This season will be a different experience for a lot of you.

[Jumbo]

So, I've been reading most of the threads over the past few months, and I've noticed that the board is skewing younger and younger. Look only at the "favorite player" polls for evidence. It's not just that old-timers like Heyman were ignored, it's that a lot of people don't even remember guys like Thomas Hill all that well.

What that also means is that people don't remember a good portion of K's career. They don't remember what he has done with this many scholarship players. And a lot of myths are about to be busted.

I've seen myriad derivations of the following statements:

1) "Coach K only plays six or seven guys."
2) "Coach K won't change his lineup."
3) "Coach K doesn't like to go up-tempo."
4) "Duke can't win without a true post player."
5) "So-and-so has to start because..."

Each of those assertions is demonstrably false just by looking at Duke's history. The problem is that K hasn't had a team like this one in a number of years. But, before I address the concepts above, let me say one thing: Please do not turn this into another minutes/playing time/lineup combo thread. I'm begging you. We've done enough of that.

Anyway...

1) A short rotation is a recent phenomenon. When K has had a full (or close to a full) complement of scholarships, he has gone deep. Look only at 1997-98 and 1996-97. In 1997-98, Duke always used at least nine guys in the rotation. Plus. Taymon Domzalski got six starts, Nate James would have played but got hurt and had to redshirt, and Ricky Price got some PT after returning from his academic suspension. Nobody averaged more than 28.8 mpg. In 1996-97, Duke was generally nine deep. The team was 10-deep when Nate was healthy and Newton wasn't benched. Plus, Domzalski provided minutes as an 11th man. You can go back to several other seasons -- including the late 1980s and especially 1990-91 -- to find the same thing. The common theme has been a) a large number of scholarship players and b) not much of a drop-off between say, the seventh and 10th men. This team has the exact same makeup, and might have the deepest perimeter of ANY Duke team. While other groups had more star power, can you come up with a Duke team that had six guards equal to Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Nelson, Smith and Pocius?

2) K has also been flexible with his starters in the past. The teams I cited before all featured starting lineups that shuffled throughout the season. In fact, you'll be hard-pressed to find more than a couple of Duke teams that started basically the same five guys all year. I guarantee you that at least seven guys will start this year, regardless of injuries: Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Thomas, Scheyer and Zoubek. I'm willing to be that Smith and McClure crack the lineup at some point or another too. I'm willing to bet there are games where certain subs play more than certain starters. The important thing to look for, if anythng, will be a trend in Duke's closing lineup. I've got a hunch that it may end up being Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler. But, again, I don't want to turn this into a lineup thread. I'm just throwing that out there, because I'm a true believe that it doesn't matter who starts, just who finishes.

3) This is easy to refute. Coach K slowed the pace last year out of necessity, not choice. His previous teams have almost always been running teams, whether or not he had a Hurley or a J-Will running the show. Here are Duke's ppg over the last several years:

2005-06: 81.1
2004-05: 78.2
2003-04: 79.8
2002-03: 81.1
2001-02: 88.9
2000-01: 90.7
1999-2000: 88.0
1998-99: 91.8
1997-98: 85.6
1996-97: 79.7

I can keep going, but suffice it to say Duke has routinely been among the nation's scoring leaders under Coach K. And that's not because he prefers a slow pace.

4) Others have mentioned it, but it bears repeating: Duke has won, and won big, without a post stud. A lot of younger posters seem to associate Duke hoops with Shelden, Boozer and Brand. Coach K's earlier teams didn't feature bruisers of that nature, and even guys who had solid inside scoring games (like Laettner and Ferry) weren't the greatest post defenders. We know Duke made the championship game in 1986 with a starting lineup of Amaker-Dawkins-Henderson-Alarie-Bilas. No one remotely resembled a "center" on that team. We know the team reached the Final Four in 1988 with a starting lineup of Snyder-Strickland-King-Ferry-Brickey. Ferry was the only guy over 6'5" and -- if you think about it -- he wasn't much bigger than Singler. We know Duke won the 1996-97 regular season title in the ACC despite benching Greg Newton and going with a Wojo-Langdon-Capel-Carrawell-McLeod look late in the year. And so forth. Now consider that the 6'8" Lance Thomas matches up favorably with several guys Duke has used in the "middle" in the past. Consider that Singler isn't much smaller than Ferry. Consider that Zoubek is, after all, 7'2." Consider that McClure excelled guarding bigger players before his injury last year, and then remember what guys like Brickey, John Smith, Carmen Wallace, Chris Carrawell, Ro McLeod, etc. did with their post D.
Plus, here are a few other things to remember: A) Defense is a team concept, not a one-on-one battle. Duke will double guys in the post, pressure the ball, and switch constantly. No one will be left on an island attempting to defend a huge mismatch alone. B) Most college teams don't have guys bigger than Duke's frontcourt players who can consistently score on the block. And if teams want to force-feed someone who isn't used to being a go-to option, that's a good thing. C) Duke can get points in the paint from other positions. Specifically, look for Singler and Henderson to post up quite a bit. If you look at the films from 1991-92 on youtube, for instance, you'll remember that despite starting at SG, Thomas Hill was a terrific low-post scorer.

5) This largely the same as #2, but I think K has been sending a message through all his public comments. No job is safe. And that will continue all season. As I mentioned, I expect the starting lineup to change throughout the season. And I think K is going to use the fear and uncertainty caused by competition as a powerful motivational tool. These guys will all be fighting for jobs every day in practice and every time they take on another team.

I think this is going to be a very good team. It's a little early to say how good, but K has more options than in several years and plenty of talent. He'll figure out how to make it work.

[mepanchin]

As recent as 2003, too, Coach K used a 9 deep rotation (Jones, Redick, Ewing, Duhon, Williams, Randolph, Sanders, Horvath, Dockery). The 04 team used all the same players sans Jones (who graduated) and used Horvath less often, but he still played in all but 3 games. The problem began in 05 when Deng left and Livingston never showed up. Then McClure red shirts, and Nelson fights through injuries, and the class of 05 was pretty much a bust - and you're left with a thin roster.

[OldPhiKap]

1) "Coach K only plays six or seven guys."
2) "Coach K won't change his lineup."
3) "Coach K doesn't like to go up-tempo."
4) "Duke can't win without a true post player."
5) "So-and-so has to start because..."



1. Could not agree more. I recall K saying at some point in the late '90's that he was gonna run each player as hard as they could until they asked to sub out, and then send in a fresh body to run as hard as he could. No pacing, no letting up. The only thing I would add is that, by and large, K's ability/desire to expand the number of players in rotation seems to depend on their ability to play defense, not offense.

2. Ask Greg Newton about this one. Performers play, period.

3. The best defense is a good offense, especially this year when we don't have a big post player to sit in a half-court game. We will have a higher winning percentage of games we play in the 80's this year than in the 60's-mid 70's.

4. Agreed to the extent we have terrific on-ball pressure and shoot a high percentage of 3's. Both of those are crucial in offsetting the inside size issue. The game has changed a lot since the squads in the '80's and even the '90's, though, so I don't think the comparison to our older squads is really apples-to-apples.

5. Agreed to a large extent. I do think there are some practical reasons why Nelson (the lone captain) may "need" to start. But that has to do with the position of leadership. Also, at some point I think you "need" A starting point guard to be the extension of the coach on the floor. That may not develop until we get to league play, however

[dw0827]

So, I've been reading most of the threads over the past few months, and I've noticed that the board is skewing younger and younger. Look only at the "favorite player" polls for evidence. It's not just that old-timers like Heyman were ignored, it's that a lot of people don't even remember guys like Thomas Hill all that well.

What that also means is that people don't remember a good portion of K's career.


Well done, Jumbo. I don't always agree with you but you certainly nailed this one.

People seem to forget that there actually was Duke basketball in the 20th century.

We're about to enter a new phase in commentary. Instead of talking about what might happen, we'll be talking about what DID happen. Thank God.

[mepanchin]

4. Agreed to the extent we have terrific on-ball pressure and shoot a high percentage of 3's. Both of those are crucial in offsetting the inside size issue. The game has changed a lot since the squads in the '80's and even the '90's, though, so I don't think the comparison to our older squads is really apples-to-apples.


If anything, the game has moved more and more towards favoring guard-play over bigs with teams like Illinois in 05 and Villanova in 06 having lots of success. The 90s were sort of a period where coaches and players were realizing just how big the addition of the 3-point shot in 87 was - use of the 3 point shot (especially in Durham) went up steeply. In 1987, Coach K's team only shot 3s on 18.9% of their FGAs, as compared with the notable 2001 team that shot 3s on almost 42%.

The other thing compared to the 80s is that the "bigs" now are really power forwards and in some cases, small forwards, playing out of position. The Ewings, Olajuwons, Waltons, Alcindors are basically gone, and most big guys who 25 years ago would have developed into post-oriented players are becoming more well rounded players with a strong perimeter presence. Would Dirk have been a guard 30 years ago in a 7 foot body, or a center? What about Durant? Donte Greene, Michael Beasley? Carmelo Anthony? LeBron? Maybe, but more likely not. So look at the most dominant big left in the ACC: Tyler Hansbrough. He's 6'9" 245 - strong, no doubt, but not so massive and skilled a player that a guy smaller than him who has skill and grit is left helpless like it was in the 60s/70s/80s against the superstar bigs then. The game as a whole is becoming more and more perimeter oriented.

[Troublemaker]

Excellent post, Jumbo.

Ball-pressure and turnovers forced are going to be huge keys and should be huge positives for this team this season. When Duke goes small (arguably, any lineup without Z), it's not going to be that easy for opposing guards to advance the ball, setup, and have vision into the post to take advantage, guys. We'll be resisting every step of the way. And even if, in certain games, opposing post players do well, are the opposing guards going to supplement their scoring enough? I have a feeling this team is just going to wreak havoc on opposing guards' offensive efficiency. We have ball pressurers and potential lockdown wing defenders out the wazoo. And it's not just our good defenders at guard; we also have guys like LT, Singler, and McClure that can switch on screens and trap.

