marty gave us a lot

[grossbus]

but LT and McClure gave us zip and Scheyer disappeared in the 2nd half.

[RelativeWays]

Its sad to say but I almost wish that we lose the 1st round in the NCAA tournament and put this season out of its misery. This team has a lot of promise but it has a lot of improving to do in the off season. Grats to Pocious thoug, maybe this will inspire him to have a break out jr. year like Melchionne did a couple of years ago.

[Bob Green]

Pocius really stepped up to the challenge and played a great game:

14 points, 5-5 FGs, 2-2 3-pointers, 2-2 FTs.

Unfortunately, we came up short.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[imagepro]

He could have done it ALL YEAR LONG! <Edited by Mods: Destructively Negative>

[Dukefan4Life]

Marty did step up tonight! it was good to see him have a good game! as usualy lance gave us nothing but is over aggresive wild defense that leads to fouls! we were getting killed inside why K doesnt play Brian z ill never know:confused:

[DukeWarhead]

This will not bode well for seeding at all. Watch, Duke will end up a 9 seed. Seriously.
I'm just about ready to see this year end. First the whole lacrosse thing, then the pretty disappointing season, and all the crap from the Henderson thing - it's been a tough year.
I don't think I'll watch any b-ball the rest of the weekend. I won't even watch the selection show, because they will make a HUGE deal about Duke's "poor" showing.
Oh, the horror. (Excuse the drama.)

[grossbus]

you can be sure the committee will screw us just as bad as a 9 seed as they do when we are a 1. :)

[Chard]

I thought the offese had more bang with Marty in there. More options to pass and score. The kickout by Scheyer to Marty for a wide open three is a good example.

I wonder if he played so much better knowing that he would see significant minutes tonight?

[imagepro]

Yes Chard. I think that had a BIG part to do with it. He could have done it all year long. Lots of us could see it. Others denied it. CLEARLY the kid can PLAY. Now watch people jump on his bandwagon. Too little too late!

Laugh all you want, but I think he could be our leading scorer. PLAY THE KID

[Delaware]

Great game by Marty, but he obviously is not the answer as we lost the game. It's a team game and the team has issues. Henderson started to play well late in the year and Duke lost those couple as well. If both guys had been playing tonight, I'm not sure it would have made a difference. We have too many wasted possessions and the defense has gotten a bit more pourous during the year as we tried to "up the offense".

[Methodistman]

Sorry to sound like Simon Cowell, but I'm not jumping out of my chair. It is absolutely AWESOME (I used all caps - is that cool?) that he scored and shot so well! He really took it to the hoop with authority, and he really converted on his free throws - dude was perfect, offensively.

Seems that basketball is about scoring, and then keeping the other team from scoring . . .

Defense seems to have been the recurring issue.

[grossbus]

"why K doesnt play Brian z ill never know"

one touch, one travel.

[Dukefan4Life]

that may be true, but we could have uses his size inside tonight! we got killed in the paint!.... think about it...:rolleyes:

[grossbus]

we got killed in the paint because of the way they moved the ball and cut to the paint. Z would have gotten lost on D. as jumbo has pointed out (correctly) with his current footwork, he might help in a zone, but not man to man against that kind of offense.

[Chard]

Well, defense and turnovers spelled Dukes' doom. How many turnovers did they have? 17? Ouch.

[DukeDevilDeb]

Seemed to me that Brian got time... after all, he was able to accomplish 2 things in 4 minutes: get a foul called on him, and turn the ball over.

The guy needs to play, I agree, but it is problematic when he comes in, travels or fouls... and then what?

[DukeDevilDeb]

IMAGEPRO:I was in a meeting and was finally able to turn on the radio with about 8 minutes left in the first half. The first thing the announcers said was, "Pocius threw the ball away." The second thing they said was, "The foul is on Marty."

Marty brought lots of energy to the game tonight on the offensive end... and 3 turnovers and 3 personal fouls on the defensive end (with no steals or assists or blocks or anything to compensate). If we could sub in, sub out with Marty on offense and almost anyone else on defense... that might be another story...

Of course NO ONE played defense tonight, no one! And we haven't for the last three games. IT seemed as if State could come down at will and score... And say what you will about who can and will score, until we get back to the fundamentals and playing strong, solid, ongoing D, we aren't going anywhere.

We had 3 steals and 1 block in the entire game... and as Coach K said, not one charge was taken all night despite the consistent drives to the basket by State. The coaches can develop a good to great game plan, but if the players don't execute, we can't win.

We need experience. We need consistency. But most of all, we need a go-to guy. Josh's thundering dunk near the end of the game was terrific... but he is always too little, too late. Where are those strong moves to the basket in the first half?

Enough.

[adam]

I've been a fan of Marty all along... And I'm glad he had a great game tonight. I think the one thing that holds him back, though, (and I know this has been said many times before) is he isn't as good on the defensive end as he is when playing offense. If he focuses on strengthening his defensive play during the off-season, I think we could see big things from him over the next two years (similar to Melchionni).

As for "Z", I think he's still 'growing into his body'. Once he gets his footwork down and further develops his moves on the low post, I think he'll be a great inside player.

Go Duke!!!

[grossbus]

"similar to Melchionni"

junior year maybe. not senior year.

[Chicago 1995]

Sorry to sound like Simon Cowell, but I'm not jumping out of my chair. It is absolutely AWESOME (I used all caps - is that cool?) that he scored and shot so well! He really took it to the hoop with authority, and he really converted on his free throws - dude was perfect, offensively.

Seems that basketball is about scoring, and then keeping the other team from scoring . . .

Defense seems to have been the recurring issue.
But it's not like Marty's D tonight was terrible or at worst, was any more of a problem than any of the other players. No one on the team played D decently tonight.

Marty's limited minutes aren't the reason we lost, but it's not like his D was the reason we lost either.

[tbyers11]

IMAGEPRO:I was in a meeting and was finally able to turn on the radio with about 8 minutes left in the first half. The first thing the announcers said was, "Pocius threw the ball away." The second thing they said was, "The foul is on Marty."

Marty brought lots of energy to the game tonight on the offensive end... and 3 turnovers and 3 personal fouls on the defensive end (with no steals or assists or blocks or anything to compensate). If we could sub in, sub out with Marty on offense and almost anyone else on defense... that might be another story...



