An "out of the box" idea to snap us out of our funk

[scottdude8]

In various threads across the board, Duke fans are lamenting our February swoon. There seem to be two major schools of thought underlying the struggles: A, that we can't find a tertiary scoring option; and B, that our defense has fallen off significantly.

A lot of the conversation has focused on the offensive side of things, given that the deficiencies are much more glaring and obvious on that end. But, I'd argue that we might be better served focusing on the defensive side. Early in the season, one of the things that excited many of us about this team was it's defensive potential, and we showed that early on (remember wayyyyy back to October when we forced Kansas into an ungodly number of turnovers). In all honesty, we've really never had a true tertiary scoring option all season, so it's unlikely we're going to find one now (that's why we've had the "different players on different nights" theme. But we have been a shutdown defensive team at point this season, and that's something that we probably can address.

So on that front, I was trying to think what had changed from the beginning of the season until now. One is Jack White's dwindling playing time, a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam on the board. But here's something that hasn't been discussed: JG's increased offensive role. Early in the season, Jordan was hyper-focused as a defensive stopper, and wasn't exerting as much energy on the offensive end. Over the past few weeks, we've seen Jordan being more aggressive offensively (which is in no way a bad thing!), but I can't help but wonder whether him feeling the pressure to contribute more offensively has affected his D. It reminds me a bit of what's happened in Ann Arbor this season: last year, Jon Teske was arguably the best defensive center in the Big Ten, and one of the best in the country, and he was the fifth scoring option whenever he was on the floor. This year, Teske became scoring option 1B in most Michigan lineups, and his defense fell off a cliff for a major portion of the year. Only when he started getting more rest from the bench did his D return to form.

So, what if Coach K eschewed the search for a "tertiary scorer" and embraced this team's limitations, rather than trying to find a solution in the first week of March? What if we started a lineup of Vernon, Jack, Wendell, Cassius, and Tre, with JG returning to an "energy/pressure D" role off of the bench, and Hurt trying to be an instant offense sixth/seventh man? While there are obvious offensive limitations to that starting lineup (and perhaps with any lineup including Jack, unfortunately), that could be a beast of a defensive lineup, and might allow JG to return to a more comfortable role.

I'm curious what the board thinks of this idea, or what your "out of the box" style ideas might be. I promise major sporks to anyone whose truly out of the box idea comes to fruition ;)

[jv001]

In various threads across the board, Duke fans are lamenting our February swoon. There seem to be two major schools of thought underlying the struggles: A, that we can't find a tertiary scoring option; and B, that our defense has fallen off significantly.

A lot of the conversation has focused on the offensive side of things, given that the deficiencies are much more glaring and obvious on that end. But, I'd argue that we might be better served focusing on the defensive side. Early in the season, one of the things that excited many of us about this team was it's defensive potential, and we showed that early on (remember wayyyyy back to October when we forced Kansas into an ungodly number of turnovers). In all honesty, we've really never had a true tertiary scoring option all season, so it's unlikely we're going to find one now (that's why we've had the "different players on different nights" theme. But we have been a shutdown defensive team at point this season, and that's something that we probably can address.

So on that front, I was trying to think what had changed from the beginning of the season until now. One is Jack White's dwindling playing time, a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam on the board. But here's something that hasn't been discussed: JG's increased offensive role. Early in the season, Jordan was hyper-focused as a defensive stopper, and wasn't exerting as much energy on the offensive end. Over the past few weeks, we've seen Jordan being more aggressive offensively (which is in no way a bad thing!), but I can't help but wonder whether him feeling the pressure to contribute more offensively has affected his D. It reminds me a bit of what's happened in Ann Arbor this season: last year, Jon Teske was arguably the best defensive center in the Big Ten, and one of the best in the country, and he was the fifth scoring option whenever he was on the floor. This year, Teske became scoring option 1B in most Michigan lineups, and his defense fell off a cliff for a major portion of the year. Only when he started getting more rest from the bench did his D return to form.

So, what if Coach K eschewed the search for a "tertiary scorer" and embraced this team's limitations, rather than trying to find a solution in the first week of March? What if we started a lineup of Vernon, Jack, Wendell, Cassius, and Tre, with JG returning to an "energy/pressure D" role off of the bench, and Hurt trying to be an instant offense sixth/seventh man? While there are obvious offensive limitations to that starting lineup (and perhaps with any lineup including Jack, unfortunately), that could be a beast of a defensive lineup, and might allow JG to return to a more comfortable role.

