PDA

View Full Version : John Riek



duketaylor
08-20-2007, 09:17 AM
It's erroneous that Duke has offered, they have not. Plus the kid doesn't speak English from reports I've read; he should take the Evelyn Woodhead speed-reading (Sudanese-to-English) course;)

Watzone, heard anything?

gotham devil
08-20-2007, 04:46 PM
It's erroneous that Duke has offered, they have not. Plus the kid doesn't speak English from reports I've read; he should take the Evelyn Woodhead speed-reading (Sudanese-to-English) course;)

Watzone, heard anything?
He is doing the right thing to get away from OSNA (NY equivalent to Mt. Zion). Winchendon is a legitimate school and a structured program.

ACCBBallFan
08-21-2007, 02:26 AM
Here;s the Depaul perspective on John Riek

http://depaul.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=2125&tid=96216003&mid=96216003&sid=1143&style=2

Channing
08-25-2007, 06:35 PM
So I was working out at my cousins gym in New York, and there was John Riek training on the basketball court right in front of me. I watched him practice for about an hour and he is an absolute specimen. However, the word project definitel applies. He was running up and down the court with ease, but had a very fundamentally unsound jump shot. Abundant potential is the best way I could describe what I saw.

mgtr
08-26-2007, 02:28 AM
OK, the kid is a project. Is he intelligent enough to make it at Duke? Does he want an education or just NBA bucks? If he turns out to be a one and done, he may not bring enough to the party to warrant the one year. If he is a legit college prospect in addition to being a BBall project, then he may well be worth going after. Of course, there are schools which will court him no matter what, but I don't think that Duke should unless he looks like more than one year.

KrimsonKing
08-26-2007, 09:59 AM
The answer to that question is no.

VaDukie
09-18-2007, 07:34 PM
We've had some info on the other 3 targets but I haven't heard much about John Riek. This article linked earlier on the main page has him as a junior

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/hschool/2007/08/19/2007-08-19_the_tug_of_war_-2.html

While most recruiting websites have him listed as a senioir

http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?sport=2&pr_key=63042

Does anyone know what's going on here with eligibility/recruiting? A 7-2 guy would solve a lot of our frontcourt woes...

Indoor66
09-18-2007, 09:14 PM
A 7-2 guy would solve a lot of our frontcourt woes...

If he can play...and I don't agree that we have "frontcourt woes." :)

captmojo
09-18-2007, 10:33 PM
A kid, 7-2, who looks like he knows what the backboard is for...I can imagine good possibilities. This guy is most worthy of keeping an eye on, even if he'd be a short timer.

Carlos
09-19-2007, 02:08 AM
Last I heard was that there's a chance he's going to be reclassified and this next year of HS would actually be considered a year of prep school for him. If that's the case, he would eligible for the NBA draft next year.

Patrick Yates
09-19-2007, 08:59 AM
The recent prepstars handbook basically writes him off. The official word now is that Riek has a HS diploma from a school in Egypt. He turns 19 prior to the draft, and he is treating this year as a prep school year.

He has 0 interest in college. He has been very clear that he wants to play in the NBA. With a decent year on court, and solid work in the weight room, he could/should be a high lottery pick. There are no legal obsticles to his entering the draft next summer.

Riek will never attend college, so write him off. Next Play.

Patrick Yates

VaDukie
09-19-2007, 03:24 PM
The recent prepstars handbook basically writes him off. The official word now is that Riek has a HS diploma from a school in Egypt. He turns 19 prior to the draft, and he is treating this year as a prep school year.

He has 0 interest in college. He has been very clear that he wants to play in the NBA. With a decent year on court, and solid work in the weight room, he could/should be a high lottery pick. There are no legal obsticles to his entering the draft next summer.

Riek will never attend college, so write him off. Next Play.

Patrick Yates


Guess that settles it then. Any other news on big guys we're after in 09?

Patrick Yates
09-19-2007, 04:15 PM
On rivals and scout, very few "bigs" in 2009 currently list Duke. If I had to guess, and I do, I would say that is because Duke is more unclear re: post needs than at any time in recent memory.

In K's tenure, there have been periods where there was a definite need for a post, or no real need for a post. Our needs for the 2009 class, combined with K's relative inability (due to olympic committments) to evaluate, make it kind of a poo-poo shoot right now.

Consider:

Monroe and Czyz. Their committment to Duke, or not, or some combo, would really impact the decision of a 09 post. Further, IF Monroe commits, a post would have to wait and see if GM were a one-and-done or if he might be on campus for a few years. I think that this might be evident by Christmas, or even in summer pickup games during official visits. But their presence, or lack, would seriously impact Duke's needs/attractiveness.

Singler/Henderson. Singler is obvious, but GH is less so regarding his impact on post recruiting. Singler could absolutely blow up this year. He would be a Jr when the 09's arrive on campus, and would eat up a ton of minutes at the SF/PF position. His Jr year, it might be his team. Likewise GH, who could really be a star by then, perhaps lessening Duke's need for anything but a warm body in the post, of whom we have a couple. Of course, both could opt for early entry, opening up a huge need for interior players. Who Knows? Least of all recruits, ya dig?

Finally, LT and Zoubs. If you are a 2009 recruit, these two players are huge, and I mean HUGE, question marks. Both players will be seniors. As we all know, in K's system, familiarity breeds PT. Will these guys be up to shouldering the post load at Duke? If yes, then, as seniors they would be untouchable by any but the most elite and gifted player. Even then, LT and BZ would gobble up minutes. This makes Duke less attractive for a player that wants to play early and often. Conversely, if LT and BZ struggle again this year, after a off-season and year in the program, then that might signal to incomming recruits that these two would be easily supplantable, even as Srs.

Basically, we have a very uncertain post recruiting situation, concerns over talented current players who might not be here when the 09's show up, and major questions surrounding current post options.

For example, if, God Forbid, we get neither GM nor Czyz, Duke would jump way up the list for several posts due to more obvious need, within hours of GM (moreso than) or Czyz announcing . Same if BZ or LT struggle in some significant way. How KS and GH play out would differ player to player, but K could probably sell a kid on his place, even with those stars in place. But the GM/OC, and the BZ/LT situations greatly impact who Duke evaluates, and which players evaluate Duke. Right now, there is simply no way to accurately ascertain whom Duke is truly pursuing. Once K decides and gets going, he can get in on virtually any player.

That said, it is getting awfully late in the game in an era when more kids are set going into their Sr. Summer. Frankly, we kind of need GM to decide one way or another, sooner rather than later. Him being smartish, he is wisely (for him) taking his time.

Patrick Yates

Carlos
09-20-2007, 09:31 AM
Although not listed by either Scout or Rivals, I do know that Duke is very interested in Daniel Orton, a 6-9/260 post player from Oklahoma City. Things worked out pretty well with the last big man we got from down that way.

jimsumner
09-20-2007, 09:55 AM
I'm pretty sure Duke's interest in Orton is still pretty tentative at this point.

Patrick Yates
09-20-2007, 10:42 AM
The only guys Duke is for sure recruiting is Boynton and McDonald, two guards. A Williams commit will drastically alter their recruitment of course, but those are the only sure fire recruits.

I hate to say it, but our recent recruitment/evaluation of post players has seemed a little helter skelter. I hope K and the staff lock this down in the near future.

Patrick Yates

Jumbo
09-20-2007, 11:25 AM
I hate to say it, but our recent recruitment/evaluation of post players has seemed a little helter skelter. I hope K and the staff lock this down in the near future.

Patrick Yates

For someone who hates to say it, you sure do it a lot... ;)

JasonEvans
09-20-2007, 11:26 AM
I hate to say it, but our recent recruitment/evaluation of post players has seemed a little helter skelter. I hope K and the staff lock this down in the near future.


Yeah, I mean 2 years ago all we got were 2 Mickie Dees.
Then last year, all we got were two Mickie Dees.
And this recruiting year, all we are going after is the #1 big man in the class.

What is it with you and the negativity? Nothing is ever good enough for you, is it?

--Jason "sheesh!" Evans

Patrick Yates
09-20-2007, 12:03 PM
Yeah, I mean 2 years ago all we got were 2 Mickie Dees.
Then last year, all we got were two Mickie Dees.
And this recruiting year, all we are going after is the #1 big man in the class.

What is it with you and the negativity? Nothing is ever good enough for you, is it?

--Jason "sheesh!" Evans

Um, Zoubs wasn't a McD's. There was some howling about it here, but in retrospect leaving him off the roster was justified.

LT is 1 McD's post 2 years ago.

This past year, King is a SF who will be forced into the post. Even though he is not a true post I will give you .5 of a McD's on that one.

As for Singler, well, duh (but he is a combo player who will correctly spend some time on the perimeter, or at least outside the post).

But, of the 4 players you mentioned, only 3 were McD's AAs. 3 of the four are 6-8 or under. One of them (King) is going to be far more effective on the perimeter (at least on O, others have raised real questions regarding his D) for a few years.

As far as true "post" players, I see only one, that being Zoubs.

As for Monroe, I am not sorry that we are going after him. I am sorry that he is the only impact post we seemed to have pursued at all. I do not know why we did not pursue Dunigan, who at 6-9 245 and solid on D seemed like a Duke post ideal, from one of K's traditional recruiting areas, and one that will be in school for at least 2-3 years, but we didn't. C'est la vie.

It just seemed like K put all our eggs into 1 very uncertain basket. We have a real CHANCE to be special in 08-09, but we are a post presence away. Monroe would fit the bill to a T, but another post might have been good enough, and might not have scared GM off. Now, if GM wanted to commit early, that is one thing to focus exclusively on him. There would've still been time to create and pursue a plan B. But GM was very up front, and doing a good job of protecting his best interests in doing so, about waiting until spring, or summer, to decide. If that doesn't break Duke's way, there will be 0 fallback options.

So, in two years we have gotten 2 post McD's AA in Singler and LT (both combo sized players, neither being a Sheldon/Boozer sized post). BZ was not a McD's AA. King is a perimeter player. Duke only pursued 1 true post in the rising Sr class, and not a single true post in the rising Jr class currently lists Duke as even being under consideration. Many here mention Orton, but there is no proof there is mutual interest.

So yeah, I have concerns with our post player recruiting strategy.

Patrick Yates
One man's negativity is another man's realism.

Carlos
09-20-2007, 12:25 PM
The only guys Duke is for sure recruiting is Boynton and McDonald, two guards. A Williams commit will drastically alter their recruitment of course, but those are the only sure fire recruits.

I hate to say it, but our recent recruitment/evaluation of post players has seemed a little helter skelter. I hope K and the staff lock this down in the near future.