Marty had a very good game tonight. His turnover and foul you reference were on one of his first touches on the ball and he was immediately yanked. When he came back his D was not bad at all especially in comparison to rest of the team. Granted he was not guarding Atsur. His 2nd and 3rd fouls were deliberate fouls in OT. His offensive efficiency was off the charts. I don't think the Marty can't play defense argument held any water tonight

[Jumbo]

Marty had a very good game tonight. His turnover and foul you reference were on one of his first touches on the ball and he was immediately yanked.

Wrong. He turned it over immediately in his first stint, and came out two minutes later. He then had the turnover/foul combo at the beginning of his second stint, at the 6:22 mark of the first half. He stayed in the remainder of the house.

[CMS2478]

I mean you can't honestly say we played stellar defense as a team last night........Also, some of you say he played bad defense bc he got 3 fouls.......hhhmmmmmmm. I think pretty much our whole team was in foul trouble. There are a lot of you trying to find flaws in Marty's game last night to defend the fact that he hasn't played much this year. But for once, just give the guy the credit he deserves, he played REALLY WELL!!! Yes, he turned the ball over a couple of times. But how many did we have 17 or 18. He had like 3.......so that means somebody else was doing the rest. I don't hear you on their case.

[tbyers11]

Wrong. He turned it over immediately in his first stint, and came out two minutes later. He then had the turnover/foul combo at the beginning of his second stint, at the 6:22 mark of the first half. He stayed in the remainder of the house.

I had my turnovers mixed up. Marty's first turnover was not the turnover/foul combo that was his second at the 6:22 mark. However, you are incorrect in stating that he came out two minutes later after his first turnover. His first turnover was at 11:25 and he came out at the next dead ball at 11:06. I remember Coach K getting Scheyer up immediately after the poor pass into the post.

My point in bringing up the immediate yank that we are quibbling over the details of is that Marty's turnovers seem to be occur fairly soon after entering the game because he is forcing the action to make a play and impress the coaches. He knows that if he doesn't he will be pulled out as he was tonight. I don't get K's super-short leash with him. When given more minutes and a chance to get into the flow of the game, he did well tonight.

[imagepro]

Good points about Defense Deb. I know Marty had 3 turnovers. Not denying that. But as someone else noted, only one of his fouls was not intentional, when trying to stop the clock.

I never said he was perfect, nor is Zou. I just think they can play a little more. And as we were getting KILLED inside, doesn't it just make sense to use Zou in the paint? Seriously. We were doubled in prodution there by STATE, of all people. Not the biggest team in the land.

I "think" Marty should play a LOT more, espescially when our offense starts to go through those 6-7-8 minute droughts we have suffered ALL year long. I may be wrong, maybe last night was a fluke. But then again, maybe it wasn't.

[Jumbo]

Good points about Defense Deb. I know Marty had 3 turnovers. Not denying that. But as someone else noted, only one of his fouls was not intentional, when trying to stop the clock.

I never said he was perfect, nor is Zou. I just think they can play a little more. And as we were getting KILLED inside, doesn't it just make sense to use Zou in the paint? Seriously. We were doubled in prodution there by STATE, of all people. Not the biggest team in the land.

I "think" Marty should play a LOT more, espescially when our offense starts to go through those 6-7-8 minute droughts we have suffered ALL year long. I may be wrong, maybe last night was a fluke. But then again, maybe it wasn't.

After what I saw from Zoubek in his first-half stint, I did not want him in there again. No, he would not have helped on defense. Costner and McCauley are both skilled, crafty and fluid. Their mobility would have killed Zoubek (in fact, it did while he was in there). When ESPN showed highlights of NC State getting layups in the first half, Zoubek was in the picture almost every time, rotating over late to help.

What we have here is a serious case of "Backup QB" syndrome. The guy on the bench always seems like a better option than the guy who isn't playing that well on the court/field. In this case, you're overlooking all of Zoubek's flaws in the hope that he can somehow do something that his body's just not that capable of, at this point. In the process, you are placing unrealistic expectations on Zoubek, which isn't fair to the kid. As K would say, he's running his own race. Recognize that he needs to improve, give him a summer go get stronger, more mobile and better adjusted to the speed of the game, and then let's see what we've got.

[imagepro]

And consider these 2 points. We are
1- In foul trouble and
2- Getting KILLED in the paint. No nice way to say it.

What is the COMMON strategy to combat those 2 problems. I know... Do you? Seriously- Lets see what you think is tehCommon strategy to combat the
2 points above- In making your point, consider we had Zou on hte bench with No foul trouble. Lets hear what YOU would have done.

[imagepro]

I disagree Jum--- If we are getting DOUBLED in the paint, could it have gotten any worse TRYING Zou? That's hardly "back-up QB" syndrome. It's called Flexibility in Thinking", or willing to TRY something new, when all else fails.

I have NO expectatins of Zou. None, really none. Just saying we should have tried something different. What we did obviously FAILED man.

I do have expectations of Marty, but don't put words in my mouth about Zou. I always say I may be wrong, but I know when one strategy fails, you should try another.

[Jumbo]

And consider these 2 points. We are
1- In foul trouble and
2- Getting KILLED in the paint. No nice way to say it.

What is the COMMON strategy to combat those 2 problems. I know... Do you? Seriously- Lets see what you think is tehCommon strategy to combat the
2 points above- In making your point, consider we had Zou on hte bench with No foul trouble. Lets hear what YOU would have done.

I know exactly what I would have done. I would have rested Josh in the first half, keeping him with 2 fouls (which we did). He didn't get into foul trouble again until OT. When McClure was in foul trouble, I would've gone to Thomas. When Thomas was ineffective, I would have gone to four guards, with Marty in there which, once again, we did. Foul trouble means there is a chance a guy can foul out. So, you have two choices about when you want to play a sub -- before he fouls out (to keep him in at the end) or after he fouls out (if he ever did). There was no way I was willing to play Zoubek over Nelson in anticipation that Nelson might foul out at some point.

Nelson fouled out with 1:15 left in overtime and made a number of clutch plays while he was in "foul trouble." I'm very comfortable with my strategy, and K's.

[Jumbo]

I disagree Jum--- If we are getting DOUBLED in the paint, could it have gotten any worse TRYING Zou? That's hardly "back-up QB" syndrome. It's called Flexibility in Thinking", or willing to TRY something new, when all else fails.

I have NO expectatins of Zou. None, really none. Just saying we should have tried something different. What we did obviously FAILED man.