On offense, we can use turnovers forced to get easy baskets. And in the halfcourt, we can hopefully spread teams out to have driving lanes for our slashers and have opposing bigs chase guys on the perimeter where those bigs aren't comfortable. We'll be almost unzoneable. If the opposing team goes small in order to be able to match up with Singler and King better, I think you made a great point about how those guys can postup, and so can the guards like Henderson, Nelson and Scheyer. Invert the offense. Bottom line, there are a lot of options offensively and defensively for this team to deal with being small. As you mentioned, it could be vintage Duke this season. Forced turnovers, player versatility, lots and lots of wins.

[OldPhiKap]

If anything, the game has moved more and more towards favoring guard-play over bigs with teams like Illinois in 05 and Villanova in 06 having lots of success. The 90s were sort of a period where coaches and players were realizing just how big the addition of the 3-point shot in 87 was - use of the 3 point shot (especially in Durham) went up steeply. In 1987, Coach K's team only shot 3s on 18.9% of their FGAs, as compared with the notable 2001 team that shot 3s on almost 42%.

The other thing compared to the 80s is that the "bigs" now are really power forwards and in some cases, small forwards, playing out of position. The Ewings, Olajuwons, Waltons, Alcindors are basically gone, and most big guys who 25 years ago would have developed into post-oriented players are becoming more well rounded players with a strong perimeter presence. Would Dirk have been a guard 30 years ago in a 7 foot body, or a center? What about Durant? Donte Greene, Michael Beasley? Carmelo Anthony? LeBron? Maybe, but more likely not. So look at the most dominant big left in the ACC: Tyler Hansbrough. He's 6'9" 245 - strong, no doubt, but not so massive and skilled a player that a guy smaller than him who has skill and grit is left helpless like it was in the 60s/70s/80s against the superstar bigs then. The game as a whole is becoming more and more perimeter oriented.


Yes and no.

A. The three ball certainly has become a much larger part of the equation since its introduction. I'm not so sure it is a matter of coaches discovering its usefulness so much as having high school players who have practiced and played with the shot for years before coming into school. Dawkins could hit from 25', for example, but there was little call for it. The kids we recruited in the late 1990's by contrast had played with a three-point line since middle school or whatever age they start using it. Another way to look at it is to remember what oddities Ferry and Laettner were at the time because they were power forwards who could hit a three. Now, as you say, many of them can because they grew up with that being part of their game.

I am not so sure that the increased emphasis on the outside shot necessarily implies that you can get by with a smaller "big guy" in the paint. With the floor spread by the outside shooters, there is more isolation and one-on-one inside. It is harder to double down. You have more folks slashing to the lane. So the paint is really an island in the modern game to some extent, and you need someone who can hold his own. The way to offset that is (1) to have great point pressure, so the other team cannot initiate its offense; and (2) hit enough 3 pointers to offset a high percentage of points in the paint.


B. You are correct about the migration of big players to the perimeter. But, "back in the day," the ACC was a guard conference anyway. So heavy emphasis on the backcourt is nothing new on Tobacco Road. My main point was more about the athleticism of today's players. Jay Bilas would get killed inside if he were a player today. And I would argue that, because of the spreading of the floor, he would have to be much more mobile than I remember him being.

[bird]

My part of the Amen corner is to remember the 1986-87 team, which, IMO, was one of K's finest coaching achievements. I recall that the typical lineup had 6-7 (generously stated) John Smith playing "center", with Ferry making no special commitment to post defense (like Battier, my impression was that he was too valuable running around and making things happen).

[Turtleboy]

No one will be left on an island attempting to defend a huge mismatch alone.This is the only statement I would take issue with. While it may indeed be true that it will not happen, I seem to remember Delaware State doing exactly that to Duke not too long age. If I recall correctly, it took K a bit more than a half to adjust, and threw a bit of a scare into the faithful.

[Wander]

Henderson's going to start over Scheyer!!!

Just kidding.

Anyway, I think that most informed people know that K has played a deeper rotation in the past, played more up-tempo in the past, etc. I mean, as you say, those are just facts. They aren't really debatable.

The issue that people have is: "OK, I know K has played deep in the past, and I know K didn't play deep the past three seasons... why is that?" That's a little different than saying "K always plays a short rotation!"

[jimsumner]

Jumbo,

You've just poached my next five article ideas. :)

Had an interesting conversation the other day with Kenny Dennard. He had come back to Duke this summer to work a camp or some such. He talked with guys like J.J. and Duhon and none of them had the slightest idea what happened in 1978. Of course, they weren't born yet so I guess it's a little like someone talking to me about the 1939 Rose Bowl. Still, considering that I still think of Dennard and company as promising youngsters, the conversation really made me feel ancient.

[throatybeard]

I talked to Jumbo the other night, and I think the genesis of the problem that he, and I as well, have with the current tenor of the board is that while we're both very young (30ish), we both acquired Duke at an early age. So we remember back into the mid-80s.

I think a lot of folks not only don't really start following a team when they're 8, but they don't start following Duke at all till they get to Duke. So you've got a large quantity of, say, 2005 grads whose Duke basketball memory beings in 2001.

So Jumbo and I act like crotchety old kooks, but I would offer this to the relative noobs. (And compared to Sumner and Brill, we're all noobs).

Read Sumner's recent book, Brill's recent book, and ESPECIALLY Brill's 1986 book to get an idea of the history of the program, and of K's first years in particular. My mother bought me that book when I was 9, and thank goodness, because it gave me a good sense of the Cameron, Gerrard, Bradley, Bubas, and Foster years.

[Jumbo]

Henderson's going to start over Scheyer!!!

Just kidding.

Anyway, I think that most informed people know that K has played a deeper rotation in the past, played more up-tempo in the past, etc. I mean, as you say, those are just facts. They aren't really debatable.

The issue that people have is: "OK, I know K has played deep in the past, and I know K didn't play deep the past three seasons... why is that?" That's a little different than saying "K always plays a short rotation!"

Ha. I'm sure G will at various points -- maybe even right away. The depth thing crops up every season, and in the past, I've pointed out that K hasn't really had many useful options that he has ignored. When people have complained about guys not getting minutes they have usually been freshman bigs like Zoubek, Boateng, Thompson and Sanders. The only guard I can remember whose lack of minutes led to complaints here was Pocius last season.

[Jumbo]

This is the only statement I would take issue with. While it may indeed be true that it will not happen, I seem to remember Delaware State doing exactly that to Duke not too long age. If I recall correctly, it took K a bit more than a half to adjust, and threw a bit of a scare into the faithful.

Except it was the other way around. Delaware State went really small, pulled Shel or Shav out past the three-point line, and went one-on-one out there. That's entirely different than setting someone up on the block without any help.

[mepanchin]

Yes and no.

I am not so sure that the increased emphasis on the outside shot necessarily implies that you can get by with a smaller "big guy" in the paint. With the floor spread by the outside shooters, there is more isolation and one-on-one inside. It is harder to double down. You have more folks slashing to the lane. So the paint is really an island in the modern game to some extent, and you need someone who can hold his own. The way to offset that is (1) to have great point pressure, so the other team cannot initiate its offense; and (2) hit enough 3 pointers to offset a high percentage of points in the paint.


This is more a descriptive claim on my part than anything else. Lance Thomas is 6'8" 225? 230? and we are lamenting our lack of size when UNC's superstar big man is 6'9" 245. "Big guys" in college now are just smaller in general. Centers are rarely 7 footers anymore and there has been 2 dominant true centers in college basketball in the last... 15 years? We are not a huge team but I don't see why we can't defend against other 6'8", 6'9" players. It's going to be more of an issue of skill than it is of size.

Hell, here I am watching Arizona vs. North Carolina in the 1997 Semis and Arizona's best post defender is 6'8" 210.

[Turtleboy]

Except it was the other way around. Delaware State went really small, pulled Shel or Shav out past the three-point line, and went one-on-one out there. That's entirely different than setting someone up on the block without any help.That's exactly how I remember it. Someone was left to defend a mismatch alone. Almost every time it was Shav. And he may not have been "on an island alone," but he sure looked lonely there at the foul line while speedster after speedster beat him to the bucket.

[throatybeard]

We know the team reached the Final Four in 1988 with a starting lineup of Snyder-Strickland-King-Ferry-Brickey. Ferry was the only guy over 6'5" and -- if you think about it -- he wasn't much bigger than Singler.

Hell, Brickey started at center, with Ferry at PF. They're a reason they called him "Sky."

[Jumbo]

That's exactly how I remember it. Someone was left to defend a mismatch alone. Almost every time it was Shav. And he may not have been "on an island alone," but he sure looked lonely there at the foul line while speedster after speedster beat him to the bucket.

Right, but we're talking past each other. I was speaking in the context of post D. It's much easier to bring help on the block than to double 30 feet away from the basket and recover. And, as I said, Duke's facing the opposite problem this year as the small team. If anyone will be pulling opposing bigs away from the hoop, it will be Duke.

[Wander]

Right, but we're talking past each other. I was speaking in the context of post D. It's much easier to bring help on the block than to double 30 feet away from the basket and recover. And, as I said, Duke's facing the opposite problem this year as the small team. If anyone will be pulling opposing bigs away from the hoop, it will be Duke.

My favorite plays of last season were the couple of times that Paulus destroyed Roy Hibbert in the second half of Duke/Georgetown. Now, if we can just get him to block a Hansbrough shot or two I'll call the season a success.

[rthomas]

I talked to Jumbo the other night, and I think the genesis of the problem that he, and I as well, have with the current tenor of the board is that while we're both very young (30ish), we both acquired Duke at an early age. So we remember back into the mid-80s.

I think a lot of folks not only don't really start following a team when they're 8, but they don't start following Duke at all till they get to Duke. So you've got a large quantity of, say, 2005 grads whose Duke basketball memory beings in 2001.

So Jumbo and I act like crotchety old kooks, but I would offer this to the relative noobs. (And compared to Sumner and Brill, we're all noobs).

Read Sumner's recent book, Brill's recent book, and ESPECIALLY Brill's 1986 book to get an idea of the history of the program, and of K's first years in particular. My mother bought me that book when I was 9, and thank goodness, because it gave me a good sense of the Cameron, Bradly, Bubas, and Foster years.

Word that. Check out the 70's. When you could walk into Cameron without a ticket. Enjoy what we gots. I can't wait for the season to start!

[Indoor66]

A terrific post and excellent thread. Thank you posters.