Patrick Yates

Patrick - you can add Hollis Thompson (6-6 SF) to the list of guys who they are certainly recruiting. K was out visiting him a week or so ago.

Carlos
09-20-2007, 12:38 PM
Yeah, I mean 2 years ago all we got were 2 Mickie Dees.
Then last year, all we got were two Mickie Dees.
And this recruiting year, all we are going after is the #1 big man in the class.

What is it with you and the negativity? Nothing is ever good enough for you, is it?

--Jason "sheesh!" Evans

Jason - I'm not as negative about things as you feel Patrick is, but the only post player Duke has brought in during the last two years has been Zoubek. Singler and Thomas are no more post players than Shane Battier was.

Everyone can crank up the stories of Carrawell defending Duncan (held him to 26 points and forced him to shoot just 85% from the field in that game!) or Duke's run to the 2001 title with just Casey, Shane, and Reggie Love in the post. But those past glories aren't going to help Singler when he has to defend James Mays in the post, or Thomas try to check Hansbrough, or Zoubek keep up with Ben McCauley.

Outside of Zoub every player that Duke will put in the post this year will be much better suited to playing a different position.

jawk24
09-20-2007, 01:26 PM
Amen Patrick and Carlos, your keeping it real!

jimsumner
09-20-2007, 01:41 PM
FWIW, Brian Zoubek was a Parade All-American.

Count me in the take-a-deep-breath-and-step-back-from-the-ledge-camp.

Thomas and Singler are no more post players than Battier? Battier seemed to manage.

Better suited to play another position than the post? How many true 5s did Duke have in the rotation in 1986? Or 1988? How about that Laettner, Hill, Koubek front line in 1991. They just bludgeoned people to death. Was Tony Lang a post player? How about Roshown McLeod? Or Luol Deng?

With a few exceptions--1989, 1990,1995, 1996, 2006-Duke has generally gone with lineups featuring wings at the 4 and 4s at the 5. I'm not especially worried about the continuation of a trend that has worked a lot more often than not.

K has always been an exceptionally selective recruiter, at least since 1982. Again, I'm not worried about the continuation of that trend, either.

If Duke misses on Monroe, Czyz, and the class of '09, then I'll start worrying. But we have to go back to 1981 to find a season when K missed on all his priority targets. Given that Duke has brought in seven prep A-As in the last two classes, I confess I'm not sure why everyone seems to think we're in for a repeat of 1981.

Patrick Yates
09-20-2007, 03:21 PM
Jason - I'm not as negative about things as you feel Patrick is, but the only post player Duke has brought in during the last two years has been Zoubek. Singler and Thomas are no more post players than Shane Battier was.

Everyone can crank up the stories of Carrawell defending Duncan (held him to 26 points and forced him to shoot just 85% from the field in that game!) or Duke's run to the 2001 title with just Casey, Shane, and Reggie Love in the post. But those past glories aren't going to help Singler when he has to defend James Mays in the post, or Thomas try to check Hansbrough, or Zoubek keep up with Ben McCauley.

Outside of Zoub every player that Duke will put in the post this year will be much better suited to playing a different position.


This is my point exactly. As for the above commentator about Battier doing OK? Well yes, he did. Keep in mind that he spent all four years playing next to a true post, Brand then Boozer, both of whom will be perenial NBA All-Star PFs.

I do not doubt that Singler has Shane like capabilities, nor that LT is a skilled player. But, both are very Shane like, only the Boozer/Brand character is missing. Would Shane have been such a great defender if he was guarding the true post all the time? Who knows.

Also, before anyone points out the 2001 run, Casey Saunders, while always an offensive liability, was a very capable defender, and a truly intimidating shot blocker, espeically during this run. And by the time we got to the FF Booz was solidly back in place.

Heck, even if Singler is nearly as good as Shane was as a Soph or Jr (Sr level skills are flat out impossible), there is no low post bruiser to be his sidekick.

Patrick Yates

Bud
09-20-2007, 03:34 PM
Duke is in good shape for all 3 of are 08 targets. 09 class as of right now Kenny Boynton and Hollis Thompson are the top two targets. Patrick you mentioned McDonald Duke has cooled of on him, if we do not get Elliot Williams McDonald will more than likley will get in offer. If we do get Williams look for us to not recruit McDonald. There is a premium board that I do not get access to but their is a another board that I get on that some of the guys that chat do get access to this premium board. These guys give of hints all the time to us and there is a big guy from the class of 09 that will be recieving a visit from the Duke coaching staff very soon. I do not have a name but I'm guessing Daniel Ortan or Greg Echenigue look for one of these two big men to get a visit from Duke real soon.

jimsumner
09-20-2007, 03:53 PM
In December 1997 Elton Brand broke his foot. Burgess and Domzalski got some increased PT as a result of the injury but the bulk of PT at the 4/5 went to Shane Battier and Roshown McLeod. I'm reasonably certain we can all agree that neither was a natural 5 at the college level and that neither could reasonably be classified as a bruiser, a banger, or anything in that neighborhood.

Duke went 14-1 in Brand's absence. The rest of the lineup, fwiw, was Carrawell and Chappell at the 3, Langdon and Wojo at guard, with a freshman Avery backing up both.

6th Man
09-20-2007, 04:25 PM
Battier was not a true 5, but he was pretty well put together and was a warrior. Singler isn't as strong as Battier. Plus C-Well was a pretty strong warrior. McLeod wasn't a string bean either. I think all of them would have been better equipped to bang than the slimmer Singler and Thomas. I would agree Duke has had success without a true 5, but I would argue that the guys playing out of position were pretty strong and athletic.

Patrick Yates
09-20-2007, 04:27 PM
In December 1997 Elton Brand broke his foot. Burgess and Domzalski got some increased PT as a result of the injury but the bulk of PT at the 4/5 went to Shane Battier and Roshown McLeod. I'm reasonably certain we can all agree that neither was a natural 5 at the college level and that neither could reasonably be classified as a bruiser, a banger, or anything in that neighborhood.

Duke went 14-1 in Brand's absence. The rest of the lineup, fwiw, was Carrawell and Chappell at the 3, Langdon and Wojo at guard, with a freshman Avery backing up both.

This coincided with a downturn in the ACC. Only UNC was on our level talent wise during this period, and they crushed us at Home. With Brand we eked out a win in CIS, and were soundly beaten by UNC in the ACC tourney. And I would dearly love to have a 6-9 240 lb player a la McLeod this year, or next. If we did, I would not be carping on this board. And, as you mention, Dom and Burgess were there and they played very solid minutes for us. Also, CC and Chappell (I thought he'd transfered by then, you sure it wasn't Nate Dog?) were capable of at least mixing it up down low. The only player like that for us is King, cause GH is way more of a perimeter guy than CC or Chappell.

Also, there is a major flaw with the "if it ani't broke, don't fix it" mentality of playing one true post (which again, outside of Zoub this years, and next years, is currently lacking) with wings playing the 3 and 4 slots.

THE BASKETBALL WORLD HAS COMPLETELY CHANGED SINCE THEN.

Players now HAVE to go to college. Many of the truly elite bigs were never a concern because they were sitting on the end of a bench in the pros. That time is gone. Last year we got killed by Wright, who would have been in the pros. Oden dominated--would'be been pro.

4 years ago a 6-9 240 lb kid might've been the biggest kid on the floor, and if he was at all athletic he would've been in the pros. Now, that just is not the case. This year, UNC has 3 capable low post players, with one of those being league MVP caliber, and one of the others being ALL-ACC caliber (2nd or 3rd team at least). NCSU has 3 true posts next year. Clemson, likewise. UCLA has 3 good, true post players. Memphis is like what we were, full of guards and wings, but they can rely on a athletic (if mentally deficient) 6-10 260 lb kid. OSU is bringing in two new post players. FSU has a returning post and an incoming post. G-Town has three true posts, any one of which I would love to have.

Not all of these guys were McD's AAs. But all the above posts are posts. They are big guys who play and defend back to the basket. They can beat and bang. Duke has, currently, only one of those. We have the prospect of adding one in Monroe, but there are no accounts that we are leading for him, so he is 50/50 at best.

We are not playing in the same world as a 3 years ago. We will soon be facing the type of posts that Duke has not seen recently, because they were in the pros. Big, strong, athletic bigs. Not just in the ACC, but in nearly every elite team which we might have to beat to get to the FF and beyond.

Personally, the old method of a Dorothy who's surrounded by the 4 dwarfs is looking less and less appealing.

Patrick Yates

ps: As for all the McD's AAs we have signed, well, a lot of them play the same position, Guard. Some are PGs, some are purely SGs, and some are a combo. But, you can only play so many guards and win the NC, and I think that number is 3 guards at one time. You then need at least 1 true low post player and one combo type forward. There are so many guards out there today. I cannot honestly say that our guards are SIGNIFICANTLY better than non-McD's AAs guards. I mean, those guys at VCU, BC, and UMD all looked pretty good, and they weren't McD's AAs. Sure, the McD's AAs are somewhat better, but not clearly better. As for posts though, Oden, Hawes, and Wright were significantly better than non-McDs posts, even as Frosh. We are loading up at the position where there is a huge number of quality players, who are not significantly better than players not attending Duke. The post is where the truly elite teams will differentiate themselves, and we aren't doing it.

jimsumner
09-20-2007, 04:58 PM
6'9" 240. Roshown McLeod? C'mon. Try 6'8", 220, about the same size as Lance Thomas.

Jumbo
09-20-2007, 05:36 PM
Hey, Patrick. Guess what? We get it. You know why we get it? Because you've posted the various derivations of this argument countless times.

That doesn't mean we have to agree with you. There are many ways to skin a basketball ... err .. cat. Duke, for all its interior deficiencies last year, lost to an even smaller team in the NCAA Tournament. In fact, for much of the VCU game, the biggest Ram on the floor was Michael Anderson -- all 6'7" 190 of him.

Yes, it would be nice if Duke added a pure post player, especially if Zoubek doesn't improve enough to take that role. Of course the the team would be better with another Brand, Boozer or Shelden in the middle. But the rest of your argument is hyperbolic, condescending and, most importantly, laughably wrong.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with surrounding one post guy with four perimeter-oriented players (especially when the fourth guy is a typical Duke hybrid 3/4). I'd take a player like Singler, Battier or Dunleavy at the "4" in college any day over a bruiser like Thompson or Stephenson. Not only is the college game built for inside/out guys that, not only is it foolhardy to play two pure posts together on a team whose system is based on pressure defense, motion offense, high screen/roll action and 3-point shooting, not only does having a more mobile 4 open things up inside for your coveted "pure post," but college isn't the only place where basketball is changing this way.