I do have expectations of Marty, but don't put words in my mouth about Zou. I always say I may be wrong, but I know when one strategy fails, you should try another.

We did try Zoubek in the first half. He got, well, destroyed. Saying that Coach K didn't try all his players is inaccurate.

[imagepro]

Gosh Deb. Not being ugly, but who on this team you think should even play at all then? You critique Marty, now Zou. Tell us who YOU think should play then. All I ask, ok? I want All through Marty to get regular PT. Sounds you limit it to 6. Not being combative or confrontational, just tell us who YOU would play. I gave you mine, give us yours.........

[imagepro]

I didn't say he did not try them. Where did I say that??????????????? He had been on hte bench since way in hte first half. Do you not thikn fresh legs MIGHT have helped? Not saying it would have Jumbo, please. I'm saying it MIGHT have. Again, being doubled and you don't change? Sorry, but that's not good strategy by anyones standards.

I said when we were in foul trouble, and getting killed inside. I said you have to try something different when one strategy fails. Jumbo, P-I-P was 50-26 at one point. Anyone can see that our strategy was faling. Are you saying don't adjust?

You have to give Lowe credit, seriously. When Josh came in with 3 PFs, he immediately went right at him. Nota genious move, just sound strategy. He knew wither Josh would foul, or play soft. There was no other option for Josh. Will you admit Lowe made the right decision to go after him?

[imagepro]

Sorry about the typos-

[Jumbo]

I didn't say he did not try them. Where did I say that???????????????
You said, "If we are getting DOUBLED in the paint, could it have gotten any worse TRYING Zou?" That, obviously, implies that he did not try Zoubek.


He had been on hte bench since way in hte first half. Do you not thikn fresh legs MIGHT have helped?

No, I don't. I've explained why -- his fresh legs got exploited in the first half. I did not have confidence playing him after that point.


Again, being doubled and you don't change? Sorry, but that's not good strategy by anyones standards.
First, you say you're just asking. Then, you conclude that it's "not good strategy by anyone's standards." Well, which is it? Duke DID change. Duke tried Thomas and McClure in the post. Duke even went small with four guards. Duke tried double-teaming the bigs, and playing them straight up. Nothing worked.


I said when we were in foul trouble, and getting killed inside. I said you have to try something different when one strategy fails. Jumbo, P-I-P was 50-26 at one point. Anyone can see that our strategy was faling. Are you saying don't adjust?

I've told you twice now how Duke adjusted, and how I would have adjusted. There are ways to adjust without playing Zoubek.


You have to give Lowe credit, seriously. When Josh came in with 3 PFs, he immediately went right at him. Nota genious move, just sound strategy. He knew wither Josh would foul, or play soft. There was no other option for Josh. Will you admit Lowe made the right decision to go after him?

McRoberts picked up his third foul with 6:59 left to go. NCSU had been going inside all game. So, no, I don't think he suddenly targeted McRoberts once he had three fouls. In fact, after that point, McCauley only scored two other baskets in regulation, and one was off an offensive rebound. Costner was the one killing Duke, whether he was guarded by McClure, Thomas or Nelson.

[imagepro]

Man. don't get mad Jumbo. Gosh. You talk about me? Yes Costner did hurt us, inside. And I recall MacCauley (sp) also. Even Artsur drove and scored from 2 feet. But anyway, we differ. And that's ok--- Isn't it???

Anyway, we didn't adjust in the latter part of the game when we were getting killed inside. Well, we adjusted, we just didn't try Zou again. That's what I mean. Yes, he tried him early, then sat him. You may be right, he may not have helped late. I concede that. But you use the fresh legs statement unaccurately. Early, EVERYONE had fresh legs. Late in the game, which I stressed I was talking about, it may have been an advantage as guys were clearly tires, and that's when it could have helped. It's not illogical thinking, or a question without value.

Hey, you talk about "tone", then read or listen to yours, ok? I can't hear tone in type, but since you talk about tone all the time, I'm trying. But I don't like what I'm hearing in yours. Wait, can I say that or is it an insult? It's not meant to be, though I imagine you will take it as such. It IS a request by me to calm down yourself. I mean, you talk to me about tone, and remaining calm, so I thought I could do the same to you. Sorry if that's an infraction. Maybe only moderators can do that, as I'm not really sure.

[Jumbo]

Man. don't get mad Jumbo. Gosh. You talk about me? Yes Costner did hurt us, inside. And I recall MacCauley (sp) also. Even Artsur drove and scored from 2 feet. But anyway, we differ. And that's ok--- Isn't it???

Anyway, we didn't adjust in the latter part of the game when we were getting killed inside. Well, we adjusted, we just didn't try Zou again. That's what I mean. Yes, he tried him early, then sat him. You may be right, he may not have helped late. I concede that. But you use the fresh legs statement unaccurately. Early, EVERYONE had fresh legs. Late in the game, which I stressed I was talking about, it may have been an advantage as guys were clearly tires, and that's when it could have helped. It's not illogical thinking, or a question without value.

Hey, you talk about "tone", then read or listen to yours, ok? I can't hear tone in type, but since you talk about tone all the time, I'm trying. But I don't like what I'm hearing in yours. Wait, can I say that or is it an insult? It's not meant to be, though I imagine you will take it as such. It IS a request by me to calm down yourself. I mean, you talk to me about tone, and remaining calm, so I thought I could do the same to you. Sorry if that's an infraction. Maybe only moderators can do that, as I'm not really sure.

I can assure you that I'm extremely calm. I've answered every question you've asked, explained as thoroughly as I can why I would not have played Zoubek any more than K did. But to say you are arguing in good faith is not fair. You are baiting people, and creating straw men left and right, accusing people of saying things they aren't. Read this (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4557&mode=threaded#post4557) post of yours again. If you don't understand what is wrong with it, I am going to encourage you to contact the administrators and talk to them about what they want out of this board. Because that's not it. I'm not going to give you any infractions, or ban you or anything like that. But if you keep taunting people with that, asking for it, then someone will do it. So, again, re-read that post. See if you can figure out what is upsetting about it. Talk to DBR. And then you can decide whether this is where you want to post, or whether TDD is more to your liking. It's chocolate vs. vanilla. Not everyone likes both. But if you want to hang out here, you need to adapt your style to the kind the administrators are seeking in their community. I can assure you that if I can refrain from calling anyone any "idiot" since the new board started, anyone can change. It's your decision.