I'm curious what the board thinks of this idea, or what your "out of the box" style ideas might be. I promise major sporks to anyone whose truly out of the box idea comes to fruition ;)

I'm in the try everything camp at this point. Looking at your starting lineup, I see Jack and Wendell not too adept at scoring. Wendell is best at defending and scoring around the basket and I don't mean driving to the basket. His handle is shaky. I would like to see the lineup you proposed with Goldwire in over Jack and Duke going full court pressure to try and create some offense. I do think Jack needs about 15-18 minutes but not at the same time with Goldwire or Moore. That's not enough scoring. If Cassius comes out of the lineup, I believe one of Alex or Joey should be in the lineup for him. Finding a perfect balance of defense and scoring is almost impossible with this team. In JDs front page article, he mentioned Joey having the best shot since JJ and I agree with him. I wish Coach K had given him major minutes through out the year because I believe he would be much better than he currently is. Like JD said, he's a warrior. But I guess it's a little late in the season for that but maybe he will pull a Grayson and give us that boost we need. Who knows.

GoDuke!

[JasonEvans]

There are a million ways to accomplish it, but I have been discussing "more Jack" as a way of boosting the defense and the rebounding in the "Is Jack OK?" thread (https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?44928-Is-Jack-OK&p=1233245#post1233245). Hand in hand with advocating for a bit more Jack is a belief that we need a bit less from JGold. While it may seem foolish talk about playing a wing less and allowing a PF to play more, I believe JGold and Jack's playing times are correlated as a result of Wendell Moore getting minutes at PF rather than on the wing.

I mentioned this on the podcast (https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/duke-basketball-report?selected=VMP5926855581) this week, but Duke has gone from one of the best rebounding teams in the country to a below average one in the past 8-10 games. In our last 10 games, we are 71st in the nation at OReb% and 226th in DReb%. That's a real problem.

[Jaks19]

also contributing to the rebounding issues are the lack of minutes and production from others in addition to Jack. Javin and Hurt haven't exactly been eating off the glass on either end.

[CDu]

There are a million ways to accomplish it, but I have been discussing "more Jack" as a way of boosting the defense and the rebounding in the "Is Jack OK?" thread (https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?44928-Is-Jack-OK&p=1233245#post1233245). Hand in hand with advocating for a bit more Jack is a belief that we need a bit less from JGold. While it may seem foolish talk about playing a wing less and allowing a PF to play more, I believe JGold and Jack's playing times are correlated as a result of Wendell Moore getting minutes at PF rather than on the wing.

I mentioned this on the podcast (https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/duke-basketball-report?selected=VMP5926855581) this week, but Duke has gone from one of the best rebounding teams in the country to a below average one in the past 8-10 games. In our last 10 games, we are 71st in the nation at OReb% and 226th in DReb%. That's a real problem.

While theoretically White would help with rebounding, in actuality he's struggled with rebounding this year. His rebound %s in conference are lower than those of Moore, Hurt, Stanley, and even O'Connell. He's only better than Baker, Jones (barely), and Goldwire in rebound rate. For whatever reason, his toughness hasn't translated to rebounding this year.

If you are suggesting to play White instead of Goldwire and Baker, then that should indeed help the rebounding. But that puts a LOT more burden back on Jones as the only ballhandler and only defensive option on PGs. So there is a give-and-take with any of these changes, as unfortunately nobody has stepped up as a consistent, multi-dimensional option for us after Jones and Carey.

[scottdude8]

There are a million ways to accomplish it, but I have been discussing "more Jack" as a way of boosting the defense and the rebounding in the "Is Jack OK?" thread (https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?44928-Is-Jack-OK&p=1233245#post1233245). Hand in hand with advocating for a bit more Jack is a belief that we need a bit less from JGold. While it may seem foolish talk about playing a wing less and allowing a PF to play more, I believe JGold and Jack's playing times are correlated as a result of Wendell Moore getting minutes at PF rather than on the wing.

I mentioned this on the podcast (https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/duke-basketball-report?selected=VMP5926855581) this week, but Duke has gone from one of the best rebounding teams in the country to a below average one in the past 8-10 games. In our last 10 games, we are 71st in the nation at OReb% and 226th in DReb%. That's a real problem.