Have you watched an NBA game lately? Power forwards are becoming centers. Small forwards are becoming power forwards. Small-ball is in vogue. And teams like the Suns seem to win -- somehow -- with Shawn Marion at PF or even Boris Diaw in the middle. Battier played major minutes at the 4 for the Rockets last year -- and you think he couldn't play the 4 in today's college environment?

Puh-lease. Sure, the college landscape has changed. The 5-6 true bigs who would've gone pro are now going to school for a year. Big deal. That's nothing compared to what college was like in, say 1990, when no one was going pro out of high school and virtually everyone was staying two years. Bigs? You like bigs? Georgetown had freaking Mutombo AND Mourning. And Duke took care of them with Laettner and a bunch of athletic perimeter guys.

As long as Duke has an anchor in the middle, and a decent backup, everything will be fine. I'm much more concerned with finding the right 6'7"/6'8" inside/out guy to play the "4" in Duke's system. That was sorely lacking this year. Singler's presence will make an enormous difference.

So, I know you see yourself as the voice of reason, some shining beacon in a sea of Duke blue. Well, that's not the case. You've got an opinion, just like everyone else. It's not any more reasonable than Jim Sumner's opinion, and it's about time you stopped acting like it is, and repeating yourself constantly.

Yes, Duke could really use Greg Monroe. Yes, there are arguments to be made for him to go elsewhere. But you are completely wrong in assuming that fans automatically believe that Duke will get him. And your harping on the worst-case scenario is growing old. It would be great to land him. If not, hopefully Zoubek and Thomas develop enough to make it a moot point. There is no one, correct way to play basketball. The best coaches adjust to what they have.

Patrick Yates
09-21-2007, 12:41 AM
Yes, I am still beating the same tired drum. And it has to be getting old, because I have been posting a variation of this since last winter. Well, I am going to hammer away on the drum because the Team's Record appears to be Broken.

This past winter, as we looked towards the 07-08 and 08-09 teams, I lamented the fact that we were only pursuing Monroe as a post.

I was soundly shouted down with the the following arguments:

1. Monroe was a virtual lock. After all he once said that Duke was his childhood favorite. His committmant was forthcomming.

2. Duke was merely waiting for the summer to evaluate other post players, and the we had an excellant shot at either Dunnigan or a PTBNL (Player to be named later).

3. It was irrelevent because Duke would get Patterson.

4. It was irrelevant because Zoubs and LT would spend the summer in the weightroom/gym, and the would be vastly improved this year and very capable players by their jr years.

5. It was irrelevant because Duke would get a few quality bigs out of the 09 class, many of whom were highly interested in Duke.

These were the main themes in the "Patrick Yates hates Duke and is an idiot" palooza.

Well,

1. Still waiting on that GM commit. The"lock" is going to take all 5 visits, and whichever 5 he picks, all have a fair shot at him. Ask Wat. He "thinks" it will come down to Duke and LSU (and that itself is no lock), and that is pure conjecture on his part.

2. We never seriously pursued Dunnigan, or any other true post. (as a caveat, I like that we are pursuing Czyz, but by his own admission he is project, thereby missing the 08-09 season, aka, our best chance to win in the near future)

3. Have fun at Kentucky Patrick (great name).

4. According to reliable posters on this very board, Zoubs was not even channeling Eric Meek the Early Years (and that is a reasonable to low bar) during the pick up games, despite having a HUGE size advantage over the world in those games. Then his foot is broken, thereby wiping out that summer in the weightroom/gym. He may be back for the start of practice, but we all know that players, especially post players, do a huge part of their developing in the summer. And it has never been satisfactorily explained to me how Zoubs was supposed to hit the weightroom, or work on his post moves, with a bum foot. He can do bicep curls all the live long day. The boy needs to do some squats and work on his lower body strength, again, according to the consensus on the board.

As for LT, by his own admission in an earlier article he has not noticeably bulked up.

5. None of the 09ers is listing Duke.

So, as long as the situation doesn't change, I really see no need for my message to change. Specifically, my message is that something must change. We are going into this year heavy on wing players and short on post presence. We are doing the same thing we have done for the last 3-4 years, yet we are expecting a different/better result. That is the definition of something, but it temporarily escapes me.

Patrick Yates

ps: Comparing us to VCU? They beat us without a big? I certainly hope that Duke is aspiring to more than a second round NCAA flameout. I would point more towards G-Town, UCLA, FL, and yes, even UNC, as having the type of years we expect to have, being serious threats to get to the FF. VCU not having a post and beating us anyway is not a testament to their greatness, nor to the unimportance of post players. It was a testament to how far Duke has fallen, and how far we have go to get back to being an elite team. And so far, I am not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

Jumbo
09-21-2007, 02:21 AM
Yes, I am still beating the same tired drum. And it has to be getting old, because I have been posting a variation of this since last winter. Well, I am going to hammer away on the drum because the Team's Record appears to be Broken.

All behold Patrick Yates, Purveyor of Truth, enlightening the ignorant masses who can't find their way to the light.


This past winter, as we looked towards the 07-08 and 08-09 teams, I lamented the fact that we were only pursuing Monroe as a post.

I was soundly shouted down with the the following arguments:

I don't recall you being "soundly shouted down." Some people argued against you. Some people supported your points. Welcome to a bulletin board, mate.



These were the main themes in the "Patrick Yates hates Duke and is an idiot" palooza.

I don't recall that palooza. I do recall a festival entitled something like "Patrick Yates is rambling on about the same topic to the point where we could write his posts for him. Wake us when he has something new to add to the equation."


1. Still waiting on that GM commit. The"lock" is going to take all 5 visits, and whichever 5 he picks, all have a fair shot at him. Ask Wat. He "thinks" it will come down to Duke and LSU (and that itself is no lock), and that is pure conjecture on his part.

Yup, we should just give up, then. There's no virtue in patience.


2. We never seriously pursued Dunnigan, or any other true post. (as a caveat, I like that we are pursuing Czyz, but by his own admission he is project, thereby missing the 08-09 season, aka, our best chance to win in the near future)

Yup, we should just throw scholarships around to anyone Patrick Yates considers a "post" in a class that is unbelievably weak. Great idea. And what happens when said "post" is no better than Zoubek and Thomas as juniors. Good use of a scholarship.




3. Have fun at Kentucky Patrick (great name).

You win some, you lose some. This has happened at Duke since K first took over. Contrary to your misguided notion, Duke has lost recruiting battles for years. And sometimes it's not worth having a backup plan if it means just bringing in another "body."


4. According to reliable posters on this very board, Zoubs was not even channeling Eric Meek the Early Years (and that is a reasonable to low bar) during the pick up games, despite having a HUGE size advantage over the world in those games. Then his foot is broken, thereby wiping out that summer in the weightroom/gym. He may be back for the start of practice, but we all know that players, especially post players, do a huge part of their developing in the summer. And it has never been satisfactorily explained to me how Zoubs was supposed to hit the weightroom, or work on his post moves, with a bum foot. He can do bicep curls all the live long day. The boy needs to do some squats and work on his lower body strength, again, according to the consensus on the board.

Might as well give up on him, then. Why even play the season?


As for LT, by his own admission in an earlier article he has not noticeably bulked up.

See above.


5. None of the 09ers is listing Duke.
Because recruiting services are sooooo reliable. And K's really not going to be able to sign anyone from a given class. Riiiiight.


So, as long as the situation doesn't change, I really see no need for my message to change.

Yup, might as well keep repeating yourself until all you hear is the sound of crickets chirping. That's a productive activity.


Specifically, my message is that something must change.

Yup -- one off-year and it's time to scrap the system. Got it. When the going gets tough, ditch everything that's worked.


We are going into this year heavy on wing players and short on post presence.

Which, if the wings and hybrids play well, has proven to be a successful formula for Duke teams in many different eras.


We are doing the same thing we have done for the last 3-4 years, yet we are expecting a different/better result. That is the definition of something, but it temporarily escapes me.

Not even sure what that means, since Duke has signed plenty of "posts" in the last 3-4 years: Kris Humphries; Josh McRoberts; Eric Boateng; Brian Zoubek; Lance Thomas. You just don't like the results, not the approach.



ps: Comparing us to VCU? They beat us without a big? I certainly hope that Duke is aspiring to more than a second round NCAA flameout.

I think we all hope for more than that. But, according to you, the landscape has changed to the point where Size Matters. That didn't seem to be the case on a certain night in Buffalo.


I would point more towards G-Town, UCLA, FL, and yes, even UNC, as having the type of years we expect to have, being serious threats to get to the FF.

And your point is? Simply by playing two "posts," those teams were better than Duke? Is it possible there might have been other reasons for their success? Clearly, this one-year sample size is evidence that the only way to win now is by going big. Uh-huh.


VCU not having a post and beating us anyway is not a testament to their greatness, nor to the unimportance of post players. It was a testament to how far Duke has fallen, and how far we have go to get back to being an elite team. And so far, I am not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

Got it. VCU didn't win. Duke lost. And how much progress, exactly do you expect to have seen since then, considering Duke hasn't played a game in that time?

As I've told you before, everyone here would love to land another Brand/Boozer/Shelden. Guess what? They don't grow on trees. And some guys of their ilk might not be academically qualified to go to Duke. They might have character issues. They might be one-and-done types who would kill the chemistry of a team.
So, your solution, is massive backup plans. Except these backup plans might not be that talented. And clearly, if they're not that talented, you'll just rip K's recruiting. After all, you've already given up on Zoubek and Thomas, who might be considered "backup plans" (Thomas certainly was in the case of Brandan Wright).
Basically, you've painted a picture where Duke can't win unless K is involved with every highly rated big man in the country, and lands one in the early signing period. Because you've proven you're unwilling to a) show patience in the recruiting process b) believe holdovers can improve or c) recognize that alternative styles of basketball can win.

And, I'll say it again -- Duke won three national titles with a single-post anchor playing alongside a hybrid 3/4 (Brian Davis/Grant Hill and Battier). That worked in two different eras. Duke made the Final Four in another era with the same approach (Shelden/Deng) and were a few horrific officiatin calls away from that championship, too.

But keep viewing yourself as some sort of bastion of truth of enlightenment, Patrick. Clearly, your way, is the only way. The sky is falling -- all of Duke's post targets will head elsewhere and the guys already in the program won't develop. You've got Duke pegged. So, I ask again, why bother following the program anymore?