[Bob Green]

Read Sumner's recent book, Brill's recent book, and ESPECIALLY Brill's 1986 book to get an idea of the history of the program, and of K's first years in particular. My mother bought me that book when I was 9, and thank goodness, because it gave me a good sense of the Cameron, Gerrard, Bradley, Bubas, and Foster years.

You skipped the Bucky Waters years. I never forget about those bad years so I can really appreciate the good years.

[Indoor66]

You skipped the Bucky Waters years. I never forget about those bad years so I can really appreciate the good years.

I'm with you, Bob. I love Bucky - one of the good people, but those were hard times. And I worked around Big Rams every day. Tough going.

[throatybeard]

You skipped the Bucky Waters years. I never forget about those bad years so I can really appreciate the good years.

Yeah, I'm still trying to forget about those even those I hadn't been conceived yet.

[JBDuke]

...I think this is going to be a very good team. It's a little early to say how good, but K has more options than in several years and plenty of talent. He'll figure out how to make it work.

Nice job, big guy. You said a lot of things I've been wanting to say for a while.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Originally Posted by throatybeard View Post
I talked to Jumbo the other night, and I think the genesis of the problem that he, and I as well, have with the current tenor of the board is that while we're both very young (30ish), we both acquired Duke at an early age. So we remember back into the mid-80s.

I think a lot of folks not only don't really start following a team when they're 8, but they don't start following Duke at all till they get to Duke. So you've got a large quantity of, say, 2005 grads whose Duke basketball memory beings in 2001.

So Jumbo and I act like crotchety old kooks, but I would offer this to the relative noobs. (And compared to Sumner and Brill, we're all noobs).


Word that. Check out the 70's. When you could walk into Cameron without a ticket. Enjoy what we gots. I can't wait for the season to start!

And I started rooting for Duke my senior year in HS, 1971-1972, when I committed to Duke. I don't feel older than any of you guys, I just look older. Age is a state of mind, and I've about lost mine ;)

[merry]

Read Sumner's recent book, Brill's recent book, and ESPECIALLY Brill's 1986 book to get an idea of the history of the program, and of K's first years in particular. My mother bought me that book when I was 9, and thank goodness, because it gave me a good sense of the Cameron, Gerrard, Bradley, Bubas, and Foster years.

Also, read Feinstein's "Forever's Team" and you'll get an idea of why some of us keep voting for Spanarkel, Gminski, Banks etc. in these polls!

[johnb]

By March of '78, my freshman year, I'd added college basketball to my list of obsessions. I can recall visceral Duke pleasure and pain for 29 years; before that, reading about Duke history is like reading about World War II. As with WWII, it's important to know DDay (Vegas), VE Day (Michigan), VJ Day (Arizona), as well as the Pattons (Laettner) and Eisenowers (Battier), but I'd guess that 95 % of them will never care all that much for Operation Market Garden (Curtis Hunter/David Henderson), even though the DH story is one of my personal faves.

So read away, grasshopper, but my hunch is that you'll be more interested in the next play than in scenes from my young adulthood.

[dw0827]

I think we have been spoiled beyond belief with Coach K and the incredible success we've had.

I remember the Bucky years, for example. Hell, I had seasons tickets during the Bucky years . . . and they were hard times. But times like that certainly offer perspective.

And when Jumbo points out that the past two or three years years may have slightly deviated from the norm, he's simply pointing out that there's a history . . . a legacy . . . of Duke basketball that perhaps fan should learn about . . . and appreciate . . . and be utterly amazed at the richness of it, the characters, the good years, and the hard years. And that might temper some of the incessant arguments about who will get what minutes this year and who should start and all that drivel. Please.

Understand this for what it is . . . a beautiful game played by kids, really, who put their heart and souls into it and do the very best they can . . .

Forgive this here geezer's nostalgia . . . but I am amazed at how the older players have been dissed in these polls . . . and how fans are so quick to jump on players and coaches for their apparent lack of perfection . . .

[weezie]

My favorite plays of last season were the couple of times that Paulus destroyed Roy Hibbert in the second half of Duke/Georgetown. Now, if we can just get him to block a Hansbrough shot or two I'll call the season a success.

I so hate Hansbrough's bangs.

[throatybeard]

I so hate Hansbrough's bangs.

My problem is with his Ivory Latta-esque eyeballs.

[Grey Devil]

I've been thinking along the same lines as Jumbo, although not as detailed about the implications for this year's team. Kudos to Jumbo!

I, too, have been concerned (as I watch the results of the poll for our favorite Duke player unfold) about how young the DBR audience must be. It's been obvious to me that the poll is biased toward more recent players. (But no one said it was scientific!) I have also been concerned about how little sense of history, and how little patience, many of the posters to this forum have. I have attributed that to what I perceive to be the relative youth of most of the active discussants on these boards. So big props to Jumbo for making this more clear.

So I think it might be useful if we did a poll to get a sense of our age distribution. No one has to identify themselves with an age if they don't want to, an anonymous poll will do just fine, although I think it would be healthier if we did identify our age. I think it might be useful information with which to temper our discussions.

I have no problem with revealing my age. I am one of the "geezers" here, having graduated from Duke in '71. I was there for the end of the golden years of Bubas (I'll never forget Freddie Lind's performance in the triple overtime to beat Carolina my freshman year, nor Bubas' retirement at the next home Carolina game after that -- Why didn't Freddie get more votes? Simply because not many of you know what he did or what a likable guy he was.) and the beginning of the relative mediocrity of the '70s. And although my buddies and I had plenty negative to say about the downturn in victories then (we used to call the team the Blue Tunas because they "flopped" so much -- ahh, the impertinence of youth!:o), we only said it among ourselves and would never have thought that we would do anything like share such negative thoughts to the world (like we can do today). So I continue to be amazed by the young athletes of today's world. I'm amazed not only that they perform at such high levels, but that they can continue to do so under such scrutiny and with so much vitriol thrown their way, even by those who claim to be their supporters.

So I suggest a poll to see what our age distribution is...maybe someone with more statistical ability than I could even come up with a way to balance the "favorite Duke player" results so that those guys who busted a gut in the 50s, 60s, and 70s could get a fair shake. (Just kidding about the current poll, but knowing the age distribution would certainly help us understand future such polls.)

Let's get this season under way! I'm ready!

Grey Devil

P.S. I'll be in Maui for the Classic. Who else is going?

[accfanfrom1970]

My love for Duke basketball coincided with a trip to see my sister at Duke, and getting into a Duke-Maryland game with her roomates ID (a female nursing student). I was a High School Senior wearing my football jacket....of course it was the Neil McGeachy year, and they were happy to have fans in the seats. But the game went into OT as I remember, Terry Chili and Willie Hodges battled Len Elmore, Lefty kept going beserk on the sidelines, the crazies had skull caps with thermometers on them pointing in the red, heady stuff. Duke fans definetly need to ready Forever's Team and the Brill book to get a pre-K perspective.....it was the only Maryland game I've been able to go to....

[Bob Green]

So I think it might be useful if we did a poll to get a sense of our age distribution. No one has to identify themselves with an age if they don't want to, an anonymous poll will do just fine, although I think it would be healthier if we did identify our age. I think it might be useful information with which to temper our discussions.



Post the poll and let's see who responds. I've got no problem stating that I'm 48 years young and have been a Duke fan since the Bubas years. I started watching Duke basketball alongside my Dad at a very young age. I can vaguely remember watching Bob Verga when I was six and seven years old (actually I can remember my Dad yelling his name and beating on the living room floor with his shoe) but the Freddie Lind triple overtime win over UNC is my earliest crystal clear memory of Duke basketball (I was eight). While I had watched many Duke games prior to this one, the triple overtime victory is the first game I can associate to concrete memories.

For the youngsters in the crowd, this is back in the day of two ACC games on TV a week sponsored by Pilot Life. One night game during the week and a Saturday afternoon game. The triple overtime victory was a Saturday afternoon game the first week of March 1968.

[OZZIE4DUKE]

My love for Duke basketball coincided with a trip to see my sister at Duke, and getting into a Duke-Maryland game with her roomates ID (a female nursing student). I was a High School Senior wearing my football jacket....of course it was the Neil McGeachy year, and they were happy to have fans in the seats. But the game went into OT as I remember, Terry Chili and Willie Hodges battled Len Elmore, Lefty kept going beserk on the sidelines, the crazies had skull caps with thermometers on them pointing in the red, heady stuff. Duke fans definetly need to ready Forever's Team and the Brill book to get a pre-K perspective.....it was the only Maryland game I've been able to go to....

The games against Maryland in those years were our most competitive and most successful. We beat Maryland in 1973 (Bucky Waters last year as coach) in a huge upset - that was the Gary Melchionni 39 point game, lost the McGeachy year and Bill Foster's first year, and then upset Maryland in 1976 (with Terry Chili making the clutch, clinching FTs)! That game released so much pent up fan frustration in Cameron - it is still one of the top 5 loudest times I've ever heard in Cameron.

I have more stories about the 1975 game, but not for posting now.

[Indoor66]

I started following Duke after attending the '57 Orange Bowl. I got serious into BB in 1960. I'm 63 and began attending games in Duke Indoor Stadium in January, 1966.

[Stray Gator]

I started following Duke after attending the '57 Orange Bowl. I got serious into BB in 1960. I'm 63 and began attending games in Duke Indoor Stadium in January, 1966.

I also attended that 1958 Orange Bowl game (played following the 1957 season), when Duke turnovers allowed Oklahoma to pull away in the fourth quarter and blow open what had been a close game. Of course, I was only 9 at the time, and thought the Oklahoma fight song and the "Boomer Schooner" rolling across the field was way cool. :o I knew then that I'd always love college football. I didn't know then that I'd end up attending Duke in the fall of 1966 and graduating in 1970. What an entertaining trip it's been...

[gw67]

With regard to depth (item 1) and pace (item 3) during the Coach K years, both are good points. The following is Coach K's remarks concerning these two issues:

"We'll play a lot of people," Krzyzewski says. "We're looking to play more up-tempo than we did last year. I'm not saying more up-tempo than we ever did because we've been one of the nation's leaders in offense for most seasons."

I'll take him at his word but it is understood that a deeper rotation and faster pace depend on many variables, including injuries, player development and the ability of the freshmen to take some of the load.