Your posts were definitely one of the primary motivations behind this idea! Of our options at the 4 (Jack, Wendell, and Hurt, excluding Javin since he's been primarily playing as a Vernon sub), Jack is by far the best rebounder IMHO... not just in the rebounds he gets, but in the rebounds that his aggression and box-outs allow his teammates to get (there was a great example on Saturday night in which Jack attacked the offensive glass, causing Huff to shift towards him, which opened a wide-open area near the rim for a Vernon put-back). Whether its in the starting lineup or not, I think more Jack kills two birds with one stone (defense and rebounding), even if it does damp down our offensive ceiling. But that goes with the overall gist of my argument which is that our offensive ceiling is already not that high given the lack of a true tertiary scorer, so why not optimize what we can?

Probability is one of those logical tools that I think everyone should know something about, and one of the best applications of it is in the poker concept of "pot odds" (I know this is an odd way to start this paragraph, but stick with me here). The basic idea is this: whenever you're deciding whether or not to make a bet, you consider the expected outcome if you played that same hand, with that same bet, a large number of times. If you have a 25% chance to win depending on the last card, and you only have to call a small bet to stay in a hand with a potentially large pot, it makes sense to roll the dice (you may lose 75% of the time, but the amount you win that 25% of the time will outweigh the losses). But eventually the raise gets large enough that the risk doesn't merit the reward, and you don't want to put good money after bad. If you'd have to pay the entire size of the pot to stay in with a 25% chance of winning, if you played that same scenario 100 times you'd end up well on the losing end (it's not a crazy calculation to do if you want to, but I won't go further down the rabbit hole here).

All of this is to say the following: I'd say, it being March 2 and having little evidence of that "tertiary scorer's" arrival, there might be a 10% chance of us solving that problem, even if solving that problem might increase our odds off NCAA Tournament success by 2 or 3 times. But, given that we have had defensive success this season and have a blueprint to go off of, I'd say there's a 75% chance that we can solve that problem, although it might only increase our NCAA odds by a factor of, say, 1.5. But if you're playing the numbers, a 75% chance of that 1.5x increase is certainly a better bet than a 10% chance at even a 3x increase.

Sorry for the belabored, and likely very forced, argument! But basically the idea is that we're more equipped at this stage in the season to fix our defensive/rebounding as opposed to offensive issues. Even if it won't be a cure-all, it's better to take that moderate improvement rather than going all-in with small odds.

[kAzE]

I think your ideas are good in theory, but the reality is, teams have tons of tape on Duke at this point, and know the strengths and weaknesses our guys have. Teams now know that Vernon and Matthew can be consistently beat off the dribble 1 on 1 if they are switched on to guards. Teams know that you can help off of guys like Jack, Javin, Jordan, and Wendell. They know that we have only 1 or 2 viable ball handlers at any time on the floor. We're extremely vulnerable to defensive pressure in the back court. It's much easier to scheme gameplans against Duke because literally every player not named Tre Jones is only good on 1 end of the court. Cassius is the closest thing to a 2nd 2-way player, but his scoring has been inconsistent.

You gotta have 2-way players to make things difficult for the opposing coaches, and we don't have that, so we're a very easy team to gameplan for.

[scottdude8]

I think your ideas are good in theory, but the reality is, teams have tons of tape on Duke at this point, and know the strengths and weaknesses our guys have. Teams now know that Vernon and Matthew can be consistently beat off the dribble 1 on 1 if they are switched on to guards. Teams know that you can help off of guys like Jack, Javin, Jordan, and Wendell. They know that we have only 1 or 2 viable ball handlers at any time on the floor. We're extremely vulnerable to defensive pressure in the back court. It's much easier to scheme gameplans against Duke because literally every player not named Tre Jones is only good on 1 end of the court. Cassius is the closest thing to a 2nd 2-way player, but his scoring has been inconsistent.

You gotta have 2-way players to make things difficult for the opposing coaches, and we don't have that, so we're a very easy team to gameplan for.

All of those criticisms of this team are entirely valid, although I actually would argue that strengthens the practicality of my argument. If we re-focus our mindset on being a defense-first squad, even if that sacrifices our ability on the offensive end (exacerbated by the existing film, as you mention), it gives us a better chance at winning than continuing to try to accomplish both things at once (which, again, the film argument makes quite clear just isn't going to happen). If we're going to have four players on the court whose strength is mainly on one end, why not construct a lineup that fully optimizes that one end of the floor? I'd rather be a fantastic defensive team and an average offensive one (perhaps slightly above average if certain players turn things around) than just a slightly above average offensive and defensive team.