Carlos
09-21-2007, 10:47 AM
Jim -

I don't see the run in the 1998 season as analogous to Duke's upcoming season. In 1998 we got about 24 minutes per game out of the Taymon & Burgess combination during the time that Brand was out. Maybe we'll see the same number of minutes out of Zoubek, our only post player on the roster, but I seriously doubt it.

In 1998 we faced 4 teams in that stretch of the season that went on to make the NCAA Tournament. We played Clemson, FSU, Maryland, & UNC. Of those teams, Clemson was a guard driven offense that focused on McIntyre and Buckner first. Their primary inside guy was Harold Jamison who was big and experienced (6-8/260 JR). Maryland had Obinna Ekezie who was also big and experienced (6-9/250 JR) but in those days Gary was playing Duke in the same press and run fashion that he played everyone else and Duke just tore the Terps apart. FSU did use their big men, but their big men were Randell Jackson (6-11/215 JR) and Corey Louis (6-9/215). Defending those guys with a Shane Battier (6-8/220) or Kyle Singler (6-9/215) is considerably different than trying to check a post player who is 6-8/240.

In that run in 1998 the only Tournament opponent we faced that had both an offense geared towards interior scoring and big men with size and strength was UNC. This year Duke will see Clemson, NC State, and UNC who all have the talent and the offensive style to attack the inside first. In the case of Clemson and NC State the question is if their guards can get their big men the ball. Will they be like 1998's UNC with Jamison scoring 35 against Duke or will they be like 1998's Virginia with a great inside player like Norman Nolan and nobody to get him the ball?

It's also one thing to look at a series of games in 1998 and quite another thing to look at a team's potential for the season and, more importantly, the post season. Does Duke get by Oklahoma State in the second round of the 1998 NCAA Tournament if they don't have Brand playing 24 minutes that game? Does a team with Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas playing extensive minutes defending opposing centers have the goods to get to the Regional Finals or beyond?

Finally, I agree with you that I would rather have a Battier-type player at the 4 spot. What I don't want is to have him at the 5 spot and that's where we are.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure we will a bunch of games this year, make the tournament, and finish in the top 15 in the nation. But I also believe that we're one player away from being significantly better and find it troubling that our net hasn't been cast wider in finding that guy over the last few seasons.

watzone
09-21-2007, 10:59 AM
1. Still waiting on that GM commit. The"lock" is going to take all 5 visits, and whichever 5 he picks, all have a fair shot at him. Ask Wat. He "thinks" it will come down to Duke and LSU (and that itself is no lock), and that is pure conjecture on his part.

Actually, I think it is Duke, LSU and Georgetown And that is well researched conjecture;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Yates
5. None of the 09ers is listing Duke.

Because recruiting services are sooooo reliable. And K's really not going to be able to sign anyone from a given class. Riiiiight.

My premium section lists eleven 09 players who all mention or are seriously interested in Duke.

jimsumner
09-21-2007, 01:58 PM
Okay, should we talk about 1986, when Duke's post players were Jay Bilas, Mark Alarie, and Danny Ferry, all natural college 4s? Or '87 when John Smith started at center for a 24-9 team? Note that Smith, at 6'8", 215 averaged all of 3.3 rebounds per game that season. Anybody think Thomas can average 3.3 rebounds per game. Or 1988, when Duke went to the FF with a starting frontcourt of Danny Ferry, Billy King, and Robert Brickey? Or 1997, when Duke won the ACC regular season with a starting lineup down the stretch of McLeod, Carrawell, and three guards? Note that the '97 was much smaller than '08. Or '03, when Duke started Dahntay Jones at the 4 down the stretch and won the ACCT and made the S16?

I'm not saying that Duke has the ideal 4/5 rotation. I'm not saying that the
'08 Duke team couldn't benefit from having another power player or that the '09 team won't benefit from adding Monroe.

I am saying that Duke has been very successful at various times with a interior rotation that was short on power players and that K has demonstrated an ability to adapt to what his team does best. I also maintain that K's track record suggests that he and his staff know what they are doing when it comes to recruiting.

What do I expect from this season? I think Zoubek and Thomas can hold their own at the 5 and Duke can outplay darn near anyone else at the 1-4.
Singler, Nelson, Paulus, Henderson, Scheyer, Smith, Pocius, King, McClure. I think Duke can get the job done with that rotation. I would look for the understated-sarcasm icon here but don't want to be accused of offending anyone's sensibilties.

Ignatius07
09-21-2007, 02:29 PM
I think people are worrying more about Zoubek than they should be. As Jim points out, K has made do without true 5s in the past, and if Z is not ready for big-time minutes, some combination of him, LT, Singler, and McClure will suffice.

Amidst all this consternation over the post situation I think people are (for once) overlooking the potential problems at the point again. I think one of the big stories this season is how much Paulus has improved, and how ready Nolan Smith is to capably back him up. Smith doesn't seem to be a true 1, and we all know the troubles Paulus has had in the past - offensively, at least, why do people not expect this to be just as much of a problem as not having a steady post scoring threat?

jimsumner
09-21-2007, 02:41 PM
Paulus averaged 12 points and 4 assists last season, playing on a bad foot, after leading the ACC is assists the year before. An extra half-step quickness on D and a reduction in turnovers would be helpful but he has proven himself at the college level much more so than any of the post people we're talking about. Better health hopefully will help with the defense.

6th Man
09-21-2007, 03:18 PM
I guess only time will tell...and I agree with everyone that we have had success with smaller players. With the exception maybe of the unproven Kyle Singler, I don't think the guys we have filling the frontcout positions are as talented as those in the past. They may have been smaller frontcourt guys, but they were serious players. Brickey was a tremendous athlete, C-Well was ACC POY his senior season, King was maybe one of the greatest defenders ever. Alarie was superb.....I just don't see Thomas or McClure or Zoubs, being at that level. Duke has proven you can win without a traditional 5, but these guys in the past were very talented. I think Thomas has the most upside, and may perform much better this year, but I would take Brickey, C-Well, McLeod, D. Jones, Alarie, B. King, anyday over Thomas, McClure or Zoubek. (not really including Singler as we don't know yet what he can do on the college level). I am EXCITED to see him though!. What an amazing run we had with big guys though......correct me if I am wrong, but the big men we had never overlapped and we went straight from Brand to Boozer to S. Williams. That is quite a run and I think that is why we won so many straight ACC Championships! Probably one of the most amazing feats in college basketball was our ACC tournament run and that had a lot to do with our run of those BIG 3 players. Man I miss those guys!

JasonEvans
09-21-2007, 03:46 PM
The best part about this whole urinating match is that K really is not a fan of anchoring a team around a "traditional" post player. Look at a kid like Eric Boateng and how much he struggled to understand and play within the Duke defensive scheme.

Patrick would probably love it if we were going hard after a top-20 kid who was 6-10+, had no perimeter skills, and limited mobility. Sadly, such a kid is likely to stuggle to play the kind of ball Coach K likes to play. So, recruiting that player could end up with the kid languishing on the bench or transferring and no one benefitting from the relationship.

The bottom line is that there is a zero percent chance that anyone who stands taller than 6-9 and has stud-like post skills is going to show up on campus in the next few months. We go into battle this season with the roster we have right now. Yes, it would be nice if we had an extra big man, no one denies that, but we've been burned by some early entries and some poor recruiting luck a few times lately and it just has not worked out. It is not like K has refused to recruit anyone over 6-8 in height.

As for next year, we are in the final 2 or 3 for the best big man in the class. We are not looking at other guys because it is an unusually weak class for big men and several of our current post players will still be in school next year and should be extremely experienced and successful by then. So, we are focussing on the excellent class of 2009 (and are supposedly making a push for Daniel Orton, the #1 center in the class).

Maybe I am missing something. How is any of this not a really, really sound and smart recruiting strategy?

--Jason "by the way, I will be LMAO when LT and/or BZ bust out a bit this year and prove all the doubters wrong" Evans

gw67
09-21-2007, 03:50 PM
jimsumner - During the last third of the season from February 1st to mid-March, Paulus averaged 17.5 ppg, 3.8 apg and 3.3 topg. He needs to cut down on his turnovers and to do a better job of getting the team into its' offense but, IMO, he is less of a question mark than the frontcourt.

gw67

jimsumner
09-21-2007, 04:56 PM
GW67,

I agree with you on Paulus. I wasn't the one questioning him. I was defending him.


"Brickey was a tremendous athlete, C-Well was ACC POY his senior season, King was maybe one of the greatest defenders ever. Alarie was superb.....I just don't see Thomas or McClure or Zoubs, being at that level"

Let's examine this more closely. Your examples support my contention that K has traditionally been successful in adapting to a team's abilities.

Brickey-Great athlete, solid rebounder, defender, high-energy, great in transition. But he also was a 6'5" guy with limited abilities as a shooter, passer and ball-handler. For his career he made two three-pointers, was a 62% foul shooter, averaged just over one assist per game (146 assists, 277 turnovers). Obviously, a limited player. Yet he started on three Final Four teams. He played post in 1988 but moved to the wing in '89 and '90, despite the absence of any of the traditional wing offensive skills.

King-arguably the best on-the-ball-defender-in Duke history. A much better ball handler than Brickey. But he never made a 3 at Duke and was a 48% foul shooter. In 1988 he averaged 5.1 points per game as a starter, playing about 28 minutes per game. Again, a limited player who succeeded in K's system.

Carrawell-sure he was ACC POY in 2000; In 1997, the only year he played much inside, he was an undersized freshman 4 who averaged 10.1 points and 3.7 rebounds per game. Not shabby but not off the charts either.

Alarie-one of my favorites. Probably has never received the acclaim he was deserved. Not all that flashy and he was in the same class as Dawkins, who was flashy and pretty darn good to boot. Alarie was a two-time first-team All-ACC player, a third-team All-America, the 18th pick in the NBA draft. Averaged 10.5 ppg in his best NBA season.

Kyle Singler has never played a single varsity game at Duke and he could flame out. But I'd be real surprised. And he'll never match Alarie's career stats at Duke because if he's as good as that, he won't play four seasons. But. . . Is it unrealistic to think that KS will end up being drafted higher than 18th in the draft? Or that he'll have seasons when he averages more than 10.5 ppg in the pros? Or make first or second team All-America sometime at Duke. Alarie averaged 13 points, 6.5 rebounds, and 1 assist per game as a freshman, not making a single one of the ACC's 17'9" 3-pointers that season. Would anybody be surprised to see Singler surpass those stats? Or the 16 points and 6 rebounds he averaged for his Duke career? I'm pretty certain he'll do better than Mark's 1.1 assists per game and would be pleasantly surprised to see him become as good a defender as Mark.