Respectfully,
Jumbo

[CMS2478]

:d :d :d :d :d

[imagepro]

I'm very happy you aren't mad. Keep up the good work.

[imagepro]

Jumbo- MAY I use quotes as you do?

I don't know why you took offense to me using the phrase "killing us in the paint." Like I said before, State had us 50-26 P-I-P late in the game. If that's not killing us, what is? Have you never said " Man, you're killing me here", or "Lawson is killing us with his penetration!"... It's used all the time. I have no idea that would upset you.

Now, regarding to your response to my "fresh legs" ( re: ZOU) point I made- for those who didn't see it, here it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagepro
He (Zou) had been on the bench since early in the first half. Do you not think fresh legs MIGHT have helped?"
You respond:
"No, I don't. I've explained why -- his fresh legs got exploited in the first half. I did not have confidence playing him after that point."

You brought up the first half and Zou's legs being "exploited", as you say. I clearly said, after sitting on the bench he had fresh legs. At the beginning of the game, everyone did. At the end, it "might" have been an advantage, as I commented on. Using the "exploited" comment does not apply to fresh legs vs tired legs at the end of a contest. And you know that's what I was referring to. It's in my the post.

#2- You copy and bring this up:

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagepro
"Again, being doubled and you don't change? Sorry, but that's not good strategy by anyones standards."

and you reply with this----- "First, you say you're just asking. Then, you conclude that it's "not good strategy by anyone's standards." Well, which is it? Duke DID change. Duke tried Thomas and McClure in the post. Duke even went small with four guards. Duke tried double-teaming the bigs, and playing them straight up. Nothing worked."

I asked you what the basic strategy was for defending the paint, and to protect agasint foul trouble, you cited what Duke did. Specifically THIS comment---- "Duke tried Thomas and McClure in the post. Duke even went small with four guards. Duke tried double-teaming the bigs, and playing them straight up. Nothing worked."

"Nothing Worked"--- My point exactly. For those who may not know, here is THE "basic strategy" for defending teams that score inside. Zone defense. That's it. THE recommended defense against a strong interior offensive threat. That's nothing new. That's not sarcastic. That's the defense proven most effective. I know K doesn't like to use zone, but you said yourself with regards to the strategy we employed, "nothing worked".

Here is what we did NOT try. 1: We did not play zone. 2: We did not try ZOu when he had the advantage of fresh legs.----- I am not saying either would have worked. I, nor you, will never know. But again, to quote you, of all we DID try---"nothing worked". You also said , "There are ways to adjust without playing Zoubek."--- I do agree with that statement. . And that's the ZONE DEFENSE.

With regards to a small 4 guard line-up---- I have 2 questions for you--1: how can a 4 guard help defend the interior against a team that is doubling you in Points-IN-Paint ? And WHO were the four "guards" you are talking about.

This is not an invitation to argue with you. It is merely a difference in opinion of what strategy should have been used. Would mine have worked? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. I know what didn't though....

[imagepro]

Very well stated tb. I and some others think you are right on. Thanks for the accurate description of how MP was used, and then removed :19 seconds later. It certainly validates your point. NOT saying Jumbo did that to suit his purpose, but I'm glad you made the correction.

With regards to "doing too much" trying to impress, I wholeheartedly agree. In fact I expressed the exact opinion yesterday. I wish he would get more time, so he could allow the game to "come to him". Lets hope that ocurs!

[imagepro]

Unrealistic Expectaions on Zoubek, which isn't fair to the kid? HUH? Ummm, where did I put inrealistic expectations on ZOU. THIS IS what I said:

"I never said he ( Marty) was perfect, nor is Zou. I just think they can play a little more. And as we were getting KILLED inside, doesn't it just make sense to use Zou in the paint? Seriously. We were doubled in prodution there by STATE, of all people. Not the biggest team in the land."

And you call that unrealistic expectations? ROFL... Please Jumbo........

[mapei]

Image - I actually like your posts and don't have a problem with people expressing casual (as well as informed) opinions on the board. But there are too many of them, sometimes in succession, and I think that's part of why people get annoyed at you. Consolidate and edit, my friend. No need to respond to every single opposing point and subpoint.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo- MAY I use quotes as you do?

I don't know why you took offense to me using the phrase "killing us in the paint." Like I said before, State had us 50-26 P-I-P late in the game. If that's not killing us, what is? Have you never said " Man, you're killing me here", or "Lawson is killing us with his penetration!"... It's used all the time. I have no idea that would upset you.

Now, regarding to your response to my "fresh legs" ( re: ZOU) point I made- for those who didn't see it, here it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imagepro
He (Zou) had been on the bench since early in the first half. Do you not think fresh legs MIGHT have helped?"
You respond:
"No, I don't. I've explained why -- his fresh legs got exploited in the first half. I did not have confidence playing him after that point."

You brought up the first half and Zou's legs being "exploited", as you say. I clearly said, after sitting on the bench he had fresh legs. At the beginning of the game, everyone did. At the end, it "might" have been an advantage, as I commented on. Using the "exploited" comment does not apply to fresh legs vs tired legs at the end of a contest. And you know that's what I was referring to. It's in my the post.

#2- You copy and bring this up:

Quote:
Originally Posted by imagepro
"Again, being doubled and you don't change? Sorry, but that's not good strategy by anyones standards."

and you reply with this----- "First, you say you're just asking. Then, you conclude that it's "not good strategy by anyone's standards." Well, which is it? Duke DID change. Duke tried Thomas and McClure in the post. Duke even went small with four guards. Duke tried double-teaming the bigs, and playing them straight up. Nothing worked."

I asked you what the basic strategy was for defending the paint, and to protect agasint foul trouble, you cited what Duke did. Specifically THIS comment---- "Duke tried Thomas and McClure in the post. Duke even went small with four guards. Duke tried double-teaming the bigs, and playing them straight up. Nothing worked."

"Nothing Worked"--- My point exactly. For those who may not know, here is THE "basic strategy" for defending teams that score inside. Zone defense. That's it. THE recommended defense against a strong interior offensive threat. That's nothing new. That's not sarcastic. That's the defense proven most effective. I know K doesn't like to use zone, but you said yourself with regards to the strategy we employed, "nothing worked".

Here is what we did NOT try. 1: We did not play zone. 2: We did not try ZOu when he had the advantage of fresh legs.----- I am not saying either would have worked. I, nor you, will never know. But again, to quote you, of all we DID try---"nothing worked". You also said , "There are ways to adjust without playing Zoubek."--- I do agree with that statement. . And that's the ZONE DEFENSE.