Again, I think when we were in a groove it was because we had an identity as a defense first team that, while having a clear offensive ceiling, was not entirely deficient on that end of the floor. In trying to improve our offensive ceiling, it seems we sacrificed things that we were doing very well (defense and rebounding). Perhaps going back to that original identity could provide a spark.

[kAzE]

All of those criticisms of this team are entirely valid, although I actually would argue that strengthens the practicality of my argument. If we re-focus our mindset on being a defense-first squad, even if that sacrifices our ability on the offensive end (exacerbated by the existing film, as you mention), it gives us a better chance at winning than continuing to try to accomplish both things at once (which, again, the film argument makes quite clear just isn't going to happen). If we're going to have four players on the court whose strength is mainly on one end, why not construct a lineup that fully optimizes that one end of the floor? I'd rather be a fantastic defensive team and an average offensive one (perhaps slightly above average if certain players turn things around) than just a slightly above average offensive and defensive team.

Again, I think when we were in a groove it was because we had an identity as a defense first team that, while having a clear offensive ceiling, was not entirely deficient on that end of the floor. In trying to improve our offensive ceiling, it seems we sacrificed things that we were doing very well (defense and rebounding). Perhaps going back to that original identity could provide a spark.

In addition to just not rebounding as well, another thing that's hurt our defense (and offense, because not as many transition opportunities) lately is the lack of turnovers that we've forced. That was a strength for us earlier in the season, but for whatever reason, getting steals and forcing live ball turnovers has become a struggle lately. If Goldwire is going to be in the game, he's gotta make an impact by forcing opposing guards to cough it up.

To your point, maybe going back to Jack as a starter and having Jordan come off the bench with more energy to expend could help on that front. However, Tre hasn't been as good on D as his reputation lately. He's been expending more and more energy on offense, because he's being forced to do everything, and I think it's really caused him to slip on D. That problem would only be compounded if you replace Jordan with Jack.

It's just a team that has a lot of holes. We really needed those freshmen wings to develop faster. Last year, with RJ running the offense for the most part, Tre could just go all out on defense, and get his rest on offense. Without a viable back court partner to help carry the load on offense this year, he's gotta do it all.

[Troublemaker]

We can't recapture how great we were on defense earlier in the season because it was largely the result of Coach K's habit of getting his teams to play at its ceiling much earlier in the season than other coaches. Opposing teams generally exhibit more of a growth curve where they struggle early in the season and then round into form later. If we played Kansas today, they would have like 15 turnovers instead of the 28 turnovers we forced in Game 1 of the season. Duke's growth curve, on the other hand, is just a flat line going across. Or possibly it dips downwards, as many Duke fans would say. (I've always argued that we only experience it as a regression because other teams improve while we remain flat, i.e. if we could put November Duke into a time machine and have them play our February/March opponents, November Duke would struggle just as much as February/March Duke. We're not really worse on an absolute scale; it's just that we were playing closer to our ceiling much faster than anyone else.)

This isn't to say we're a bad defense. We are a good defense with a flaw (Coach K not dropping his bigs back in PnR) that previously overachieved due to the dynamic I just laid out.

[DarkstarWahoo]

I'd rather be a fantastic defensive team and an average offensive one (perhaps slightly above average if certain players turn things around) than just a slightly above average offensive and defensive team.


Just don't turn into a fantastic defensive/horrendous offensive team. That lane is taken.

[CDu]

We can't recapture how great we were on defense earlier in the season because it was largely the result of Coach K's habit of getting his teams to play at its ceiling much earlier in the season than other coaches. Opposing teams generally exhibit more of a growth curve where they struggle early in the season and then round into form later. If we played Kansas today, they would have like 15 turnovers instead of the 28 turnovers we forced in Game 1 of the season. Duke's growth curve, on the other hand, is just a flat line going across. Or possibly it dips downwards, as many Duke fans would say. (I've always argued that we only experience it as a regression because other teams improve while we remain flat, i.e. if we could put November Duke into a time machine and have them play our February/March opponents, November Duke would struggle just as much as February/March Duke. We're not really worse on an absolute scale; it's just that we were playing closer to our ceiling much faster than anyone else.)