Duke needs an effective 80 mpg at the 4/5 from Singler, Thomas, Zoubek, McClure, and King. I think that is doable. Sure, Brickey, Carrawell, King, and Alarie could do some things better than this year's guys but I feel confident that this year's guys can do some things better than those guys. Let K work with what he's got and I'll take my chances.

Jumbo has asked that we limit our repitition. I fear that I can't add much more to this discussion without overloading the -I've-heard-that-before-meter. So, unless this takes a new turn, I'll end my participation in this thread.

Carlos
09-22-2007, 10:23 AM
Okay, should we talk about 1986, when Duke's post players were Jay Bilas, Mark Alarie, and Danny Ferry, all natural college 4s? Or '87 when John Smith started at center for a 24-9 team? Note that Smith, at 6'8", 215 averaged all of 3.3 rebounds per game that season. Anybody think Thomas can average 3.3 rebounds per game. Or 1988, when Duke went to the FF with a starting frontcourt of Danny Ferry, Billy King, and Robert Brickey? Or 1997, when Duke won the ACC regular season with a starting lineup down the stretch of McLeod, Carrawell, and three guards? Note that the '97 was much smaller than '08. Or '03, when Duke started Dahntay Jones at the 4 down the stretch and won the ACCT and made the S16?



It's important to point out that in 1986 the guys that Duke had in the post were 6-8/215 (both Alarie and Bilas) and 6-10/230. This came at a time when Brad Daugherty at 235 lbs. was considered a strong big man. Today, the guys playing the 5 for most teams are in the 250 lb. range.

I'd also point out that the 1986 team also had a very strong perimeter game to go along with those post players. And while Duke's team this year will have a very good perimeter game I don't expect any of the guys on the team to win a NPOY award or finish as Duke's all time leading scorer.

The same holds true for the other late 1980's comparisons. In fact, it's your 1997 and 2003 comparisons that are more appropriate and I'd even add to that 2002. The 1997 season ended with the second seeded Blue Devils getting pounded on the boards as 10th seeded Providence outrebounded them by 20 and sent them home.

2003 saw Duke bounced out in the S16 when Kansas outrebounded them by 14. It's also important to note that while the 2003 team did indeed have Dhantay Jones playing the 4, they also had Shelden Williams playing the 5. The debate right now isn't about playing undersized at some of the frontcourt positions, it's about having nobody on the team who matches up well to defend the guys like McCauley, Costner, Hansbrough, or Mays or any of the other big men Duke is likely to see in the tournament.

Cali-Duke
10-15-2007, 06:41 PM
Does anyone know anything about John Riek's college choice?

Also, he is a post grad right? So he should be coming to college next year...This would help with our lack of post depth if he comes next year. Plus, Georgetown was on his list, so now that they have John Riek, he might be inclined to come here.

Thoughts?

Ignatius07
10-15-2007, 06:59 PM
I seem to remember reading that Riek does not have to go to college because he is a post-grad, and that most likely he'll be going straight to the league. I'm sure Watzone or Jim might have a better idea, though.

jimsumner
10-15-2007, 07:26 PM
I'm not sure if all the Ts have been crossed but my understanding is that he is well along the way to proving that he is a high school grad, playing post-grad ball this season and thus eligible for the '08 NBA draft. Unless somebody throws a curve ball into the equation, I think it highly unlikely he will ever set foot on a college court.

lavell12
10-22-2007, 06:51 PM
http://duke.scout.com/a.z?s=167&p=8&c=1&nid=3291662

This guy is in the class of 2008 and he is a five star recruit who plays Center and Duke is targeting him.

I haven't heard about him does any know anything about him or his situation about possibly being a Blue Devil.

Channing
10-22-2007, 07:34 PM
http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3964&highlight=John+Riek

jimsumner
10-22-2007, 07:34 PM
Riek apparently graduated from a high school in Africa and is trying to play this season as a post-graduate, thereby making himself eligible for the 2009 NBA draft. I do not believe this is a done deal but the consensus at this time is that it is highly unlikely that he will ever wear a college uniform.

watzone
10-23-2007, 05:31 PM
Duke is no longer recruiting John.

Houston
12-18-2007, 10:26 AM
Enclosed is a link to a great John Riek read from the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/sports/schools/basketball/articles/2007/12/18/a_basketball_odyssey/

Dukefan4Life
01-11-2008, 01:54 PM
With the 08 class consisting of elliot "E-mail" Williams and Olek Czyz, should we also get 7"2 240lbs center John Riek? I think we could use this guy if he is just a project.. I have seen a few videos of him and he is a shot blocker and plays with alot of heart..

Clipsfan
01-11-2008, 01:58 PM
As was discussed in other threads, apparently his prep year may make him eligible to go to the NBA next year, which he is expected to do.

Dukefan4Life
01-11-2008, 02:03 PM
I must have missed the topic.. so he isnt going to college next year and making the leap to the nba? from what ive seen of him, i think he could use a few years playing college hoops

Clipsfan
01-11-2008, 02:14 PM
I must have missed the topic.. so he isnt going to college next year and making the leap to the nba? from what ive seen of him, i think he could use a few years playing college hoops

I'm only repeating what others have said on the board and don't know for sure. However, needing some time in college doesn't keep big men from getting drafted. Bynum (a stud all of a sudden) could have used some time in college as well, but was drafted around where Riek might go. Now, a couple years later, he's showing that he did develop while mainly riding the pine in the NBA.

ThatDukeFan1
01-11-2008, 02:58 PM
john riek is looking to jump into the NBA draft. the reason he hasn't declared, and the reason he has colleges listed is because his official birth certifigate was lost, and they're not exactly sure of his actual age. he's "supposivley" 20 years old (or maybe 21? i'm not sure) he's in the process of being cleared to go on and proceed into the NBA draft. he'll eventually be cleared, their isn't a doubt in my mind about it.

HOWEVER, if he's not cleared he won't be in a duke uniform. he's taken a lot of interest in UCONN and he has some connections with calhoun. so if for some wacky reason he doesn't go to the NBA, then UCONN is his next stop.

SeattleIrish
01-11-2008, 02:59 PM
I must have missed the topic.. so he isnt going to college next year and making the leap to the nba? from what ive seen of him, i think he could use a few years playing college hoops

One of our best and brightest posters had this to say about him on another thread (o.k., it was me...):





The kid scored 2 points in his most recent highschool game. I've never seen the kid play, but this is the most recent article I could find on him and it isn't pretty (I just pasted the first couple paragraphs, not the whole article...delete if that's not allowed):

"SOUTH ORANGE, N.J. - John Riek may well play in the NBA one day, but he certainly didn't appear ready on Saturday.



John Riek

The 7-foot-2, 240-pound native of Khartoum, Sudan scored just 2 points on 1-of-6 shooting as his Winchendon (Mass). School beat St. Benedict's Prep, 59-49, at the Hoop Group Tip-Off Classic at Seton Hall.

Winchendon (8-4) won behind 25 points from 6-5 wing Larry Anderson and 21 from Anthony Raffa of Wildwood, N.J. Riek, the former Our Savior of New American star ranked the No. 1 center in the Class of 2008 by Rivals, did have a game-high 12 rebounds and 5 blocks.

"I need to work on offense," said Riek, who is fluent in Arabic and his tribal language of Nuer but speaks limited English.

He averaged 13 points, nine rebounds and four assists last season at Our Savior in Centereach, N.Y., but still has a long way to go offensively.

"He's capable of changing the game defensively," recruiting analyst Tom
Konchalski said after the game. "Offensively, his game is in its infancy. He has some good habits where he always keeps the ball high.

"The game is a litle too quick for him right now. That's the biggest thing. It's not only a lack of strength, but the game is a little too quick for him. Down the road, he could be an NBA center in a number of years. But the pot of gold is at the end of the rainbow in his case, not at the beginning."

Riek, 18, came to the U.S. in January from the civil war-stricken Sudan, where he has already lost an older brother, Diewo, at the hands of the police.

His coming out party came in July when he wowed scouts at the LeBron James US Skils Academy in Akron, Ohio.

"The NBA scouts who saw him down there told me that he was, beside Roy Hibbert, the second best center prospect draftable," Winchendon coach Mike Byrnes told SI.com's Kevin Armstrong."

http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.c...asp?cid=751717

s.i.

jimsumner
01-11-2008, 03:05 PM
The story on Riek seems to change with some regularity. But I believe the variable is whether he graduated from a high school in Africa, thus making him a post-graduate this year, and thus eligible for the 2008 NBA draft.

And yes, lots of not-ready-for-prime-time-big men get drafted pretty high up. Paging Leon Smith, Robert Swift on line 1.

Clipsfan
01-11-2008, 03:20 PM
The story on Riek seems to change with some regularity. But I believe the variable is whether he graduated from a high school in Africa, thus making him a post-graduate this year, and thus eligible for the 2008 NBA draft.

And yes, lots of not-ready-for-prime-time-big men get drafted pretty high up. Paging Leon Smith, Robert Swift on line 1.

Yes...I chose to point out one which will only serve to encourage that trend (Bynum) rather than the ones which we're still unsure about (Milicic) or the many busts.

whereinthehellami
01-11-2008, 03:27 PM
John Reik Dunk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-4qZGcfTew

Its all about potential. He has alot to lose by going to college and possibly getting exposed as lacking in some areas.

yancem
01-11-2008, 04:30 PM
Why do we keep talking about this guy? It seems like every other week someone starts a new thread asking about him and why aren't we trying to sign him. He's not likely to go to college and if he did he probably isn't going to come to Duke and if he did he would probably be more of a distraction than an asset.

I think it is time to move on and concentrate on players that Duke is interested in and are interested in Duke.

Next play!

devildeac
01-11-2008, 07:29 PM
The story on Riek seems to change with some regularity. But I believe the variable is whether he graduated from a high school in Africa, thus making him a post-graduate this year, and thus eligible for the 2008 NBA draft.

And yes, lots of not-ready-for-prime-time-big men get drafted pretty high up. Paging Leon Smith, Robert Swift on line 1.

They were indeed some fine NBA draft choices by some wise GM's(I hope most, if not all folks here realize I am kidding and NOT making fun of Jim).

Uncle Drew
01-12-2008, 09:34 AM
Why do we keep talking about this guy? It seems like every other week someone starts a new thread asking about him and why aren't we trying to sign him. He's not likely to go to college and if he did he probably isn't going to come to Duke and if he did he would probably be more of a distraction than an asset.

I think it is time to move on and concentrate on players that Duke is interested in and are interested in Duke.

Next play!

You are probably correct about everything you say but here are the reasons his name keeps getting brought up.