With regards to a small 4 guard line-up---- I have 2 questions for you--1: how can a 4 guard help defend the interior against a team that is doubling you in Points-IN-Paint ? And WHO were the four "guards" you are talking about.

This is not an invitation to argue with you. It is merely a difference in opinion of what strategy should have been used. Would mine have worked? Who knows? Maybe, maybe not. I know what didn't though....

Zone defense is not the "proven" defense to stop inside play. If that were the case, everyone would do it, all the time, against any team with a strong inside game. Stop talking in absolutes. The fact is, sometimes a zone defense actually makes it EASIER to feed the post, especially if a team has a good high-low option. Costner/McCauley is a good high-low option, don't you think? Plus, say you're packing it in with a zone. Well, with that comes a tradeoff. And now you're Atsur (who was hot) loose for threes. You're allowing Fells to wake up. Costner can step outside and shoot. Duke was getting hurt inside, without a doubt. But Duke can, and should, be able to address that through its man-to-man D. Duke has played teams with much better inside games than NC State (Georgetown, anyone?) and totally shut them down with great man-to-man.

You asked what the four guard lineup could do against a good inside game. Answer: ball pressure. Instead of trying to pound them, you beat them with quickness. If DeMarcus is guarding Costner, suddenly he's not as effective on the pick-and-roll. And if Costner posts up Nelson, he's quick and strong enough to get position on him. And then if Costner gets the ball, Duke can/should bring help. Duke tried this but, sadly, it didn't work either. But it's a common adjustment.

Duke just didn't bring it defensively. That's the bottom line. In the end, it wasn't a question of personnel or strategy. It was about effort, communication and preparation. I've seen Duke play much harder on the defensive end. I've seen Duke talk MUCH better on the defensive end, and when they talk they help, and when they help they stop people. And I've seen Duke better prepared defensively, and for that I think the coaching staff deserves a knock -- Duke's game plan against post isolation and the high pick-and-roll was not at the level I would have liked to have seen.

[Jumbo]

Unrealistic Expectaions on Zoubek, which isn't fair to the kid? HUH? Ummm, where did I put inrealistic expectations on ZOU. THIS IS what I said:

"I never said he ( Marty) was perfect, nor is Zou. I just think they can play a little more. And as we were getting KILLED inside, doesn't it just make sense to use Zou in the paint? Seriously. We were doubled in prodution there by STATE, of all people. Not the biggest team in the land."

And you call that unrealistic expectations? ROFL... Please Jumbo........

Quite simply, I think it was unrealistic to expect Zoubek to help solve Duke's defensive problems. He was exploited in the first half. I don't believe fresh legs -- particularlly in the post -- would have made much of a difference, particularly when those legs (even when fresh) are much slower than Costner's and McCauley's.

I don't now how to be any more clear. I don't think Zoubek could have helped after watching him play in the first half. If you feel differently, fine. You've made that point, over and over and over. You're always saying that we have a right to our opinion, correct? Well, my opinion is clear on this matter. And you're rolling on the floor, laughing. That's really very consistent with your approach. I guess you have a right to your opinion, IP, and when someone mocks you, it's an affront. But when you mock me, it's fine. I've tried to reason with you, but I'm starting to tire of this, to be honest.

[imagepro]

Now Jumbo- You of all people know I value your right to opinionate. I really do. And while I disagree sometimes, do enjoy hearing what you say. I was laughing, truly, when you said i have unrealistic expectations of Zou. No, I really was. My expectation was not that he would have made the difference. You know I never said that. I siad we should have tried him. I alos "think" though perhaps wrong, that we should hve tried ZONE.

I'm not mocking you J. Or didn't meant to be. I just had to laugh at your interpretation of expectations. AS is clearly in the post, I said " I just think they can play a little more"... And you come up ith this unrealistic stuff. So hey, I have to defend that J! And man, I KNOW you would have too!

[imagepro]

Sorry about typos- a little drugged today after having some minor surgery yesterday....

[_Gary]

I definitely have to go with Jumbo on our defense against State. First off, a zone isn't the end all to protecting a weak interior defense. And Jumbo summed up many of the reasons why so I won't repeat what he said. Secondly, I love Z, but I don't believe he would have been the answer to our defensive woes in the game. No way, no how. Love the kid, but I've never been as high on him as others have been all year. I think he has the potential to be a very solid player at Duke, but I never saw anything this year that made me jump out of my seat saying, "Coach K, what's your problem! Play/start Z!" Just didn't see it. Third, while I also agree that our defensive intensity was below sub-par, and a part of the blame probably needs to go to the coaching staff, I'm still thinking the biggest portion of the blame goes to our interior players (Josh, Lance, and DeMarcus when he found himself down low defending).

The pick and roll was horribly defended, but I still thought the one on one low post d is where we really got toasted. I distinctly remember 3 different occasions (2 involving Josh and 1 with DeMarcus) where our guys were made to look foolish as they went for head fakes that resulted in extremely easy up and unders. I expect more from experienced players. Watching the force that Wright has been today in the semi's, I still believe losing him was a huge, huge loss for this year's team when his length and quickness for a big man would have been huge defensively.

Gary

[mapei]

The chances of Duke playing much if any zone are almost nil. If that's your hope, you will only continue to be frustrated.

[husWagner1983]

It was nice to see Marty get some floortime and being allowed to play through a couple of mistakes. While I'm excited that Marty shot well, I actually think that is the weakest part of his game. His shot is quite flat and needs work on follow-through and rotation. What he offers this team is someone who can create a shot for himself for others by driving into the lane. He is very unselfish and has good floor vision IMO. It'll be interesting to see how many minutes he gets when Henderson is available. I suspect it'll be back to what it was, make a mistake and you're on the bench. I don't expect we'll see any expanded role in the offense this year. Who knows about next year.

His development has most certainly been impacted by injuries which have impacted his availablitiy to play at full speed. He also seems to be a softspoken person which might impact his minutes as well. I do know you won't find a more supportive teammate on the bench.

Defense: I disagree with those who think Marty's defense is the weakest part of his game. I've seen all but two of the home games and been to a couple of preseason practices. Marty has made great strides in that area, both in playing his man and with help defense. I'd say his defensive game is at least on par with Henderson, Paulus or Scheyer. He has the athleticism and size to be a very good defensive player as he gets more experience and comfortable playing IMO.