My perception for the past few years is that the board has gotten younger. This is probably based on the fact that many of those who were consistent posters when this board started no longer post for a multitude of reasons. The board has, nevertheless, retained the civility that distinguishes it from many college basketball boards. I'm also a fan of the Terps and I used to post on their board a few years ago but I stopped when it seemed to me that it was taken over by students who were rude, juvenile and confrontational.

gw67

[Exiled_Devil]

I talked to Jumbo the other night, and I think the genesis of the problem that he, and I as well, have with the current tenor of the board is that while we're both very young (30ish), we both acquired Duke at an early age. So we remember back into the mid-80s.

I think a lot of folks not only don't really start following a team when they're 8, but they don't start following Duke at all till they get to Duke. So you've got a large quantity of, say, 2005 grads whose Duke basketball memory beings in 2001.

So Jumbo and I act like crotchety old kooks, but I would offer this to the relative noobs. (And compared to Sumner and Brill, we're all noobs).

Read Sumner's recent book, Brill's recent book, and ESPECIALLY Brill's 1986 book to get an idea of the history of the program, and of K's first years in particular. My mother bought me that book when I was 9, and thank goodness, because it gave me a good sense of the Cameron, Gerrard, Bradley, Bubas, and Foster years.

Well put points, TBeard. I think that there is an even more specific nuance:

I started following the team (and college basketball) in 1998, when I met my wife who was a PhD student. She started at Duke as an undergrad in 1992, so she had 6 years of Cameron (and 5 more coming) under her belt. All of her stories centered around the time between the Championships - the nineties were great years, but also had rough times. The relative success of the nineties blends into a sense of "waiting for 2001" in many stories now. Discussion focuses on the teams that won it all, as if they are the sole example of the Duke way.

I think that part of the issue with prognosticating the upcoming (and any) season is that we ignore vast categories of data. Jumbo showing us the numbers is a great example of how that comes about. I expect the books would be as well ( I haven't read them.)

[throatybeard]

I started following the team (and college basketball) in 1998, when I met my wife who was a PhD student.

See, I knew you hadn't been married much longer than I had, if at all. 3/5/2000, homes.

You're right about the framing device that the 2001 championship provides in people's minds.

[MulletMan]

See, I knew you hadn't been married much longer than I had, if at all. 3/5/2000, homes.

You're right about the framing device that the 2001 championship provides in people's minds.

Its weird... that 2001 title puts sort of a close on one part of my Duke Basketball fan-dom. That was my first year in grad skool and my whole love affair with the prgram changed after that point. I think I watched my first Duke game in '86, and really started reading about teams prior to that sometime in high school, but once we won that title in '01 I felt like a chapter closed. In retrospect I think that's because after that season, I was a more visible crazy and invovled with ticket distribution etc. It was like actually meeting the people invovled with the program and being part of this little off shoot made it different.

Throaty, you know what I'm saying?

Jumbo... I like your thoughts. I just wouldn't vocalize them because, A. I don't have the patience to look up the stats, and B. it would make me sound like a crotchety old man.

[johnb]

I also attended that 1958 Orange Bowl game (played following the 1957 season), when Duke turnovers allowed Oklahoma to pull away in the fourth quarter and blow open what had been a close game. Of course, I was only 9 at the time, and thought the Oklahoma fight song and the "Boomer Schooner" rolling across the field was way cool.

Having had parents who went to OU in the mid-late 1950's, I also loved the fight song, the boomer schooner, and yearbooks in which the football team essentially never lost. Of course, things changed when I went to Duke, and if we were to again play Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl, my loyalties --which would be distracted a bit by hell having frozen over--would have shifted eastward.

[throatybeard]

Its weird... that 2001 title puts sort of a close on one part of my Duke Basketball fan-dom. That was my first year in grad skool and my whole love affair with the program changed after that point. I think I watched my first Duke game in '86, and really started reading about teams prior to that sometime in high school, but once we won that title in '01 I felt like a chapter closed. In retrospect I think that's because after that season, I was a more visible crazy and involved with ticket distribution etc. It was like actually meeting the people involved with the program and being part of this little off shoot made it different.

Throaty, you know what I'm saying?

I think in my head I divide it up into "waiting to be at Duke" (life thru 1994 spring in my case), at/around Duke (1994-2004), and "since I left" (2004-). I was never really as involved as you or Ed--only 2 years on committee and never in a leadership role. I think I was a lot less visible in the sense that I was the guy with the beard, but I doubt anybody in the program other than Sobb knows my name, maybe Laurence.

[kmspeaks]

As one of the younger members of this community I just want to say thanks to posters like jumbo and others who give us youngsters a perspective of the past. I fell in love with Duke at the age of 9. I don't remember all the details but the first basketball game I ever watched was a Duke game at the time Wojo was there. I don't recall any specific play but i just remember watching him and thinking "i want that guy's team to win."
I remember watching elton and jason williams and shane and jj but I love the fact that people on these boards remind us (or let us know) about guys like Spanarkel, Gminski, Banks etc. On most boards that wouldn't happen. So thanks for passing down the legends.
GO DUKE!! I LOVE DBR!!

[grossbus]

"It's not just that old-timers like Heyman were ignored"

a travesty

[Dukerati]

"It's not just that old-timers like Heyman were ignored"

a travesty

As another of the "young" crowd, I view Heyman's omission as less of a travesty and more of a cold reality. The fact of the matter is, DBR is an online community (which will skew younger since the internet was not around in the 70s and 80s) and Duke has steadily picked up fans during the K era-- so much so that I would wager that the majority of Duke fans and DBR readers are here because of K.

Therefore, when we talk about favorite players, the JJs and Jwills will have high totals because they simply had more fans than Heyman ever did, regardless of greatness.

[phaedrus]

As another of the "young" crowd, I view Heyman's omission as less of a travesty and more of a cold reality. The fact of the matter is, DBR is an online community (which will skew younger since the internet was not around in the 70s and 80s) and Duke has steadily picked up fans during the K era-- so much so that I would wager that the majority of Duke fans and DBR readers are here because of K.

Therefore, when we talk about favorite players, the JJs and Jwills will have high totals because they simply had more fans than Heyman ever did, regardless of greatness.

Especially since this is a "favorite" poll, not a "greatest" poll. no matter how well-versed in duke basketball history i might be, heyman will not be my favorite because i didn't see him play. I saw JJ Redick play almost every single game of his Duke career. It's not due to ignorance that I favor JJ.

[DevilAlumna]

Post the poll and let's see who responds. I've got no problem stating that I'm 48 years young and have been a Duke fan since the Bubas years.

Interesting thread, and always good to get the long-term and historical perspectives.

As for the poll, I think "when did you first became a Duke BBall Fan" would be more relevant than "how old are you." For example, both my mom and I became loyal fans during 1990-91, when I was a sophomore in high school, and she was, well, not in high school. :)

[mapei]

I wish we would just stop it already with the snipes about people's ages and which players have come to be their favorites. There's room for all of us here, and I for one hope we don't do that poll just so someone can be self-satisfied in seeing how young and ignorant the DBR membership really is.

BTW, I'm old enough that Art Heyman came and spoke to my high school while he was at Duke. But my favorite players are the recent ones.

[Jumbo]

I wish we would just stop it already with the snipes about people's ages and which players have come to be their favorites. There's room for all of us here, and I for one hope we don't do that poll just so someone can be self-satisfied in seeing how young and ignorant the DBR membership really is.

BTW, I'm old enough that Art Heyman came and spoke to my high school while he was at Duke. But my favorite players are the recent ones.

I don't think anyone is "sniping" about ages. That certainly wasn't the intention of this thread. I think there is a certain portion of posters who don't have much perspective, and who speak in absolutes based on a tiny sample size of information. That's what I wanted to address in my original post.

[mapei]

It wasn't directed at you, Jumbo. I always learn a lot from your posts. But there seemed to be a "gang mentality" building among some people that I thought was counter to the great spirit of community I've always found here. Let's not do that.

Actually, I hope you're right about what's in store this year!

[jipops]

I think a lot of folks not only don't really start following a team when they're 8, but they don't start following Duke at all till they get to Duke. So you've got a large quantity of, say, 2005 grads whose Duke basketball memory beings in 2001.

I'm in my mid-30's and my first distinct memories of Duke basketball featured a team of Tom Emma, Mike Tissaw, Vince Taylor, Dan Meagher, and Richard Ford. I have faint memories of the G-Man/Banks squad but I really got into Duke in the very early eighties, so throaty's theory of following a team starting about age 8 does indeed apply to me. Turned out to be pretty cool getting emotionally tied to a team that was in the midst of some very lean years. Made these successful ones all the more enjoyable.

In tonight's postgame K mentioned that last year's team had planned to play an uptempo style but pre-season injuries to Paulus and Henderson derailed all of that. He also emphasized the fact that there are more guys available this season to allow for this style of play.

[jimmymax]

Just observing, no answers or solutions, but it seems like the trend of computer/internet access being what it is, that it’s not surprising that the age of sports board posters is on the decline. And with younger participants it’s only natural that the history of these sports/teams may not have been experienced first hand or otherwise.

In recent years the DBR moderators seem to have been struggling with the board’s identity. I almost never visit other boards, except to follow the occasional link in a DBR thread highlighting meltdowns at other fan sites after a bad loss or miss on a recruit – mostly for a laugh at the immature reactions. This is enough for me to realize that DBR is (and has been for some time) special. The level of discourse is generally pretty sophisticated. Still I think the locking of threads can be premature. Sometimes things get ugly or personal but the application of the “you’re not adding anything new” reasoning seems quick to be cited at times.

I’m not sure of the makeup of the moderators, and I certainly value their effort and involvement, but I would venture that many date back to the parquet-floor-background- years and have a sense of ownership of DBR. Understandably, rehashing the same discussions each pre-season, or after an unexpected loss when the sky-is-falling folks come out of the woodwork, gets old. It must also be difficult to accommodate enthusiastic newcomers, whose teeth were perhaps cut on other more wild-west boards, when you have a picture in mind of DBR’s past and projected future.

