out and we don't have that guy yet, we have lots of guys that can score on a given night but no one guy who is automatic ala jayson williams, shane battier, jj redick, christian laetnar, johny dawkins.

[Methodistman]

ya I think Duke's weakness inside could really hurt us. Plus any national title team has a go to guy that can put up points basically every night out and we don't have that guy yet, we have lots of guys that can score on a given night but no one guy who is automatic ala jayson williams, shane battier, jj redick, christian laetnar, johny dawkins.

Apparently you haven't witnessed Singler, King, Paulus, Nelson,
Scheyer, or Henderson - any of whom I'd count on without hesitation to be automatic. OK - maybe that's a bit harsh - but I just have the confidence in this team that King has in his shot.

[DukeU3x]

Pre/early season optimism is an annual affliction, but thus far, we appear to be better than I expected. Let's wait a while for predictions of greatness...maybe until we play a couple of Conference road games?

[RelativeWays]

We've had some good tests against Illinois, Marquette and now Wisconsin. Duke is certainly capable, but it does depend on how we do in the conference. If there is anything to take away from November is colleges from the Midwest should not play us unless they want to lose.

[snowdenscold]

ya I think Duke's weakness inside could really hurt us. Plus any national title team has a go to guy that can put up points basically every night out and we don't have that guy yet, we have lots of guys that can score on a given night but no one guy who is automatic ala jayson williams, shane battier, jj redick, christian laetnar, johny dawkins.

Oh, I dunno about that. J-Will had a pretty bad national title game; Redick obviously had some stinkers too. We may not have the one player who is always going to do it, but as long as someone does (and thus far someone has)...

That said, I still say our chances are pretty low, but they're definitely non-zero!

Finally, hate to be that guy, but "jayson", "laetnar", "johny" ? - [cringe]

[kramerbr]

ya I think Duke's weakness inside could really hurt us. Plus any national title team has a go to guy that can put up points basically every night out and we don't have that guy yet, we have lots of guys that can score on a given night but no one guy who is automatic ala jayson williams, shane battier, jj redick, christian laetnar, johny dawkins.

I would take a well-balanced team of scorers over one guy who is relied upon to do all of the scoring and if he can't then the team is in trouble. As long as we have guys who can step up and get us a bucket when needed (Singler/Nelson) there are going to be 5-6 guys that can take over on any given night and give you 20-25 pts.

[pamtar]

Well, do ya?

[weezie]

Of course we're good! Geez, it's such a young team and this was their first big stage challenge. A whole lot bigger than Maui's rec gym.

Gonna be ok, believe that!

[Ben63]

We'll be very good but non conference is nothing like ACC games on the road. Playing Pitt is big but the loss should not be blow out of proprtion. A young Duke team lost the the prototype championship team. Senior led with key underclassmen contributing. See Duke 2001. Battier led with J-Will and a host of other contributing.

[pamtar]

We'll be very good but non conference is nothing like ACC games on the road. Playing Pitt is big but the loss should not be blow out of proprtion. A young Duke team lost the the prototype championship team. Senior led with key underclassmen contributing. See Duke 2001. Battier led with J-Will and a host of other contributing.

Good point, after last night Pitt, IMO, has catapulted up their to the ranks of UNC and UCLA. Although, I dont think UNC is as good as Pitt once (if) that guys knee gets better.

[Slant]

We're good! Top Ten good. Good enough, by year's end, to have a chance at an NCAA #1 seed. Talent, depth, and Coach K add up up to that.

But, just as an aside, I don't think the Pitt game was one of Coach K's best coaching jobs.

[Troublemaker]

This game was the first time Duke has shot poorly in a competitive game, as the only other game this season in which Duke shot poorly from outside was against Princeton. Certainly it will happen again as even the best 3-pt shooting teams have off nights, so this game will serve as the first of several data points. We need to find out if this team can develop a way to avoid a prolonged scoreless or near scoreless stretch on offense like the one we had against Pitt in the second half that allowed them to come back and take the lead. Therefore, I look forward to the next time Duke is shooting poorly in a competitive game to see if we can play better in that situation, to see if we can develop a consistent scoring play.

What might that play be? I thought during the offseason that the high-screen two-man game between Singler-and-guard would become a signature play for Duke this season, and it just hasn't happened. Singler remains an excellent big to set the high screen. He can pop for an outside shoot. He can slip the screen and score, he can take advantage of switches, etc etc. We need to find a guard that can run that play with him, though. The guard needs to be able to shoot, drive, and pass (especially through traffic if Singler slips the screen) and I'm not sure we have that complete offensive guard yet. No J-Wills to run the high screen like he did. If we can develop that guard that can run the high-screen with Singler efficiently, then all of a sudden we have a reliable "go-to play" that we can use to hopefully stop shooting droughts and for end-of-game situations.