[DukeVu]

Whoever said that Duke will Almost NEVER use the zone is so right on. But why NOT? Only because K says so? Well it is his team and he can do whatever he wishes, but it killed Duke against State and some others also. Surely, no one has said that a zone is the end-all but there are times when it does work. Duke never even tries.

Jumbo, you are not the expert, you are only a K apologist. You do not know if Zoubek would have been the answer or not, as you say it is only YOUR opinion and you have also expressed it a zillion times. You do not KNOW if a zone would have worked or not, it was not tried. There are plenty of 'great' coaches that use zones and are very successful with it. As someone has said before, '...Coach K is not THE greatest coach that ever lived, but he is one of the great coachs'. This is Coach K's team and he can do whatever he pleases. This time it did not work, but please allow him to be second guessed. It happens to the greatest. You do not have to give a smart-a** answer to everyone who differs in opinion to you. You were the same way on the LAX Board. Just my 2 cents.

[imagepro]

mapei. I don't like the zone defense. Especially since the advent of the 3 point shot. It can kill you. BUt MANY coaches use it, including, but far from limited to, Boeheim at Syracuse. Calhoun does occasionally at UCONN as well.

As I said, and I think you saw it, when being doubled by Points In The Paint, it is THE basic strategy to defend interior offense. I'm not argueing with you. Just making my point. And as I always say, it may have made matters worse. But it wasn't tried. And you know, what we DID try, failed.

As to your comment about me being frustrated by not playing zone, let me say this. Just because I think it should have been TRIED, does not mean I like it. But it "could" be useful on occasion, if just to mix things up. Our defensive strategy has been the same for decades, and thus predictable.

Lets theorize for a moment here. Do you think our next opponent will give much, if any attention to our zone in their preparation for DUKE? I expect your answer will be "no", or at least "very little". All the more reason to try it. But mix it up, just to keep people offguard. It "could" actually catch them offguard, and disrupt their flow.

Let me ask you this too. Are you happy with things the way they are, and not frustrated yourself? I admit that I am....

[trinitydevil]

imagepro, you had minor surgery? That would be brain surgery right?

[stals]

wow-you're a real positive contributor too bad so much is wrong with the world.

[grossbus]

"While I'm excited that Marty shot well, I actually think that is the weakest part of his game. His shot is quite flat and needs work on follow-through and rotation."

he might actually be the only "shooter" on the team.

[Jumbo]

Whoever said that Duke will Almost NEVER use the zone is so right on. But why NOT? Only because K says so? Well it is his team and he can do whatever he wishes, but it killed Duke against State and some others also. Surely, no one has said that a zone is the end-all but there are times when it does work. Duke never even tries.

Jumbo, you are not the expert, you are only a K apologist. You do not know if Zoubek would have been the answer or not, as you say it is only YOUR opinion and you have also expressed it a zillion times. You do not KNOW if a zone would have worked or not, it was not tried. There are plenty of 'great' coaches that use zones and are very successful with it. As someone has said before, '...Coach K is not THE greatest coach that ever lived, but he is one of the great coachs'. This is Coach K's team and he can do whatever he pleases. This time it did not work, but please allow him to be second guessed. It happens to the greatest. You do not have to give a smart-a** answer to everyone who differs in opinion to you. You were the same way on the LAX Board. Just my 2 cents.

I never claimed to be an "expert." I give my take on what I see. You can do with it what you please. If you want to argue with me, back up your statements. That's all I ask.

If you think I'm a "K apologist," I assume you're new to the boards. "Play Casey" was basically my refrain for an entire season. You sound like a certain president -- "You're either with us or against us." It's possible to support strategic decisions without being an "apologist." And it's possible to like the way K does things while also questioning other things. And it's also possible to admit that none of us really know what we're talking about because we never see practice, don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and don't know as much about basketball as anyone on that bench. And I do mean none of us -- including me.

Just your 2 cents? More like just your gratuitous potshot. I've posted in one thread on the lax board, in which I referenced a landmark study. I didn't claim to be an "expert;" I quoted experts. Are you really struggling to make that distinction?

Finally, if you want to have a serious discussion about zone defense, let's have it. Zone, like anything else in basketball, is only as good as the amount it's practiced. Seeing as K devotes almost all of his practice time developing Duke's man-to-man system, that doesn't leave much time to work on a zone. Now, do you think K should spend more time teaching multiple defenses? If so, that's your prerogative. But, if K were to have switched to "zone" (are we talking 2-3? matchup? 1-3-1? 1-2-2) against zone, it likely would have been tough to execute, because the guys wouldn't have practiced much. Did you consider that aspect of it.

I'm well aware that many coaches play zone. I'm personally a fan of man-to-man defense; played at a high level, I believe it's the most effective system, because good man-to-man incorporates zone principles anyway. What was so frustrating against State (as well as UNC and Maryland) was that this team played so poorly in its man-to-man, when earlier in the year, it was playing defense on a level higher than any Duke team in years. I have no idea what has changed over the last two weeks, but hopefully it can be corrected soon.

[willywoody]

maybe if the team bus gets burglarized the state farm guy can get the team to play zone.:D

[CDu]

I was listening to the radio on Friday, and someone who follows Duke basketball was asked why Marty hasn't played more. I thought his response made a good point. He said the coaches feel that Marty is a bit of a wild card, and they just don't know what they'll get from game to game from him. And with this team which needs continuity and needs to value the ball and defense, the staff feels that giving him limited "energy" minutes is the safest/best way to use him.

I agree with this theory. The talent isn't the question with Marty, it's the consistency. As we've all seen in his games this year, he's looked terrific at times, and completely lost at times. Thus, I'm not surprised that he was able to have a great stretch late in the game: he's always had the ability to do so. The problem has been his ability to recreate that with any consistency.

[imagepro]

LOL- that is hilarious Willy! A GREAT line......

[imagepro]

And I don't disagree CDu. Not at all. BUt also, you know in order to be consistent, you have to be IN the game. With the minutes he's gotten, it's impossible to be "consistent".

But the point is valid about "consistency". Just give him a chance to play after he makes mistakes. Other guys get it. If I'm wrong about his ability, I promise I will admit I was wrong!

[CDu]

And I don't disagree CDu. Not at all. BUt also, you know in order to be consistent, you have to be IN the game. With the minutes he's gotten, it's impossible to be "consistent".