1. He's 7'2"!!!!!! And not with Shawn Bradley's frame.

2. Zoubek hurt his foot, and like it or not there are doubters he will be a truly dominant center for Duke. I for one think he has made huge strides, I hate he got hurt and I think the more playing time he gets the better he will get. I am SOOOOO freakin' sick of him getting all ball on a clean block and getting called for a foul!

3. He's the only quality (By rankings, EVERYONE says he's a project.) left in the 2008 that could possibly suit up for Duke NEXT year. So it's hopes and wishes for immediate height inside.

4. He lists Duke and is still undecided on the recruiting sites, which leave him open to speculation. Personally I believe Jim has the whole situation spelled out to a tee. But we got led on with Patterson, there are dreamers who can hope cards fall into place.

5. People fantasize about having two 7'+ guys as a front line for Duke next year. The odds of it happening are about as remote as Iran having a Navy consisting of more than speedboats, but it could happen.

I agree we need to forget about the guy. But I do have to ask if anyone at Ohio State actually saw Greg Olden's birth certificate. I KNOW that guy is at least 30!

OZZIE4DUKE
01-12-2008, 10:40 AM
But I do have to ask if anyone at Ohio State actually saw Greg Olden's birth certificate. I KNOW that guy is at least 30!

He's not close to being 30. 50 maybe, but not 30.

jimsumner
01-12-2008, 10:41 AM
Riek may continue to list Duke but I'm not at all sure that Duke is continuing to list Riek.

Lord Ash
01-12-2008, 12:57 PM
Ahhh two seven footers... that would be very un-Duke-like.

What has been the biggest team we've ever had at Duke? I can't remember anything ever close to that obviously, but...

Memphis Devil
01-12-2008, 01:05 PM
I may be asking a stupid, but has Duke ever had good (great) team with a 7 footer featured prominently in the middle? I know that we have had plenty of 6'10" and 6'11" guys and also our share of 6'8 and 6'9" guys. But, I don't remember a dominant 7 footer (my fandom dates back only to the late 80's).

It seems to me that we would be better served to continue to recruit the type of player that we have had the most success with: athletic 6'8" to 6'10". I say this mainly because there always seems to be such a huge difference between the athletic make-up of a 6'10" kid compared to that of a 7 footer. Understandably so, most young 7 footers just don't seem to be comfortable with their body coming into college. Perhaps it is the large growth spurt required to crack that 7' barrier, but the coordination and agility just never seem to be there at age 18.

Also, considering the style of Duke's play, I would prefer to see a mobile big man that can hold his own in the paint (defensively) but not become a liability in our motion offense or on the break. In my opinion, this seems to be handled better with "smaller" big man. For every Jon Riek (project 7 footer) there always seems to be 15 or so 6'8" to 6'10" guys ready to step in and play major D1 basketball as a freshman. Considering we are not building a franchise, I would rather see us pass on the project bigs. Of course sometimes it works out (see Roy Hibbert) but more often than not it doesn't (see Serge Zwikker).

This is of course just my opinion.

Lord Ash
01-12-2008, 01:06 PM
For the record, I think Serge worked out just perfectly.

Clank!


Clank!

jimsumner
01-12-2008, 01:18 PM
I understand the fascination with seven-footers but the practical difference between 6'11" and 7'0" is pretty much non-existent. Both Mike Gminski and Christian Laettner were listed as 6'11" and they played on some decent teams. Jay Buckley, Hack Tison, Alaa Abdelnaby, and Cherokee Parks were listed as 6'10" and all four three started in NCAA title games for Duke. And Danny Ferry is 6'10".

yancem
01-12-2008, 07:15 PM
Ahhh two seven footers... that would be very un-Duke-like.

What has been the biggest team we've ever had at Duke? I can't remember anything ever close to that obviously, but...

I believe that Martin Nessley, George Burgin and Zoubek are the only true 7 footers that have played at Duke. Nessley and Burgin over lapped by one season. Danny Ferry and Alaa Abdelnaby were also on that team and they were both 6'10", which probably makes that team Dukes tallest. Incidentally, the season was 1987 which was the only season that Duke didn't get to the final four between 1986-1992.

OZZIE4DUKE
01-12-2008, 08:54 PM
I believe that Martin Nessley, George Burgin and Zoubek are the only true 7 footers that have played at Duke.

Perhaps, but Mike Gminski was 7 feet w i d e. There is a reason why Al McGuire nicknamed him "the aircraft carrier".

jimsumner
01-12-2008, 10:18 PM
Duke's biggest team was probably 1989. You had Ferry, Abdelnaby, Laettner, Burgin, Clay Buckley, and Crawford Palmer, all listed between 6'9" and 7'0". Add John Smith at 6'8", although by that time Smith was playing mostly on the wing. Still, that's a lot of size. Of course, only Ferry, Abdelnaby, and Laettner got any appreciable PT.

riverside6
01-12-2008, 11:04 PM
I believe that Martin Nessley, George Burgin and Zoubek are the only true 7 footers that have played at Duke. Nessley and Burgin over lapped by one season. Danny Ferry and Alaa Abdelnaby were also on that team and they were both 6'10", which probably makes that team Dukes tallest. Incidentally, the season was 1987 which was the only season that Duke didn't get to the final four between 1986-1992.

Just to confirm, I ran it in our database and you are correct, Zoubek, Nessley, and Burgin are the only 7 footers that came up.

For those curious, here are the counts of 7 footers for each ACC team (all players since 1954)



CL 1
DU 3
FS 4
GT 4
MD 3
NC 2
SC 1
ST 6
VA 3
VT 1
WF 5

JBDuke
01-13-2008, 12:08 AM
Just to confirm, I ran it in our database and you are correct, Zoubek, Nessley, and Burgin are the only 7 footers that came up.

For those curious, here are the counts of 7 footers for each ACC team (all players since 1954)



CL 1
DU 3
FS 4
GT 4
MD 3
NC 2
SC 1
ST 6
VA 3
VT 1
WF 5



One of the things that will throw off your database, though, is that Dean Smith used to routinely lie about the heights of his tallest players. Part of his gamesmanship, I guess. (Personally, I think it was just part of his devious nature, but I know I can hardly be unbiased in my opinions about the man.) Back in the mid-80's, neither Brad Daugherty nor Warren Martin were listed as 7-footers, but IIRC, they both easily cleared the mark.

Memphis Devil
01-13-2008, 04:53 AM
I understand the fascination with seven-footers but the practical difference between 6'11" and 7'0" is pretty much non-existent. Both Mike Gminski and Christian Laettner were listed as 6'11" and they played on some decent teams. Jay Buckley, Hack Tison, Alaa Abdelnaby, and Cherokee Parks were listed as 6'10" and all four three started in NCAA title games for Duke. And Danny Ferry is 6'10".

Yes, the difference between 6'11 and 7'0 is minimal, but the difference I was referring to is the seemingly substantial difference in development. Perhaps it is because there are just fewer 7'0 footers to gauge, but 6'10 and 6'11 bigs just seem more developed athletically (agility, coordination, etc.).

Of course there are plenty of 6'10 and 6'11 projects that don't pan out (we certainly have seen our share come and more often go) but cracking that 7'0 barrier just seems to change things developmentally. They just seem to take longer to get used to their bodies often appearing gangly and uncoordinated out on the basketball court (understandably so).

As much as I love the idea of a 7'0 holding down the paint, terrifying all who come near, I would much rather have a Laettner-Ferryesque type of player who can play with his back to the basket, knock down open jumpers, and hold his own defensively. The 6'10-6'11 player just seems to have developed faster or be able to develop faster than most 7'0.

crote
01-13-2008, 06:15 AM
John Hollinger recently had an interesting piece talking about the myth of the disappearance of the center from the NBA (I'd link it, but it has since gone to Insider). His take was that a lot of guys who play the role of the classic, low post, back to the basket center prefer to be listed as PF (Duncan and Howard were two examples he listed). He suggested this was because many players associate the center position with a limited skill set which they do not want to be associated with.

Hollinger also suggested that there are a lot more 7 footers in the league than rosters would have you believe, it's just that a lot of guys want to avoid the circus freak status of being a 7+ feet tall. That's why you see so many guys listed at 6'11" out there.

Interesting stuff.

JasonEvans
01-13-2008, 07:57 AM
Back in the mid-80's, neither Brad Daugherty nor Warren Martin were listed as 7-footers, but IIRC, they both easily cleared the mark.

Warren Martin had a 7-foot butt!

http://i.pbase.com/g3/47/597147/2/53846851.Onebigbutt.jpg

--Jason "I just could not find a photo of the man himself, so this elephant butt will have to do" Evans

Buckeye Devil
01-13-2008, 08:07 AM
I forgot about Warren. Subway should have used him on that commercial where the guy tries to photocopy his butt in place of a fast food receipt.

Carlos
01-13-2008, 10:17 AM
As much as I love the idea of a 7'0 holding down the paint, terrifying all who come near, I would much rather have a Laettner-Ferryesque type of player who can play with his back to the basket, knock down open jumpers, and hold his own defensively. The 6'10-6'11 player just seems to have developed faster or be able to develop faster than most 7'0.

Personally I'd rather have someone in the Brand-Boozer-Williams mold, the 6-9 bull who can get you points in the paint but has the mobility to play Duke style defense. Unfortunately, those guys aren't all that common.

duketaylor
01-13-2008, 10:30 AM
"Unfortunately, those guys aren't all that common."
Or they choose to go elsewhere:(
Last two misses really hurt.
I really like PP's game.

Madrasdukie
01-19-2008, 09:12 PM
I was just wondering if anybody knows anything about this scout.com link:
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=8&c=1&nid=3291662

In brief the link states that a 5-star center (John Riek) from the class of 2008 has an offer from Duke.

loran16
01-19-2008, 09:17 PM
I was just wondering if anybody knows anything about this scout.com link:
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=8&c=1&nid=3291662

In brief the link states that a 5-star center (John Riek) from the class of 2008 has an offer from Duke.

Please use the search function if you have a question like this....we've talked a bit about this, and it keeps coming up.

Riek is very likely to be ruled ELIGIBLE for the NBA draft, and thus will skip college alltogether. Thus, he's not worth talking about.

Turtleboy
01-19-2008, 09:17 PM
I don't see it. Where in the link does it say that?

Saratoga2
01-19-2008, 09:20 PM
I don't see it. Where in the link does it say that?

What I read is that his age is in question. Maybe he is already 20 or will be by next season, that was the speculation. He definitely is interested in the NBA and they are interested in him. We probably will not go after him under those circumstances.