There’s a parallel between the board and the team. Each year posts show up about rotation, depth, starters, big men, etc. Older posters can cite years when whatever the bee-in-the-bonnet issue is didn’t matter. Newer posters have no context, or ignore this. But it goes on and is self-perpetuating. There is more information posted about players, practices, exhibitions all the time. Expectations and possibilities build each year: this will be the fastest, best passing, rebounding, etc. team ever -- to the point where players who have never suited up for an ACC game are being compared to players with retired jerseys and recruits who didn’t sign on are dismissed.

I don’t think the added player exposure, information or hype will diminish, so how does DBR cope and maintain? Does it get worse each year Duke doesn’t win the NCAAs? What if Duke fails to make the tourney? Will it lead to DBR banning/censorship? Will apathy cause the hit counter to crawl?

I hope the recurring themes, perceived as tiresome by some, will evolve and mutate with gentle influence from the moderators. In the meantime I think the concerns-du-jour of posters, regardless of age/experience, are valid.

Does citing what happened X years ago mean that it will happen again – this year? No.

Can someone freak out that Duke doesn’t have an established post player, point guard, etc.? Sure.

Is it OK to be paranoid about the roster the team down the road has leading to the conclusion that Duke’s season is doomed? I suppose so.

The game changes over the years: big men dominate, guards dominate, shooting, defense, etc. But who know what plan a creative coach might some up with? Who knows what will happen when they play the games? Who knows what will happen post-K? We all lose perspective at times with respect to expectations of teams and individuals. Hot button issues change over time. But will all watch and see, and react.

We’ve been very lucky for many years, to the point of being spoiled. We should all take a step back and appreciate the ride we’ve been on – at least the past 20+ years of the K era -- regardless of how long we’ve been riding. And for quite a while now DBR has been there as a mirror.

[Udaman]

Jumbo,

You are correct, of course, that many of the general comments that people throw out about Coach K have not always been the case. He has gone 8-9-10 deep before. He has changed his starting lineup. We have gone up tempo. I'm class of 1990, so I remember all of those things.

What has bothered me, and some of my fellow classmates, is that over the last few years he has abandoned that, for whatever reason. You may argue that it is based on the skill set he has around him. Possibly true, but I don't necessarily agree. Look at the 96-97 season. He played Carmen Wallace and Chris Chappell over 10 minutes a game. We went 9 deep with people like Ricky Price and Greg Newton (who were fine, but not great, and not great defensive players).

Compare that to last year. We had Zoubek and Pocious (two people I would say as good if not better than Price and Newton) and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them. The simple fact is that over the last 7 years Coach K has changed his strategy about playing people lots of minutes versus going deep. It's easy to see. The past 7 years we have had 17 players average 31.5 minutes or more a game (including an astounding 10 over the last 3 seasons). The 7 years before that, we had 8 players average 31.5 or more, including three seasons where nobody did.

Now, if this year Coach K goes 9 deep this year, then at least I will acknowledge that he has bucked the trend. But if at the end of the year we are pretty much playing 7 guys and that is it, please don't come back with the "Well, you have to earn it to play with Coach K" line, because if you do I'll come back with "It's not Global Warming, just a warm phase we are going through" retort.

[Troublemaker]

Jumbo,

You are correct, of course, that many of the general comments that people throw out about Coach K have not always been the case. He has gone 8-9-10 deep before. He has changed his starting lineup. We have gone up tempo. I'm class of 1990, so I remember all of those things.

What has bothered me, and some of my fellow classmates, is that over the last few years he has abandoned that, for whatever reason. You may argue that it is based on the skill set he has around him. Possibly true, but I don't necessarily agree. Look at the 96-97 season. He played Carmen Wallace and Chris Chappell over 10 minutes a game. We went 9 deep with people like Ricky Price and Greg Newton (who were fine, but not great, and not great defensive players).

Compare that to last year. We had Zoubek and Pocious (two people I would say as good if not better than Price and Newton) and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them. The simple fact is that over the last 7 years Coach K has changed his strategy about playing people lots of minutes versus going deep. It's easy to see. The past 7 years we have had 17 players average 31.5 minutes or more a game (including an astounding 10 over the last 3 seasons). The 7 years before that, we had 8 players average 31.5 or more, including three seasons where nobody did.

Now, if this year Coach K goes 9 deep this year, then at least I will acknowledge that he has bucked the trend. But if at the end of the year we are pretty much playing 7 guys and that is it, please don't come back with the "Well, you have to earn it to play with Coach K" line, because if you do I'll come back with "It's not Global Warming, just a warm phase we are going through" retort.

Man, we've all written these arguments word-for-word like 20 times each already. Some points that you've either forgotten or have ignored:

- Pocius was injured all of last season and required offseason surgery. There's no way you could've expected him to play. He recently re-aggravated his injury again this season. Dude might just be injury-prone.
- Since you've been a fan for a decent amount of time and know the history pretty well, what does K's recent years of relatively shorter bench coincide with?
- Answer: it coincided with NBA defections. Ever since the first NBA defections occurred (Brand, Avery, Maggette), Duke's depth has been decimated almost annually by kids going league. No other program has lost as many players to the NBA as Duke since 1999. Has K recently made an adjustment for that?
- Answer: Yes. He's now recruiting to 12 or 13 scholarships whereas over the course of his career, it was common for Duke to only have 11 schollie players or less. I would expect Duke to always be at or near the schollie limit going forward, and this will help immensely to combat the effects of NBA defections on our talent and depth.
- I do admit it took K a year or two longer than I had hoped to make this adjustment but it's done now. I'm not going to go through the years one-by-one again, but every single year that you could complain about Duke's depth, there has always been at least one "what-if" player who had declared early, sometimes surprisingly like Luol Deng (there have also been unfortunate injuries, transfers, and overall, plain inexperience, that have played a factor to lost depth). With the new approach to recruiting, even surprise departures shouldn't devastate depth.

[Hector Vector]

I haven't read all the posts so maybe this was picked up elsewhere, but a two other factors in K's short rotations in recent years, besides the absence of quality 8-11 players (which I actually think there have been more of then generally recognized), have been:

a. the presence of superior players that K will keep on the court all the time.

Unlike Jim Calhoun and Roy Williams, when K has an elite player -- Redick, Battier, Jason Williams -- he tends to play them 35 minutes + in competitive games, and sometimes even non-competitive games. He is more likely to substitute freely when the difference in talent between starter and reserve is smaller.

That should be more pronounced this year when the difference between Henderson, Nelson, Scheyer and Thomas, King, Zoubek, McClure is not that big. The one guy, based on what I'm hearing who might not have a comparable substitute is Singler, particularly since we are less deep at the 4-5.

b. when the depth is all freshmen

I think when K has a 4 or 5 player freshman class, people are sometimes frustrated that not all the highly regarded freshman are being played. I attribute that to the fact that it is hard to intergrate that many new players into an elite team. Therefore, for example, when Paulus and McRoberts were being worked into a team competing for the championship, it was hard to also use Boating, Boykin, Marty a lot.

This year I expect only one freshman to be a consistent top of the rotation player. The other two will work in about equally with other reserves.

[throatybeard]

The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them.

Can I get an explanation of why Krzyzewski would be expected to substitute two mediocre freshman forwards, Boykin and Boateng, for the best SG we've had in 20 years?

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

You are correct, of course, that many of the general comments that people throw out about Coach K have not always been the case. He has gone 8-9-10 deep before. He has changed his starting lineup. We have gone up tempo. I'm class of 1990, so I remember all of those things.

What has bothered me, and some of my fellow classmates, is that over the last few years he has abandoned that, for whatever reason. You may argue that it is based on the skill set he has around him. Possibly true, but I don't necessarily agree. Look at the 96-97 season. He played Carmen Wallace and Chris Chappell over 10 minutes a game. We went 9 deep with people like Ricky Price and Greg Newton (who were fine, but not great, and not great defensive players).

Compare that to last year. We had Zoubek and Pocious (two people I would say as good if not better than Price and Newton) and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them. The simple fact is that over the last 7 years Coach K has changed his strategy about playing people lots of minutes versus going deep. It's easy to see. The past 7 years we have had 17 players average 31.5 minutes or more a game (including an astounding 10 over the last 3 seasons). The 7 years before that, we had 8 players average 31.5 or more, including three seasons where nobody did.

Now, if this year Coach K goes 9 deep this year, then at least I will acknowledge that he has bucked the trend. But if at the end of the year we are pretty much playing 7 guys and that is it, please don't come back with the "Well, you have to earn it to play with Coach K" line, because if you do I'll come back with "It's not Global Warming, just a warm phase we are going through" retort.

Troublemaker, Hector and Throaty all addressed this very well. But let me just add that I think it's silly to compare, say, Newton and Price in 1996-97 to Zoubek and Pocius last year. In 1996-97, Newton was a senior and a returning starter. He was actually coming off a very good season and had a ton of experience. (Of course, then he went off the deep end and got benched). Zoubek, on the other hand, was an extremely raw freshman. (FWIW, Newton barely played as a frosh). Similarly, Price was a returning starter as a junior in 1996-97, coming off an outstanding sophomore season. Pocius was a sophomore who was a) injured and b) barely played as a frosh. How are those situations remotely comparable?

[Indoor66]

Troublemaker, Hector and Throaty all addressed this very well. But let me just add that I think it's silly to compare, say, Newton and Price in 1996-97 to Zoubek and Pocius last year. In 1996-97, Newton was a senior and a returning starter. He was actually coming off a very good season and had a ton of experience. (Of course, then he went off the deep end and got benched). Zoubek, on the other hand, was an extremely raw freshman. (FWIW, Newton barely played as a frosh). Similarly, Price was a returning starter as a junior in 1996-97, coming off an outstanding sophomore season. Pocius was a sophomore who was a) injured and b) barely played as a frosh. How are those situations remotely comparable?

Darn, Jumbo, don't confuse me with facts.

[jimsumner]

"and he basically refused to play them. The year before when JJ was clearly getting exhausted (and had the prior three years as well), we had Pocious, Boykin and Boating and he refused to play them."

What bothers me about this recurring argument is the word "refused." Maybe I'm over-analyzing this one word but to me this suggests a petulant three-year-old "refusing" to eat their veggies. "No, no, no!"