But the point is valid about "consistency". Just give him a chance to play after he makes mistakes. Other guys get it. If I'm wrong about his ability, I promise I will admit I was wrong!

Several points here:

1. I think you're off-target on the playing time for more consistency argument. Plenty of players play limited minutes and don't make the mental mistakes Pocius does. It's not poor shooting that has kept him out of the lineup: it's the mental mistakes. More playing time can fix shooting percentages, but it doesn't fix mental mistakes.

2. I don't think others are getting unlimited chances that Pocius is not. Paulus struggled, but he's the only PG on the team. Nelson has been up and down, but he's our best defender and most consistent point producer. Scheyer has rarely (if ever) made silly mistakes. Henderson has arguably the most ability on the team, and can defend 4 positions. And he hasn't made many silly mistakes either. Pocius has had more trouble with silly mistakes than any of these guys, and these are the guys he's competing with for PT.

3. You say "If I'm wrong about his ability, I promise I will admit I was wrong!" Well, that's not the issue. No one has questioned Pocius' ability. The question with Pocius is one of being able to avoid the silly mistakes that handcuff the offense. And the other question is whether he can provide more on a consistent basis than the 3-4 guys in front of him on the guard/wing depth chart.

It's an endless argument, and there isn't a clear "right" or "wrong." We don't have an exact replica of games with Pocius playing over the past 2 years to compare. So, we'll never know whether Duke would have been better off with him on the court than not.

[imagepro]

I want to respond to a couple of points. It "may not" be an endless arguement. If MP gets more time, then time itself will tell, one way or the other.

Regarding your point # 3--
You say no one has questioned MPs ability. OOOOHHHH YYYEEESSSS they have CDu. MANY MANY times. They questioned his defensive AND ballhandling abilities. Have you not been reading the boards? Why do you think I am so upset with a couple of members here? Don't say no one has questioned his abilities. You know that's no where NEAR the truth. That's exactly why I get so upset! Don't make me go back and quote people, because they will not like it. But I certainly can. And I bet you know who said some of those things about Marty, and there were several of them.

I do agree with your last paragraph though. Take care, and lets hope we regroup!

[CDu]

I want to respond to a couple of points. It "may not" be an endless arguement. If MP gets more time, then time itself will tell, one way or the other.

Regarding your point # 3--
You say no one has questioned MPs ability. OOOOHHHH YYYEEESSSS they have CDu. MANY MANY times. They questioned his defensive AND ballhandling abilities. Have you not been reading the boards? Why do you think I am so upset with a couple of members here? Don't say no one has questioned his abilities. You know that's no where NEAR the truth. That's exactly why I get so upset! Don't make me go back and quote people, because they will not like it. But I certainly can. And I bet you know who said some of those things about Marty, and there were several of them.

I do agree with your last paragraph though. Take care, and lets hope we regroup!

Well, with regard to your response to point #3, then I think those people are way off regarding his offensive abilities, but not his defense. He's the 4th best defender among our wing players, by a comfortable margin. But offensively, I agree with you: he has talent. I guess I should have stuck with this statement: "I don't think ability is the reason he's not playing - mistakes are."

With regard to your first point (about future playing time answering the argument), I don't agree. Whatever Pocius does next week (or especially next year) is no definite reflection on what he would have with more PT this year and last year. It will only reflect what he is doing next week or next year. With regard to the past, it could be that he has finally "figured it out" this month, and that playing him earlier would've just resulted in him looking lost more often. Or, it could be that what he does in the future is exactly what he would have done earlier. We can never really know what scenario is correct, because he didn't play back then.

[imagepro]

fair enough

[imagepro]

LOL- No, that would not even be considered minor surgery, trinity! And you know the 6 shots a side ( which you definitely need) I have been giving you? It's not gonna be enough when I kick your butt at Colonial, Old North State OR Debordeiu! Practice hard son--- you're gonna need to more than LUCK-

And bring your checkbook--- the wallet won't handle all I'm taking!!!!!!

[DukeVu]

I never claimed to be an "expert." I give my take on what I see. You can do with it what you please. If you want to argue with me, back up your statements. That's all I ask.

If you think I'm a "K apologist," I assume you're new to the boards. "Play Casey" was basically my refrain for an entire season. You sound like a certain president -- "You're either with us or against us." It's possible to support strategic decisions without being an "apologist." And it's possible to like the way K does things while also questioning other things. And it's also possible to admit that none of us really know what we're talking about because we never see practice, don't know what's going on behind the scenes, and don't know as much about basketball as anyone on that bench. And I do mean none of us -- including me.

Just your 2 cents? More like just your gratuitous potshot. I've posted in one thread on the lax board, in which I referenced a landmark study. I didn't claim to be an "expert;" I quoted experts. Are you really struggling to make that distinction?

Finally, if you want to have a serious discussion about zone defense, let's have it. Zone, like anything else in basketball, is only as good as the amount it's practiced. Seeing as K devotes almost all of his practice time developing Duke's man-to-man system, that doesn't leave much time to work on a zone. Now, do you think K should spend more time teaching multiple defenses? If so, that's your prerogative. But, if K were to have switched to "zone" (are we talking 2-3? matchup? 1-3-1? 1-2-2) against zone, it likely would have been tough to execute, because the guys wouldn't have practiced much. Did you consider that aspect of it.

I'm well aware that many coaches play zone. I'm personally a fan of man-to-man defense; played at a high level, I believe it's the most effective system, because good man-to-man incorporates zone principles anyway. What was so frustrating against State (as well as UNC and Maryland) was that this team played so poorly in its man-to-man, when earlier in the year, it was playing defense on a level higher than any Duke team in years. I have no idea what has changed over the last two weeks, but hopefully it can be corrected soon.

JUMBO, JUMBO, Why don't you read instead of coming out defensive. I seldom if ever post and I certainly do not wish to have a give-and-take with you, you are far too experienced at that than am I. I do not ADVOCATE the Zone, I too feel that man-to-man is the superior defense IF YOU CAN PLAY IT and IF it works. Certainly most great teams can be VERSATILE and are able to change when the tenor of the game determines it. YOU and I both have admitted that 'what Duke was doing' was NOT working. If Duke does Not practice the zone then surely they cannot execute it. Someone once said that '...if a student has not learned, the teacher hasn't taught". Now I am not arguing that K can't teach, just that maybe there are some things he has not taught. I too, hope that 'what is wrong' can be corrected.