Patrick Yates
01-19-2008, 09:41 PM
There was a lot of speculation that Riek was eligible for, and would thus go to, the pros, earlier this summer.

This was largely based upon him dominating, at least on D, at some summer camps. His actual performance on court his year has been spotty, at best. He may not be such a sure fire NBA pick after all. Maybe a year or two in college might not be the worst thing that ever happened to him.

This is still highly unlikely. He probably goes pro, no matter how far he drops, if he is able. And his english is spotty, so I don't know how that affects his test scores/admission to Duke. But if a kid like Vasquez at UMD can get eligible, with his "grasp" of the English language, Riek can maybe play in Durham.

It just seems that two months ago, every article about Riek talked about him going pro. And he got a lot of mentions on Recruiting sites. With his on court performance, that has really dried up. He may have to go to college.

Patrick Yates

RelativeWays
01-19-2008, 11:52 PM
I believe that Martin Nessley, George Burgin and Zoubek are the only true 7 footers that have played at Duke. Nessley and Burgin over lapped by one season. Danny Ferry and Alaa Abdelnaby were also on that team and they were both 6'10", which probably makes that team Dukes tallest. Incidentally, the season was 1987 which was the only season that Duke didn't get to the final four between 1986-1992.

What about 89' which had Abdelnaby and Laettner?

yancem
01-20-2008, 12:39 PM
What about 89' which had Abdelnaby and Laettner?

As mentioned above:

Duke's biggest team was probably 1989. You had Ferry, Abdelnaby, Laettner, Burgin, Clay Buckley, and Crawford Palmer, all listed between 6'9" and 7'0". Add John Smith at 6'8", although by that time Smith was playing mostly on the wing. Still, that's a lot of size. Of course, only Ferry, Abdelnaby, and Laettner got any appreciable PT.

I originally was answering a question whether or not Duke ever had 2 7ft's. I then speculated on the '87 team being the biggest. Jim expertly corrected that notion. I had forgot about Buckley and thought Burgin was gone by then. Oh, well

watzone
02-18-2008, 12:32 PM
No! Some boards never update there lists. Duke is no longer recruitng him and it's been that way for a long time.

Pak Song
04-03-2008, 02:47 AM
Duke had twin 7 footers in 63-64 and 62-63. Jay Buckley was listed at 6-10 due to Bubas's insistance but was actually 7 feet. Hack Tison sloped over constantly to try and not be 7 feet according to Bucky Waters. Tison was a good inch taller than Buckley though he was not as effective a player as IQ Jay. Prior to the coming of Alcindor in '66 7 footers were considered clumsy and it was a negative to be listed that tall. With the exception of Bob Kurland and Chamberlain 7 footers didn't star on Final 4 teams while 6-7 to 6-10 musclemen like Lucas, Russell, Hogue, Imhoff, Lovelette, Mikan all left their imprint in the Final 4.

Riek may have the grades while the kid from Mississippi doesn't. Grades determine a lot of opportunity for Duke prospects. Chasing Riek while big men who would go to Duke go by the wayside will hurt the Blue Devils in the next 2 years. Duke had a long run with great bigmen, from 97-98 through 06. Perhaps weight room work by Lance Thomas this summer will be a stop gap measure. Plumlee, who is built like Hack Tison but plays more like Danny Manning will help in 2 years. In the meantime unc attracts size and skill that must be dealt with so we have to play with the cards we're dealt. Here's to a coming out party for Lance in '09 and a return to the Sweet 16 and beyond............

slower
04-03-2008, 08:41 AM
Is this your real name or is it an old-school wrestling reference (if so, this could be my new favorite user name)?

Pak Song
04-04-2008, 08:16 PM
No, no relation I'm aware of although I do remember people asking me that 30 years ago.:eek:

ricks68
04-04-2008, 10:32 PM
At least as far as the U.S. gov't was concerned.

Jay Buckley's draft card had him listed less than 7 feet. I know, because it was in my mailbox during orientation week. I inherited his box when I came to Duke as a freshman in 1964. I thought about doing a little "doctoring" of the info by changing the 6' to 5' and using it for proof of age for trips to Creedmore (sp?), but decided against it for the most obvious of reasons.

ricks

JasonEvans
04-05-2008, 05:06 AM
Chasing Riek while big men who would go to Duke go by the wayside will hurt the Blue Devils in the next 2 years.

Ummm, what on Earth are you talking about? Duke is not chasing Riek? We were somewhat interested many moons ago but backed off a loong time ago. We lost interest well before Greg Monroe made his decision. It is not like Duke felt so confident about Riek that we backed off of other big men in the 2008 class.

--Jason "the fan obsession with Riek, a guy who has no interest in playing college ball, really surprises me" Evans

K24U
04-05-2008, 01:01 PM
Question to all, Hasn't Duke taken on enough players thought to be projects? Duke's projects turn on them in one years time and leave the program. I can tell you Thomas, Boateng, Boykin, and a few others were known as projects. Duke has taken on those projects, where have those projects gotten them?

dubayuw
04-12-2008, 10:51 PM
I think we all know that Duke desperetly needs a legit big-man and it sounds like we arent gonna get one this year unless we get John Riek. Unfortunatly, everything i read about him is from November, or before, and says that he doesnt have the grades or that his holders want him to go to the NBA. YET, I can't find anything confirming that he is going pro, so if anyone has any recent info on this guy, PLEASE post it here.

Cameron
04-12-2008, 10:59 PM
if anyone has any recent info on this guy, PLEASE post it here.

John Riek will not play at Duke. That's about as much info as you probably need.

ForeverBlowingBubbles
04-13-2008, 02:12 AM
if I see this thread bumped one more time, I might stop posting.

Can we lock it?

yancem
04-13-2008, 02:49 PM
I think we all know that Duke desperetly needs a legit big-man and it sounds like we arent gonna get one this year unless we get John Riek. Unfortunatly, everything i read about him is from November, or before, and says that he doesnt have the grades or that his holders want him to go to the NBA. YET, I can't find anything confirming that he is going pro, so if anyone has any recent info on this guy, PLEASE post it here.

I would suggest reading this thread. It contains all of the information you will need!

KShip21
04-13-2008, 05:12 PM
Can someone please tell me why we aren't even looking at Devin Ebanks?? 6'10 PF who decommitted from Indiana?

shadowfax336
04-13-2008, 05:24 PM
a. how do you know we're not looking at him?
b. how do you know that he fits the academic/character profile that Duke wants in its recruit
c. how do you know that he is a player that would fit in here at all? Yeah talented big guy is a good start, but Duke really wants players that are going to be willing to buy into what Coach K is preaching, and not everyone is willing to do that

Kdogg
04-13-2008, 05:52 PM
Can someone please tell me why we aren't even looking at Devin Ebanks?? 6'10 PF who decommitted from Indiana?

I'm pretty sure he's a 6'8" small forward. At 185, he's built more like Mike Chappell than Elton Brand.

devilboomer
04-13-2008, 05:53 PM
he's not a PF. he's not 6'10.

Pak Song
04-14-2008, 03:05 AM
Ummm, what on Earth are you talking about? Duke is not chasing Riek? We were somewhat interested many moons ago but backed off a loong time ago. We lost interest well before Greg Monroe made his decision. It is not like Duke felt so confident about Riek that we backed off of other big men in the 2008 class.

--Jason "the fan obsession with Riek, a guy who has no interest in playing college ball, really surprises me" Evans

"Ummm" indicates kids playing on a computer.

JasonEvans
04-14-2008, 06:47 AM
a. how do you know we're not looking at him?
b. how do you know that he fits the academic/character profile that Duke wants in its recruit
c. how do you know that he is a player that would fit in here at all? Yeah talented big guy is a good start, but Duke really wants players that are going to be willing to buy into what Coach K is preaching, and not everyone is willing to do that

The fact that Ebanks current list of colleges is Memphis, Rutgers, Texas, and West Virginia should tell you all you need to know about how he might fit at Duke. historically, we do not recruit the same kind of kids as Calipari and Huggy bear (though there is occasionally some overlap -- but only rarely).

--Jason "Duke really needs another athletic wing on next year's roster-- yeah, that is what we are missing :rolleyes: " Evans

Jumbo
04-14-2008, 09:21 AM
"Ummm" indicates kids playing on a computer.
It indicates heavy sarcasm to me. Then again, I know how to read.

geraldsneighbor
04-14-2008, 08:52 PM
30 year old John Riek has declared for June's NBA Draft. Who says you can't still go straight out of "high school."

MIKESJ73
04-15-2008, 08:53 AM
Reik according to NBAdraft.net:

Weaknesses: A major project. Does not run well and can't hold position on the block ... On the rare occasions that he does establish position, Riek struggles to catch the ball and even if he is able to do that, he has absolutely zero back-to-the-basket game ... Physically, he is extremely weak and is boxed out easily. Lacks the strength and agility re-gain position after being boxed out...Has terrible hands and often fumbles rebounds and drops passes. Really, really struggles to dribble the ball … Doesn't jump very well and possesses very little athleticism … Will have trouble doing anything offensively against major college or NBA competition … Lacks fire and intensity in his play. There are major question marks about his age. For one thing, his face looks like he's closer to 30 than 18, and given the track record of African players, his birth documents saying he is 18 are extremely suspicious. If he is 25 (or close to it) there's real concern about his ability to get stronger and ever run the floor and hold position in the post at an NBA level ... He's beginning to develop a reputation as being injury prone ... He has missed a number of games due to various injuries this season.

Oh well, sounds like we could have used him next year.

K24U
04-15-2008, 08:54 AM
Within the past two weeks there have been at least two threads that I know of about Riek. Riek is nothing but hype. There have been a few recruiting services that ranked him number 1 without ever seeing the guy play.

The hype got all the NBA scouts salivating so they started to scout him. One scout said Riek is the worst prospect for the NBA that he has ever seen. This link (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/John-Riek-1317/) will give you one article about Riek. This is just one of many articles I read about how bad Riek actually is. Some other articles have me wondering if the guy can chew gum and run at the same time.

Hopefully enough people read this article, for it sure is getting tiring looking at fans saying Duke should take this guy.

If Riek wants to play basketball in the next few years it will have to be in college because from what I have read no one is even looking from the NBA anymore.

Jumbo
04-15-2008, 12:46 PM
Within the past two weeks there have been at least two threads that I know of about Riek. Riek is nothing but hype. There have been a few recruiting services that ranked him number 1 without ever seeing the guy play.

The hype got all the NBA scouts salivating so they started to scout him. One scout said Riek is the worst prospect for the NBA that he has ever seen. This link (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/John-Riek-1317/) will give you one article about Riek. This is just one of many articles I read about how bad Riek actually is. Some other articles have me wondering if the guy can chew gum and run at the same time.