Maybe Mike Krzyzewski all of a sudden has lost the ability to evaluate the talent on his team but I'm pretty sure he would have used Zoubek and Pocius and anybody else more if he thought that using them enhanced his team's ability to win a basketball game.

[mepanchin]

Why are people comparing Zoubek's freshman year to Newton's senior year? Zoubek turned the ball over a full one third of the time he tried to do anything with it. When Newton was a senior, he turned it over less than 15% of the time. Worth noting that Newton had similar turnover problems to Zoubek as a freshman - and played even fewer minutes.

I think you'll find the "lack of depth" problems since, oh, 05 or so stem more from NBA defections and Kris Humphries and the class of 05 admittedly sucking relatively than it does from Coach K's reluctance to use a deep line-up. I will also maintain that JJ was not tired at the end of the 2006 season - he just ran into Garrett Temple, who was a nightmare match-up for our beloved JJ and his T-Rex arms.

Furthermore, the 00-01 team was pretty shallow with only 7 players getting any sort of significant play-time - and they seemed to be ok. I think you have to do what you can with what you have and you can be equally successful playing a deep bench or playing a short bench, as long as you tailor the team properly.

[cato]

(Of course, then [Newton] went off the deep end and got benched).

Heh. I remember Newton showing up at a house party with some pretty sketchy friends. The best part was that 4 out of my 6 house mates had no idea who the tall dude standing next to the keg was.

[throatybeard]

Why are people comparing Zoubek's freshman year to Newton's senior year?

Ask Udaman.

[Zeb]

K's supporters on the depth issue say that since 2000, Duke has had fewer numbers of highly talented players. This caused K to use a small rotation because he got more value out of a great player for 35 minutes than giving 10-15 minutes to a fresher but much less skilled player.

Critics of the short bench retort with the idea that there's always a drop off from a starter to a bench player, but that using depth has an intrinsic value beyond the marginal value of a starter's minute versus a bench player's. Depth allows a faster place, reduces injuries, better prepares a team to recover from injuries, enhances player development, cuts down on transfers, keeps players from wearing down over the season, etc.

K supporters' responses to these items ranged from complete rejection (JJ is NOT tired!) to admitting that yes, depth does have benefits, but those benefits have not been enough to justify sitting down a vastly superior player on previous teams.

With talent suposedly much more evenly distributed across 11 players on this year's team, everyone is predicting that K will go deep. Udaman's hypothetical is right on then--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it.

[Jumbo]

Udaman's hypothetical is right on then--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it.

Those two sentences inherently contradict each other.

[throatybeard]

Those two sentences inherently contradict each other.

Sort of like some of the things Udaman said.

[Zeb]

You start this thread telling everyone that K's recent teams have not had enough talent to go deep, and that this year since K has plenty of talent he will play more players.

That may be true... at the end of the season if 8 or 9 guys are seeing significant minutes, than your theory that K is still open to using depth when he has enough talent will be true.

But if K decides that he likes 35 minutes out of Singler and Henderson and Nelson, and only 6-7 players see real minutes, what then? Does that mean everyone (including you) was wrong that this is a deep team? Or does it mean that K just likes playing his best guys a lot and doesn't see value in giving the 7th and 8th guys more minutes?

If this squad doesn't do deep, will there ever be a team with an even enough talent distribution to justify not giving the starters minutes in the mid-30's?

[Jumbo]

You start this thread telling everyone that K's recent teams have not had enough talent to go deep, and that this year since K has plenty of talent he will play more players.

That may be true... at the end of the season if 8 or 9 guys are seeing significant minutes, than your theory that K is still open to using depth when he has enough talent will be true.

But if K decides that he likes 35 minutes out of Singler and Henderson and Nelson, and only 6-7 players see real minutes, what then? Does that mean everyone (including you) was wrong that this is a deep team? Or does it mean that K just likes playing his best guys a lot and doesn't see value in giving the 7th and 8th guys more minutes?

If this squad doesn't do deep, will there ever be a team with an even enough talent distribution to justify not giving the starters minutes in the mid-30's?

I get it perfectly. You're still contradicting yourself. I'll give you one more chance to detect the flaw in your logic yourself. If you can't find it, I'll be happy to point it out to you.

[Zeb]

Yes, I am missing the contradiction. I see it pretty simply. If this team does not go 8+ deep this year:

a) you are wrong about its talent level

or

b) you are wrong that K will expand the rotation

Keep in mind, I think this hypothetical will not occur. I think Duke will be deep. But it's more fun to have these talks now before we have the benefit of hindsight.

[Jumbo]

Yes, I am missing the contradiction. I see it pretty simply. If this team does not go 8+ deep this year:

a) you are wrong about its talent level

or

b) you are wrong that K will expand the rotation

Keep in mind, I think this hypothetical will not occur. I think Duke will be deep. But it's more fun to have these talks now before we have the benefit of hindsight.

You pretty much got it. Remember, this is what you said originally: "--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it."

The point is that the possibility still exists for players 6 and 7, for instance, to distance themselves considerably from players 8 and 9. You finally mentioned a version of that possibility above when you said "you are wrong about its talent level." But that doesn't take in-season separation into account.

Regardless, none of that makes udaman's argument correct, nor does it make this season some sort of ultimate test for "depth."

[CDu]

You pretty much got it. Remember, this is what you said originally: "--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it."

The point is that the possibility still exists for players 6 and 7, for instance, to distance themselves considerably from players 8 and 9. You finally mentioned a version of that possibility above when you said "you are wrong about its talent level." But that doesn't take in-season separation into account.

Regardless, none of that makes udaman's argument correct, nor does it make this season some sort of ultimate test for "depth."

In which case, this season WOULDN'T be a different experience. If once again talent separation (either unobserved inherent separation or mid-season improvement separation) reduces the rotation to 6-7, wouldn't that sort of disagree with your initial argument? Either that, or it would sort of support Udaman's argument, right?

For the record, I'm in the camp that does think this team will have more depth. I don't know how much, because I suspect that Pocius and Zoubek will get squeezed, and I don't know if McCLure will make an impact this year. But I do expect an extended rotation this year.

[Zeb]

I already allowed for this in my earleir statement, which you left out when quoting me.


With talent suposedly much more evenly distributed across 11
players on this year's team, everyone is predicting that K will go deep. Udaman's hypothetical is right on then--if by the end of the season K decides that 6-7 players are clearly the best and plays them 30+ minutes a night, well the depth debate is over. If this team doesn't go deep, no one can argue that K vlaues depth but he just hasn't had the teams to use it.

I still argue there is no contradiction, and I don't see where Udaman is wrong. But at this point it seems like we're talking in circles.

Go Duke.

[throatybeard]

What I don't get is why people think that one season, 2007-08, represents some sort of final referendum on Krzyzewski's attitude towards depth. He's been coaching for three decades.

[Jumbo]

In which case, this season WOULDN'T be a different experience. If once again talent separation (either unobserved inherent separation or mid-season improvement separation) reduces the rotation to 6-7, wouldn't that sort of disagree with your initial argument? Either that, or it would sort of support Udaman's argument, right?

No, because it's a question of general vs. specific. Udaman is saying generally that Coach K no longer likes playing more than seven guys. And he is making comparisions between not playing Zoubek/Pocius last year with Price/Newton in 1996-97.

I'm speaking that depth is a team-specific issue, that Coach K goes deep specifically when he has a large number of players who don't have a huge drop in skill. Now, when I say this season will be different, I'm making my best guess at player evaluation. There is every chance that I could end up wrong. Maybe Smith, Zoubek and a healthy McClure won't be as good as I think. If that happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that Coach K isn't a fan of using his bench. It could just mean that I didn't have a good read of the talent on this team.

[Zeb]

Translation: If K plays a 6 man rotation for the rest of his career at Duke, it means nothing about his attitude towards depth and everything about the talent makeup of each of the rosters.

That's certainly one way to argue. Pretty tough to disprove.

[Jumbo]

Translation: If K plays a 6 man rotation for the rest of his career at Duke, it means nothing about his attitude towards depth and everything about the talent makeup of each of the rosters.

That's certainly one way to argue. Pretty tough to disprove.

That's not the translation. That's a straw man. I'm talking about this season. And I've already shown you quite a few seasons where K has gone extemely deep on his bench. Throaty is right -- why are we trying to judge Coach K's beliefs based on one season (or even a few) -- when he's been at Duke so long?

[Zeb]

The concern Udaman raised is whether K has changed his bench philosophy in recent years. How does 25 years of history help answer that?

To his credit, Coach K is still a work in progress and frequently cites the national team as a huge learning experience. Duke is playing some zone this year--I think that partly stems from his international experience and is another example that what happened in the previous 25 years doesn't guarantee what comes next.

No team since 2000 has been as talented in the 7-10 spots as this year's. This season will provide a great test of whether K's recent lack of a bench has been due to personnel or philosophy. (Frankly, I think you agree on this whether or not you admit it.)

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

As I understand the argument, it goes:

"Although K may once have been willing to use depth, since 2000* K has not been willing to use guys that could contribute or build a bench, instead riding his best 6-7 guys as far as they can take him. This has led to more in-season success but has killed us at tournament time. It has also made guys who are 'left out' feel discouraged and less able to find their place on the team."

The argument points to our post-season let-downs in a number of otherwise promising seasons, (2002, 2005, 2006, 2007) based on fatigue and no "Plan B" if our go-to guys had an off night. It also points to to a really high number of transfers by guys who "never got a chance" (Sweet, MT, Boykin, Boat), and an equal number of guys who never got a chance to find their place in the offense on a regular basis and thus never developed a reliable offensive presence (Casey, Dockery, Marty, etc.)

My own sense is that this argument is only half right. Early entry, injury, and some poor recruiting decisions have left us with real problems that have not permitted us go as deep as some are suggesting we should have. Further, a lot of this argument is classic begging the question (i.e. "Marty would be great if only he got more minutes that K should give him because he'd be great"). That said, I know we can all name guys with some serious promise (often McDonald's guys) who never seemed to get any meaningful minutes/shots, (or often couldn't get off the bench) once we entered the meat of the season. We've also seen the pretty poor NCAA results (again, relative to our talent and pre-season expectations) that seem related to tired legs and no Plan B.