[recruitdc]

go vote on for who you think will be acc player of the year.

http://accballers.blogspot.com/

[Patrick Yates]

This game was the first time Duke has shot poorly in a competitive game, as the only other game this season in which Duke shot poorly from outside was against Princeton. Certainly it will happen again as even the best 3-pt shooting teams have off nights, so this game will serve as the first of several data points. We need to find out if this team can develop a way to avoid a prolonged scoreless or near scoreless stretch on offense like the one we had against Pitt in the second half that allowed them to come back and take the lead. Therefore, I look forward to the next time Duke is shooting poorly in a competitive game to see if we can play better in that situation, to see if we can develop a consistent scoring play.



I wonder about the shooting. In the Princeton game, we were "cold." We had no trouble getting open looks, but they weren't falling. This was after a long flight, new gym, first of three straight games, so it was unsurprising that we had an off night. But we were getting open looks, so I was not that worried.

Last night concerned me, a little. Were we cold because we simply weren't hitting? I don't think so. Last night we went against a good team that had the athletes to play quality D. As a result, we got fewer good looks at the rim, especially from the outside. I think this is because our guys were not athletic enough to get separation from Defenders, which led to fewer open looks. To get open threes, we had to venture further afield. Kings's threes were from Brooklyn almost.

I fear that against the truly elite teams, one of which we will almost certainly face by the elite 8, we are not athletic enough to get the very open shots upon which our team feeds. Also, against these same teams, we will be unable to run. The only ways to run are to rebound, or to get steals. A ball lost out of bounds, offensive fouls, or walking, palming, etc, do not lead to run outs. The other team can get back on D when the ball is in-bounded.

I mean, we are a good team. But we are not a great team, and I see little chance of beating a great team.

Patrick Yates

[Troublemaker]

I wonder about the shooting. In the Princeton game, we were "cold." We had no trouble getting open looks, but they weren't falling. This was after a long flight, new gym, first of three straight games, so it was unsurprising that we had an off night. But we were getting open looks, so I was not that worried.

Last night concerned me, a little. Were we cold because we simply weren't hitting? I don't think so. Last night we went against a good team that had the athletes to play quality D. As a result, we got fewer good looks at the rim, especially from the outside. I think this is because our guys were not athletic enough to get separation from Defenders, which led to fewer open looks. To get open threes, we had to venture further afield. Kings's threes were from Brooklyn almost.

I fear that against the truly elite teams, one of which we will almost certainly face by the elite 8, we are not athletic enough to get the very open shots upon which our team feeds. Also, against these same teams, we will be unable to run. The only ways to run are to rebound, or to get steals. A ball lost out of bounds, offensive fouls, or walking, palming, etc, do not lead to run outs. The other team can get back on D when the ball is in-bounded.

I mean, we are a good team. But we are not a great team, and I see little chance of beating a great team.

Patrick Yates

I, again, disagree. My impression was that the shots we missed were open shots, including several layups. I was more concerned with turnovers and foul shooting than the inability to get open. And while Pitt is more athletic than Albany, they're not any more athletic than Marquette and we shot fine against those guys. Pitt is also a relatively short team, which means on close-outs they don't bother the shooter as much as longer defenders.

[pamtar]

Extra bumbage...

[billybreen]

Extra bumbage...

Wow, digging into the archives.

I agree, we can be really good this year. I remember seeing this thread back in October and thinking it was a bit optimistic. Now, I feel like a dork. But a very happy dork.

[camion]

Don't look now, but we are really good, not perfect, but REALLY good.

We might worry about how we'll handle the big inside players, but other teams have to worry how to handle our smalls. Unless the other team has three or four defensive stoppers they will have serious trouble with us.

[dukegirlinsc]

Duke is really good this year. Last year's team would have folded 50 times by now.

They're SO fun to watch.
I want it to keep going............
and carry over into football season, lol.

[Classof06]

Don't look now, but we are really good, not perfect, but REALLY good.

We might worry about how we'll handle the big inside players, but other teams have to worry how to handle our smalls. Unless the other team has three or four defensive stoppers they will have serious trouble with us.

Exactly. People who write Duke off because of size don't understand that matchups go both ways; where Duke might struggle to guard bigger players, those same big players are going to have to come out and guard players like Gerald and Kyle and Lance. And they're going to have trouble doing that. Like Gary Williams said after the Maryland game:

"People always talk about matchups, but matchups are on both ends of the floor...We scored well inside last night, but you still have to stop them. We couldn't stop them in the second half. A lot of times we had a bad matchup with our inside players. I thought it affected our team defense."