Hopefully enough people read this article, for it sure is getting tiring looking at fans saying Duke should take this guy.

If Riek wants to play basketball in the next few years it will have to be in college because from what I have read no one is even looking from the NBA anymore.

I'm pretty sure John Riek doesn't even exist.

devildeac
04-15-2008, 03:49 PM
Reik according to NBAdraft.net:

Weaknesses: A major project. Does not run well and can't hold position on the block ... On the rare occasions that he does establish position, Riek struggles to catch the ball and even if he is able to do that, he has absolutely zero back-to-the-basket game ... Physically, he is extremely weak and is boxed out easily. Lacks the strength and agility re-gain position after being boxed out...Has terrible hands and often fumbles rebounds and drops passes. Really, really struggles to dribble the ball … Doesn't jump very well and possesses very little athleticism … Will have trouble doing anything offensively against major college or NBA competition … Lacks fire and intensity in his play. There are major question marks about his age. For one thing, his face looks like he's closer to 30 than 18, and given the track record of African players, his birth documents saying he is 18 are extremely suspicious. If he is 25 (or close to it) there's real concern about his ability to get stronger and ever run the floor and hold position in the post at an NBA level ... He's beginning to develop a reputation as being injury prone ... He has missed a number of games due to various injuries this season.

Oh well, sounds like we could have used him next year.

Sounds like a good draft picks for the Hawks. Whaddaya think Jason?:o

camion
04-15-2008, 04:40 PM
Maybe the Hawks could trade up in the draft and steal him. ;)

rsvman
04-15-2008, 06:05 PM
Reik according to NBAdraft.net:

Weaknesses: A major project. Does not run well and can't hold position on the block ... On the rare occasions that he does establish position, Riek struggles to catch the ball and even if he is able to do that, he has absolutely zero back-to-the-basket game ... Physically, he is extremely weak and is boxed out easily. Lacks the strength and agility re-gain position after being boxed out...Has terrible hands and often fumbles rebounds and drops passes. Really, really struggles to dribble the ball … Doesn't jump very well and possesses very little athleticism … Will have trouble doing anything offensively against major college or NBA competition … Lacks fire and intensity in his play. There are major question marks about his age. For one thing, his face looks like he's closer to 30 than 18, and given the track record of African players, his birth documents saying he is 18 are extremely suspicious. If he is 25 (or close to it) there's real concern about his ability to get stronger and ever run the floor and hold position in the post at an NBA level ... He's beginning to develop a reputation as being injury prone ... He has missed a number of games due to various injuries this season.

Oh well, sounds like we could have used him next year.

Strengths: Um,.......uh.........um...........doesn't run with scissors?

Deslok
04-15-2008, 06:16 PM
I'm pretty sure John Riek doesn't even exist.

He's nowhere near as talented as Ivan Renko, who I've seen ranked much higher...

BD80
04-16-2008, 07:55 AM
Katz is running this Teaser for his ESPN Insider article:

"7-2 prep schooler to enter draft"

I wonder who he means?

http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?name=katz_andy&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fesp n%2fblog%2findex%3fname%3dkatz_andy

Franzez
06-16-2008, 02:54 PM
Hand him a scholarship Coach K,I don't care if he may be 29.

The guy is 7'2 and you can't teach size.

CameronCrazy'11
06-16-2008, 03:29 PM
With Czyz and the two Plumlees I'm not so sure. It might be better to save that scholarship for '09

quickgtp
06-16-2008, 03:43 PM
Zoubek is over 7 foot as well and look where that has gotten us SO FAR.....Riek is still very raw and out of shape at this point. It would be a big risk to take him right now IMO.

yancem
06-16-2008, 11:02 PM
Seriously, moderators can we lock this thread and ban all further discussions of this guy? Why do people keep bringing this guy back up?

Kishiznit
06-16-2008, 11:40 PM
Hand him a scholarship Coach K,I don't care if he may be 29.

The guy is 7'2 and you can't teach size.

Franzez - you are 100% correct - can the plumlees compete w/ the wears? This guy could be something special and the way I see it, take the chance with a big guy to spell minutes.

CameronCrazy'11
06-16-2008, 11:50 PM
We already have enough big men projects coming in and we don't have unlimited scholarships. If we're going to offer another it should be on someone who's a little more of a sure thing. More than that, this guy is seriously sketchy. He was 18 and virtually the top in his class and then he was suddenly a year older and has barely any skill? The dude looks 30 and doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

Franzez
06-17-2008, 10:31 AM
We already have enough big men projects coming in and we don't have unlimited scholarships. If we're going to offer another it should be on someone who's a little more of a sure thing. More than that, this guy is seriously sketchy. He was 18 and virtually the top in his class and then he was suddenly a year older and has barely any skill? The dude looks 30 and doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Yeah but you can't teach height and due to the lack of basketball experience he has he has a high upside to develop and possibly become a good C.

He's a project but he's headed to IMG Academy next season anyways but I highly doubt he enters the NBA Draft again because im sure most scouts told him that he should go to college and develop and Hasheem Thabeet is a clear example of a guy who's benefited greatly from going to college and staying in college.

My basketball coach always said you can't teach height,and although Riek isn't 7'2 he's 6'11 and could become a Hasheem Thabeet type of player for us.

Please stop putting him in the same category as Brian Zoubek,Riek was ranked higher as a recruit and was viewed as a late 2nd Round pick had he remained in the Draft,but I've yet to see anything that suggests Zoubek even has draft potential.

It's shocking how some of you actually think the Plumlee's are going to become the big men we've needed at Duke for several years.There is nothing about them that screams out potential or future great college big man.We're basically recruiting Shavlik Randolph II and Shavlik Randolph III,but optimism oh optimism.:)

I don't care if Riek never learns how to make a shot other than a dunk,he's going to get blocks,alter shots,and grab boards in the paint which is something no big man we have can do.

NYDukie
06-17-2008, 11:00 AM
Haven't posted since early in the season but decided to post as it has been very annoying to read the constant John Riek posts of us either needing or having to get him. As a almost daily reader it has been mentioned numerous times that even though Scout and other services have him listing Duke, he was never a serious consideration by Duke because of his academic standing. And let's be honest, from most articles posted on him, he never had the intention or desire to attend any college. I understand that Duke has made academic exceptions based on an athelete's character (see Carrawell and Dockery) but it seems Riek's motive was only to get to the league.

And to share in the sentiment of a number of posters recently, can we kill the John Riek posts already...you guys are killing me...lol!!!

quickgtp
06-17-2008, 12:04 PM
LOL NY.....I am new here and it's already bothering me! j/k

Seriously though, he is no longer on Duke's radar and this is for good reason!

MrBisonDevil
06-17-2008, 12:34 PM
Duke Bball Recruiting Question #1:
Does the recruit have a strong potential to succeed in all Duke University classrooms?

If NO, then reject recruit.
If YES, then proceed to next question (which may be basketball related).

ForeverBlowingBubbles
06-17-2008, 01:02 PM
Hand him a scholarship Coach K,I don't care if he may be 29.

The guy is 7'2 and you can't teach size.

You remember how great Kentucky was when Tubby wasted 3 scholarships on 7 footers?

Thats right - all 3 were absolutely terrible...

kydevil
06-18-2008, 12:36 AM
You remember how great Kentucky was when Tubby wasted 3 scholarships on 7 footers?

Thats right - all 3 were absolutely terrible...

I don't think its fair to compare the 3 Tubby recruited with Riek. He is viewed as a much more talented "project".

JasonEvans
06-18-2008, 03:24 PM
In response to overwhelming comments from posters, I would like to request that any and all John Riek comments stop unless a poster can demonstrate some evidence that Duke has an interest in Riek. From all accounts, there is no interest and the kid is not a good "fit" at Duke (except perhaps on the basketball court, which is only a small part of being a part of Duke).

Thank you.

-Jason "I doubt Riek would have even been a late 2nd rounder" Evans

MChambers
06-18-2008, 03:36 PM
Maybe we could use the Riek posts to separate the thoughtful posters from, um,well, . . .

You get my drift.

roywhite
08-03-2008, 12:14 AM
John Riek has apparently chosen a college; he is shown as commiting to Cincinnati on scout.com.

devildeac
08-03-2008, 07:43 AM
John Riek has apparently chosen a college; he is shown as commiting to Cincinnati on scout.com.

1f:o:D

Devilsfan
08-03-2008, 10:39 AM
How about a great young man that lives 30+ miles away? Namely, Ryan Kelly. The Stanford coaches would love to have him as well as Georgetown and Davidson, so why not Duke? He seems like a perfect fit.

kramerbr
08-03-2008, 11:38 AM
How about a great young man that lives 30+ miles away? Namely, Ryan Kelly. The Stanford coaches would love to have him as well as Georgetown and Davidson, so why not Duke? He seems like a perfect fit.

On Scout.com Ryan Kelly lists Duke in his final 6 so there must be some interest there.

Devilsfan
08-03-2008, 11:51 AM
I think Ryan would accept when offered not like a PP or the kid we went after for ever and he went to Georgetown. I want someone who will represent the school that we can be proud of and not some brummagen player. I also believe I read somewhere that his high school coach was a captain at Duke. What better teacher than that coupled with Coach K?

ForeverBlowingBubbles
08-03-2008, 11:53 AM
someone on the scout boards said it right -

I think we all need to take a moment of silence to reflect on this massive loss.

BD80
08-03-2008, 05:01 PM
I think we all need to take a moment of silence to reflect on this massive loss.

Duke should have recruited him harder.:rolleyes:
Why didn't we recruit him harder?:rolleyes:
We suck at recruiting big men.:rolleyes:

Is he even ranked in the top 100 any more?

geraldsneighbor
08-03-2008, 06:15 PM
How'd declaring for the draft work?

Now hes playing the Randolph Morris card and going to college undrafted because he didn't ink an agent. Luckily he had some sense.

mgtr
08-04-2008, 03:06 PM
I think Ryan would accept when offered not like a PP or the kid we went after for ever and he went to Georgetown. I want someone who will represent the school that we can be proud of and not some brummagen player. I also believe I read somewhere that his high school coach was a captain at Duke. What better teacher than that coupled with Coach K?

Brummagen -- what a great word. I had to look it up. It means of cheap or inferior quality. Somebody ought to send this along to O'Reilly.

yancem
08-04-2008, 04:20 PM
Now that he has signed with another team can we please lock this thread. I'm tired of seeing it getting bumped back to the front page!