This season is so important because it is the first year we have had a large group of guys with obvious potential to contribute a lot. K has said loudly that we will be deep this season, and the title of the thread is essentially mocking anyone who thinks K has made mistakes in this area with a promise that "you'll see this season."

Count me among those that think K has been forced, rather than chosen, to neglect/ignore his bench in favor of a small cadre of iron men. But also count me as a guy that needs to see an example from this millennium that K is still willing to give guys some freedom to learn on the job in service of depth. If not this year, when?




*2000 is not just cherry-picked to fit an argument, it is an important benchmark for a number of reasons: it was the first year we faced any serious NBA defections, it was the end of Dean/Gut period in the ACC. Maybe more importantly, since 2001 we have had talent that is equal to or exceeded every team in the country, but we've only seriously contended for an NCAA title once in that period. This period is not a small sample size and it clearly represents a trend that K's teams in 198X or early/mid-199X are not relevant to.

[Zeb]

Count me among those that think K has been forced, rather than chosen, to neglect/ignore his bench in favor of a small cadre of iron men. But also count me as a guy that needs to see an example from this millennium that K is still willing to give guys some freedom to learn on the job in service of depth. If not this year, when?


This summary and conclusion says everything I've wanted to say on this topic (and in much finer fashion than I could hope to).

[Troublemaker]

There are 8 guys that I will be very surprised isn't part of the rotation at the end of the season if healthy: Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Smith, Scheyer, King, McClure. Lance is very, very close to making that list as well (in fact, he's almost certainly a starter at the beginning of the season), but I have still have some doubts about his effectiveness on offense that might end up putting him on the deep bench (but I would agree that outcome isn't likely). And if McClure goes down because of health reasons, Lance would probably replace him in the rotation because we'd need the height, so 8 seems like a sure bet to me.

Will Coach go 11 deep? Doubtful, imo. At the beginning of the season, I can see it happening, but I consider it overkill to go 11 deep the entire season. Even the deepest teams usually settle into a 9-man rotation (that can extend to 11 in blowouts) and I think that's what will happen to Duke. 8 is a "sure thing", 9 is likely, 10 possible, and 11 unlikely.

[Jumbo]

the title of the thread is essentially mocking anyone who thinks K has made mistakes in this area with a promise that "you'll see this season."

Hardly. The title means exactly what it says -- many, many posters don't have a particularly long history with Duke basketball. The recipe is in place this year for Duke to resemble some of K's earlier teams, rather than some of his most recent.

[Wander]

I'm speaking that depth is a team-specific issue, that Coach K goes deep specifically when he has a large number of players who don't have a huge drop in skill. Now, when I say this season will be different, I'm making my best guess at player evaluation. There is every chance that I could end up wrong. Maybe Smith, Zoubek and a healthy McClure won't be as good as I think. If that happens, it doesn't necessarily mean that Coach K isn't a fan of using his bench. It could just mean that I didn't have a good read of the talent on this team.

Yes. If we use only seven guys again, it could mean that we've all (as a general consensus) misevalutated the talent. It could also mean that Coach K has a philosophy nowadays of using a shorter bench. They're both possible explanations.

[CDu]

Yes. If we use only seven guys again, it could mean that we've all (as a general consensus) misevalutated the talent. It could also mean that Coach K has a philosophy nowadays of using a shorter bench. They're both possible explanations.

Agreed. It could very well be that K has had a change in philosophy over the years. In fact, I'd say that's certainly not out of the question. I'm quite sure the game has changed in the past 30 years, so it's very possible that Coach K has adapted his style as well.

[Wander]

The only thing I'll add that I didn't make clear before is that (barring multiple injuries, of course), I believe very very very strongly that we're going to use at least 8 guys significantly this year and that this argument is completely irrelevant.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Hardly. The title means exactly what it says -- many, many posters don't have a particularly long history with Duke basketball. The recipe is in place this year for Duke to resemble some of K's earlier teams, rather than some of his most recent.

That's fair enough. "Mock" is probably the wrong word for what I meant. I didn't mean to suggest that you were being mean-spirited or belligerent.

I do think that your post suggested that those without a long history misunderstood/were mischaracterizing K and that this season was the one that would prove them wrong. Obviously this "promise" wouldn't apply if four guys go down with season-ending injuries, but if everyone stays healthy and we still only play 6-7 guys for 8-10+ minutes I think we'd all have to wonder if K is trending differently from the way he coached 15-20 years ago.

[texasdevil06]

Count me among those that think K has been forced, rather than chosen, to neglect/ignore his bench in favor of a small cadre of iron men. But also count me as a guy that needs to see an example from this millennium that K is still willing to give guys some freedom to learn on the job in service of depth. If not this year, when?We were 9-deep as recently as 2002-2003 before the Deng/Livingston/Humphries situations occurred. By 9-deep I mean 9 guys averaging 10+ min./game playing in 25 games or more.

[CDu]

The only thing I'll add that I didn't make clear before is that (barring multiple injuries, of course), I believe very very very strongly that we're going to use at least 8 guys significantly this year and that this argument is completely irrelevant.

I have trouble seeing us play less than 8 guys regularly this year as well.

[Jumbo]

Yes. If we use only seven guys again, it could mean that we've all (as a general consensus) misevalutated the talent. It could also mean that Coach K has a philosophy nowadays of using a shorter bench. They're both possible explanations.

I guess I should get my preseason talent evaluation on record, then, so we can decide whether I missed the boat later on.

I believe Nelson, Singler, Scheyer and Henderson will be Duke's four best players. I believe Paulus and Smith both will get playing time at point guard. I believe Thomas and Zoubek will both see time in the middle, and as neither is a top player just yet, they'll both have to play. So, I don't see any way that Duke doesn't at least use eight players on a regular basis.

The key question, for me, is McClure's health. If he can return to form, I think he'll be in the rotation all year. He might not get huge minutes, but I can see him playing behind or with Singler for a few minutes each game. That's nine.

I expect King and Pocius to get into early games and blowouts. I do not expect either guy to be part of Duke's rotation in big games. Well, scratch that. I think King will be used situationally. Against certain teams, with certain matchups, I think K will use him. And then Duke can be legitimately 10 deep in those situations.

And as far as Pocius goes, I just think it will be hard for him to find time. With Paulus and Smith sharing the point, that takes away some minutes (because Scheyer used to be able to slide over there). What that means if you want Pocius to play, you have to take two of Henderson, Nelson and Scheyer out of the game, unless Duke goes really small (which I expect them to do, at times, with Singler at the five). That just doesn't leave a lot of time for Marty. That said, I think part of "depth" means having someone available as an option, and Marty certainly will be an "option," at the very least.

The only way I could see Duke playing fewer than eight guys is if:
-Zoubek never regains his conditioning.
-McClure never recovers from his injury.
-King is truly limited as a freshman.
-And the small lineup (Point Guard-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler) proves to be particularly effective.

In that scenario, Duke could roll with Paulus, Smith, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson, Singler and Thomas. But I find that very, very unlikely, even though I do expect to see Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler play some as a group, including in end-game scenarios.


Let's see how it plays out.

[snowdenscold]

Maybe more importantly, since 2001 we have had talent that is equal to or exceeded every team in the country, but we've only seriously contended for an NCAA title once in that period.

Shouldn't that be twice (2001, 2004)? We played in the de facto championship game the latter year.

[mehmattski]

I guess I should get my preseason talent evaluation on record, then, so we can decide whether I missed the boat later on.

I agree with pretty much everything from your initial assessment. With reasonable expectations, and the kind of offense Coach K wants to run this year, there almost has to be a larger rotation. Paulus and Smith may end up being complimentary, in a LenDale White/Reggie Bush kind of way, and neither will be able to play 30 minutes in that kind of offense.

I also have faith in Coach K's ability to get players into situations that will make the best of a player's specific skill set. The playing time of Thomas and Zoubek will reflect that. Along those lines, what kind of situations would you imagine Taylor King being called upon? I haven't seen enough of King (having only seen his limited action against Barton), so I'm wondering what you were thinking with that comment.

I'm also looking forward to McClure's return, it's been so long and many fans have probably forgotten just how good a defender he can be. With Henderson and Nelson running up and down the court on offense, McClure can provide valuable minutes on defense if the opponent decides to do what Barton tried- slow waaaay down on their possessions to make Duke pay for silly transition mistakes.

[Wander]

I guess I should get my preseason talent evaluation on record, then, so we can decide whether I missed the boat later on.


I'm not interested in holding people up against the wall for predictions. Everyone and I mean everyone is right and wrong in a lot of their predictions and I think it's a little silly to seriously go after people if they end up being wrong about things like this. I just think you're being a little too easy on K.

I'm actually not sure about Zoubek. Enough has been said about him and I'm not going to pound on the kid, so I'll just say that I have my doubts on how effective he can be this year given the injury. Even forgetting about McClure's health, I'm not convinced about how effective he'll be in a running full court game. However, I do expect the seven you mentioned plus King to play significant roles on the team. So, even if Zoubek and McClure don't recover well, I can't see us using less than eight.

[Wander]

Maybe more importantly, since 2001 we have had talent that is equal to or exceeded every team in the country, but we've only seriously contended for an NCAA title once in that period.

That's not true at all. UConn had more talent in 2006 and UNC had more talent in 2005, just off the top of my head.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Snowden, I was unclear there. I meant to indicate "since the championship in 2001, (arguably the highwater mark in the recent run of Duke dominance) we've only contended once (2004)." I can see how my earlier statement about depth since 2000 would suggest that I meant "since the 2000 season we've only competed once." The steep downward trend from 2001 (unquestioned #1 team in America led by "good guys" Shane and JWill and newly-minted HoF'er K) to 2007 (nationally reviled punching bag for upper-tier teams) is what has a lot of folks concerned

Jumbo, I agree almost completely with your assessment. I expect/hope for a bit more smallball than I think you do, so I expect a bit more time for Marty and Lance and correspondingly less for Z (esp. given his lack of conditioning and bad fit in a run/press system). Still, I basically agree with your sense of what we should expect from the players and the team and, like a lot of folks, expect this argument to be moot at the end of the season where 9-10 guys have both played major minutes and played a significant role in our offense/defense.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

That's not true at all. UConn had more talent in 2006 and UNC had more talent in 2005, just off the top of my head.