This brings me to a pet peeve of mine: Why could not at least ONE of Duke's coaches be a Big Inside type coach? Not ONE coach has played the post, or been a shot-blocker, or battled under the basket. I am not saying that the head coach should have played every position but I am saying that the positions he has not played would profit from someone who HAS played such positions and been good at it. Having Wojo coach the big men is like having a wide-receiver coach offensive linemen. Surely Wojo has been to classes and quite possibly has picked up some valuable information; but nothing is better than experience whether you are teaching or playing.

Jumbo, I, as do others, appreciate reading these boards and your contributions to it, but my purpose in posting was not to debate you but to point out your attempts to down those who have differing opinions. I personally do not construe posts that question some things as being necessarily negative to Duke. Selah.

[mapei]

Image, I agree with you that zone defenses can be really helpful. Some teams play them very well, and Syracuse has had success playing it exclusively. Personally, I like it when teams can switch back and forth from zone to man as the situation calls.

But it's not going to happen at Duke. K's philosophy, as Jumbo pointed out, is that the team plays defense best when it practices and plays a single system. He sees minutes practicing zone as taking away minutes from practicing man, and he wants the team to get maximum time practicing the base defense. He's had success with that approach and believes very strongly in it.

Now you or I might have a different philosophy but, if we're going to be Duke fans, we pretty much have to accept that the team will play man defense almost exclusively. Discussions to the contrary are academic. That's why I think it only brings frustration to wish for something different.

[Jumbo]

This brings me to a pet peeve of mine: Why could not at least ONE of Duke's coaches be a Big Inside type coach? Not ONE coach has played the post, or been a shot-blocker, or battled under the basket. I am not saying that the head coach should have played every position but I am saying that the positions he has not played would profit from someone who HAS played such positions and been good at it. Having Wojo coach the big men is like having a wide-receiver coach offensive linemen. Surely Wojo has been to classes and quite possibly has picked up some valuable information; but nothing is better than experience whether you are teaching or playing.

Jumbo, I, as do others, appreciate reading these boards and your contributions to it, but my purpose in posting was not to debate you but to point out your attempts to down those who have differing opinions. I personally do not construe posts that question some things as being necessarily negative to Duke. Selah.

When people state opinions on a message board, debate is implicit. I'm certainly not trying to "bring anyone down." At the same time, I will argue my side.

On the issue of a big man coach, I don't think position experience has anything to do with it. The best big man coach of all time is Pete Newell, and he is small. Many, many historically good "big man" coaches were not big themselves. This is worth noting, especially in light of your football analogy. Football, in fact, is littered with examples of players who have played one position and coached another. There are guys who have coached both offense and defense. You don't need to have played the position to understand how the game works. You just need to be able to teach.

[imagepro]

[QUOTE=Jumbo;5774]When people state opinions on a message board, debate is implicit. I'm certainly not trying to "bring anyone down." At the same time, I will argue my side.

Which you do, also responding to every post I have seen directed at you. And that's ok, as we have no problem with it. We respect that right Jumbo. Just allow others to do the same.
"Loquacious IP"--- I like that!

[DukeVu]

When people state opinions on a message board, debate is implicit. I'm certainly not trying to "bring anyone down." At the same time, I will argue my side.

On the issue of a big man coach, I don't think position experience has anything to do with it. The best big man coach of all time is Pete Newell, and he is small. Many, many historically good "big man" coaches were not big themselves. This is worth noting, especially in light of your football analogy. Football, in fact, is littered with examples of players who have played one position and coached another. There are guys who have coached both offense and defense. You don't need to have played the position to understand how the game works. You just need to be able to teach.

Wow!! You do not think EXPERIENCE has anything to do with it? My bad, I have spent a lifetime believing that EXPERIENCE was one of the greatest assets a person could have in any walk of life or profession. I do not know what your profession is, but I doubt seriously if inexperience is one of your most reverred attributes. I do not deny that skills are very important but I doubt that skills without experience is MOST important.

Here again you have dubbed a title of the "best" when again it is your opinion. Nobody has said that little men cannot coach "big men". I submit the theory that a person is more 'likely' to be a good coach for a position that he has played than for a position that he has no experience playing. I am out of here on this one, BUT to say that EXPERIENCE does not have anything to do with performance escapes my limited understanding. In
MY OPINION I would rather have an experienced plumber, carpenter, guide, electrician, lawyer and yes even a coach handling my needs.

[Jumbo]

Wow!! You do not think EXPERIENCE has anything to do with it? My bad, I have spent a lifetime believing that EXPERIENCE was one of the greatest assets a person could have in any walk of life or profession. I do not know what your profession is, but I doubt seriously if inexperience is one of your most reverred attributes. I do not deny that skills are very important but I doubt that skills without experience is MOST important.
Yeah, that's totally what I said. Experience isn't important. Got it. What I said was experience playing that particular position isn't important. Jeff Van Gundy's a great NBA coach -- he transferred from Yale to Nazereth just so he could play. Lawrence Frank didn't have an accomplished career. Think how many NFL coaches never played the game at anything close to a high level, how many run offenses when they played defense, and so forth.

My point, again, since you don't seem to have grasped it the first time, is that you don't have to have played in the post to teach the skills necessary. In the end, it's basketball, and if you understand the game, and understand the fundamentals beneath, you can teach it. Somehow, that becomes "experience isn't important" to you. Um, ok.


Here again you have dubbed a title of the "best" when again it is your opinion. Nobody has said that little men cannot coach "big men". I submit the theory that a person is more 'likely' to be a good coach for a position that he has played than for a position that he has no experience playing. I am out of here on this one, BUT to say that EXPERIENCE does not have anything to do with performance escapes my limited understanding. In
MY OPINION I would rather have an experienced plumber, carpenter, guide, electrician, lawyer and yes even a coach handling my needs.

Have you ever heard of Pete Newell? I'm not the one who has dubbed him the best big man coach ever. The rest of the basketball world has. That's why coaches from around the country send players to the Pete Newell Big Man Camp. Newell is 6'2" -- how has he managed to be so successful?

[Jumbo]

[quote=Jumbo;5774]When people state opinions on a message board, debate is implicit. I'm certainly not trying to "bring anyone down." At the same time, I will argue my side.

Which you do, also responding to every post I have seen directed at you. And that's ok, as we have no problem with it. We respect that right Jumbo. Just allow others to do the same.
"Loquacious IP"--- I like that!

I have allowed everyone to respond to me -- including you. And you know that.