In 2005 we had 6 McDonald's All American talents (JJ, Shel*, Dan, Nelson, Dock, Shav), four of which were upperclassmen as well as top 100 Lee and Dave.

UNC had 5 (May, McCants, Williams, Williams, Felton) with Terry, Manuel, and Scott. Our talent was more injured/underperforming, but by rankings we were at least neck-and-neck.

In 2006 we had all the guys above except Ewing and Shav and added McBob (#1 overall) Greg (#1 PG) Boat (McDonald's) as well as top 100 Marty and Boykin. On paper, we were at least as talented as YouCon, with four senior leaders including JJ and Shel to boot. Again, things didn't pan out as we would have liked, but the talent (per recruiting services) was there.

*I know. Anyone question his talent? He was the highest-rated guy we brought in in a class that was advertised as the "greatest ever."

[Jumbo]

I expect/hope for a bit more smallball than I think you do...

I actually expect (and would be happy with) quite a bit of small-ball. As I mentioned, I think we'll see a decent amount of Paulus/Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler.

[dw0827]

What I'm about to ask is, I hope, still within the theme of this thread . . .

Throughout the summer, we've had threads about lineups and small ball ad nauseum . . . and I've been skeptical of small ball, believing that we would be better off with a post presence and that I hoped Z or LT would step up and be that presence . . .

I'm in the midwest, and all my Duke b'ball news comes from this board and I've gotta rely on your eyes and ears (at least until we're on TV every night) . . .

But based upon what you've seen so far (blue white and 2 scrimmages), will Singler be able to provide a meaningful post presence (offensively and defensively) at the ACC level this year? Or is he just not that kind of player?

BZ is apparently not ready yet due to his injury/conditioning . . . LT, well, nobody seems to talk about him much so I'm a great big blank on him . . .

So is our post presence going to be by committee? Can Singler be that presence? Are you encouraged by what you've seen so far? or is post presence going to be a weak point? . . . or do you think my "need" for a post presence is basically irrelevant given the style of play we're likely to adopt?

[CDu]

In 2005 we had 6 McDonald's All American talents (JJ, Shel*, Dan, Nelson, Dock, Shav), four of which were upperclassmen as well as top 100 Lee and Dave.

UNC had 5 (May, McCants, Williams, Williams, Felton) with Terry, Manuel, and Scott. Our talent was more injured/underperforming, but by rankings we were at least neck-and-neck.

In 2006 we had all the guys above except Ewing and Shav and added McBob (#1 overall) Greg (#1 PG) Boat (McDonald's) as well as top 100 Marty and Boykin. On paper, we were at least as talented as YouCon, with four senior leaders including JJ and Shel to boot. Again, things didn't pan out as we would have liked, but the talent (per recruiting services) was there.

*I know. Anyone question his talent? He was the highest-rated guy we brought in in a class that was advertised as the "greatest ever."

This is a VERY tenuous argument. What does "on paper" mean? In high school? Going into the 2006 season, UConn had 4-5 guys who got drafted. Duke had 3, and one of those was a freshman. In the 2005 season, we had 3 guys who got drafted. UNC had 4 or 5.

If you want to change the argument to who had the "best" recruiting classes, then sure, we've had more McD's All-Americans than anybody in the past decade. But even then it's debatable based on your criteria for ranking. The list of McD's All-Americans who stunk in college is pretty long. It's much more fair to actually rate the teams' players based on what they actually did after high school, not based on high school hype.

UNC's championship team in 2005, UConn's team in 2006, and UF, UNC, and Ohio St's teams in 2007 were definitely considered to have more talent depth (and very arguably more top-end talent as well) than our teams those years. Outside of 2002, I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to say we were the most talented team in any of the years since 2001:

2002: we should have won it - one bad game
2003: it was a "rebuilding year"; Kansas had more talent, among others
2004: it was us and UConn, and I wouldn't say that UConn was hurting in talent (Gordon, Okafor, etc)
2005: UNC
2006: UConn
2007: UF, Ohio St, UNC

We had really good teams and in some cases arguably the most talent

[CDu]

What I'm about to ask is, I hope, still within the theme of this thread . . .

Throughout the summer, we've had threads about lineups and small ball ad nauseum . . . and I've been skeptical of small ball, believing that we would be better off with a post presence and that I hoped Z or LT would step up and be that presence . . .

I'm in the midwest, and all my Duke b'ball news comes from this board and I've gotta rely on your eyes and ears (at least until we're on TV every night) . . .

But based upon what you've seen so far (blue white and 2 scrimmages), will Singler be able to provide a meaningful post presence (offensively and defensively) at the ACC level this year? Or is he just not that kind of player?

BZ is apparently not ready yet due to his injury/conditioning . . . LT, well, nobody seems to talk about him much so I'm a great big blank on him . . .

So is our post presence going to be by committee? Can Singler be that presence? Are you encouraged by what you've seen so far? or is post presence going to be a weak point? . . . or do you think my "need" for a post presence is basically irrelevant given the style of play we're likely to adopt?

I'd say it's entirely inconclusive based on the two games we've had so far. We just haven't faced teams with enough size yet. We'll know more when we play some D-1 teams with actual big men.

If I had to guess, we're going to have issues inside with the better post teams. We'll try to combat that with pressure defense with our wings. Hopefully, there just won't be that many really good post teams we face this year (UNC and NC St obviously come to mind), and our size limitations won't hurt us too often.

[mgtr]

I find nothing to complain about in Jumbo's analysis. And I agree that Paulus and Scheyer will both make big contributions to the team this year. I hope that McClure recovers, as he is a fun player to watch. I am still pumped, even after the first 10 minutes of the Barton game.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I guess it goes to how you mean "talent." I agree that HS rankings are inexact (to say the very least). But "got drafted" is an equally flawed method. Trajan, Laettner, Ferry, et al were guys who had college talent that was amazing but that didn't translate into corresponding NBA success. Anybody remember Mateen Cleaves? The NBA drafts based on NBA potential, not college success. "Got drafted" also completely ignores the effect of coaching and player development, the primary critique of K that started this whole discussion.

If you prefer college performance as an indicator of "talent":
In 2005 Duke had 2 1st team all-ACC (JJ Shel) and 1 3rd team (Dan)
Nationally we also had the NDPOY, Rupp POY, and a 1st & 2nd team All-American.
UNC had 2 1st team ACC (May, Felton) and 2 3rd (McCants, Williams)
Nationally, May was MVP on the Final Four and 2nd team All-American

UNC had more depth, but Duke had more at the top. If you take away the injuries (which relate to results but not, imo, to talent) a healthy Nelson, Shav, Dave, Love, and Dock would make this pretty darn close.

In 2006 Duke had the POY, DPOY, and 2 1st team All-Americans.
UCon had Gay make 2nd team All-American.

Again, we have more at the top but less depth.

If the argument is that K brings in, but doesn't develop depth, I think this makes the point pretty strongly. We bring in scads of McDonald's All-Americans, but for a variety of reasons, this doesn't translate into lots of talented players on the court. A few really prosper, but the rest aren't developed into the sorts of players that might "get drafted." I acknowledged that a lot of this has to do with injury and guys not panning out (I think I said "poor recruiting decisions") which is why I'm not 100% in the "K wastes depth" camp. But if you choose to ignore player rankings and fall back on 1-2 more players that NBA scouts think will fit their team, (where does Shav fit, btw? He's in the NBA and was pretty highly touted.) I'm not sure what to say.

If you prefer, I'll amend my statement: "since 2001 Duke has brought in talent with rankings equal to or surpassing that of other programs. That talent has produced ACC and national awards equal to or surpassing that of other programs, but has not produced the sort of bench or versatile attack necessary to achieve the level of postseason NCAA success that might be expected based on the rankings and awards given to our players."

Peace? Lets talk about something more interesting than this. The season is about to start, Jason's polls have sparked some really good discussion, I KNOW we have better things to do than parse talent across past teams.

[Jumbo]

I felt like bringing this thread back, because it generated so much back-and-forth debate before the season. What do we think now?

[shadowfax336]

because it makes you look very prescient... The bench has been slightly shortened due to injuries and has oscillated based on the coaches current happiness level with Taylor King, but as a whole this thread looks dead on correct

[Jumbo]

because it makes you look very prescient... The bench has been slightly shortened due to injuries and has oscillated based on the coaches current happiness level with Taylor King, but as a whole this thread looks dead on correct

Well, I don't mind making myself look reasonably smart on the few occasions that's actually possible. ;) But isn't it great that no one is whining about depth this year? Perspective, people. Perspective. Duke basketball has been around for a while under Coach K, and has taken on many shapes and forms. The constant? Winning.

[dukegirlinsc]

I'm 24. I wasn't even a thought when Art Heyman played for Duke. I vaguely remember Thomas Hill, but I do remember him playing for the Pacers.

And no, I don't remember a lot of Coach K's early career. But on the otherhand, I do remember a lot of it. Say the last 12 years or so. I, unlike many fans, have nothing but faith in his sytems and coaching methods. If he wants Henderson to start over Scheyer, so be it. I'm sure he's doing it for a reason. I have faith and believe in Coach K 200% in whatever he does with this group. And I do agree, this team is good. One of the better teams that I recall in my 24 years. I know he'll guide them to the best of his ability...and that's fine with me. :)

[duke74]

You skipped the Bucky Waters years. I never forget about those bad years so I can really appreciate the good years.

Unfortunately, I lived them first hand!

[throatybeard]

Almost no one is whining about depth. That said, there have been some threads started that basically paraphrase to "What happened to our vaunted changes this season? X player didn't get enough PT to suit me in this game, we didn't play a lot of zone, and I'm not sure what offense that was but I don't see Steve Nash running it." Fortunately, these threads usually die a quick death.

The deceased horse of this season seems to be recruiting.

[Jumbo]

Almost no one is whining about depth. That said, there have been some threads started that basically paraphrase to "What happened to our vaunted changes this season? X player didn't get enough PT to suit me in this game, we didn't play a lot of zone, and I'm not sure what offense that was but I don't see Steve Nash running it." Fortunately, these threads usually die a quick death.

The deceased horse of this season seems to be recruiting.

Well, you and I both know that as long as there are message boards (not just the DBR), people will complain. But I'm happy that this season is helping to dispel many myths that people have presented as facts in the past.