This isn't to say we're a bad defense. We are a good defense with a flaw (Coach K not dropping his bigs back in PnR) that previously overachieved due to the dynamic I just laid out.

Agreed. I would also add that kAzE's point about the limitations of the team being more evident on tape factors in too. Because so many of our players have limitations that are now evident, teams have started to figure out how to attack those weaknesses better (and how to limit some of our strengths better). In other words, while other teams have gotten better, they've also started to make adjustments. How we adjust to those adjustments will determine our fate moving forward.

It's a bit frustrating that we haven't seen any of our freshmen step up yet. When Coach K talks about our youth, that's I think what he's meaning. Stanley, Moore, and Hurt have each had nice moments, but none have had the lightbulb come on and stay on. If even one of them could become reliable, our team would become SOOOOO much more difficult to beat. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Maybe it will eventually happen this season, but we're getting short on time for it to happen.

[Kedsy]

In addition to just not rebounding as well, another thing that's hurt our defense (and offense, because not as many transition opportunities) lately is the lack of turnovers that we've forced. That was a strength for us earlier in the season, but for whatever reason, getting steals and forcing live ball turnovers has become a struggle lately.

I agree that turning the other team over has been our major defensive deficiency lately. We did a good job with that against UVa, but our TO% was under 20% in 9 of our previous 10 games. If we're going to play an aggressive, get-in-the-passing-lanes defense and we don't generate many turnovers, we're especially prone to overall defensive lapses.

What I don't understand is why anyone is talking about "not rebounding as well" on the defensive end, when in our last five games that's been one of our bright spots. Our cumulative DR% in our last five games has been 76.8%. If we'd been doing that the whole season, it would rank in the top 25 in the country (unadjusted for competition) and would be the #1 defensive rebounding performance among Power-6 teams. In other words, there's absolutely no reason for a lineup shakeup to improve our defensive rebounding.

[kAzE]

I agree that turning the other team over has been our major defensive deficiency lately. We did a good job with that against UVa, but our TO% was under 20% in 9 of our previous 10 games. If we're going to play an aggressive, get-in-the-passing-lanes defense and we don't generate many turnovers, we're especially prone to overall defensive lapses.

What I don't understand is why anyone is talking about "not rebounding as well" on the defensive end, when in our last five games that's been one of our bright spots. Our cumulative DR% in our last five games has been 76.8%. If we'd been doing that the whole season, it would rank in the top 25 in the country (unadjusted for competition) and would be the #1 defensive rebounding performance among Power-6 teams. In other words, there's absolutely no reason for a lineup shakeup to improve our defensive rebounding.

You're right, I was incorrect to suggest our defensive rebounding numbers needed help. However, our offensive rebounding has been terrible compared to earlier in the season. Offensive rebounding has been one of the best indicators for postseason success, so that's pretty concerning. Jack White is a good offensive rebounder, but I don't know if it's as simple as just giving Jack White more minutes.

This is a team with too many holes. When you try to cover up one hole, another one pops open. Totally agree with CDu about our non-Vernon freshmen. If one or more of those guys doesn't become more consistent, we're probably not going very far this postseason.

[SlapTheFloor]

I think our biggest issue is just closing out games. We are remarkably unclutch. Outside of Tre, there isn't a single player on this team that I trust in a late game situation with the score close. We lost the Wake Forest game because of sloppy execution at the end. We lost the UVA game despite Carey having a wide open dunk in the waning seconds. This time of year you have to be able to finish games, and we're simply not good at that.

[dukelifer]

Would sneaking in Zion into a Mike Buckmire jersey be too out of the box? I think teams have figured Duke out and it will come down to fewer mistakes that Duke can control and someone playing above their age. I would like to see Stanley become that guy. He is the most athletic player Duke has and he needs to get his motor going. I am not exactly sure why he has been so up and down of late. Last 5 games 9, 4, 21,14, 4. Duke needs 14 pt Stanley and not 4 point Stanley. He has also been clutch in some close games. I think he is the key.

[CDu]

What I don't understand is why anyone is talking about "not rebounding as well" on the defensive end, when in our last five games that's been one of our bright spots. Our cumulative DR% in our last five games has been 76.8%. If we'd been doing that the whole season, it would rank in the top 25 in the country (unadjusted for competition) and would be the #1 defensive rebounding performance among Power-6 teams. In other words, there's absolutely no reason for a lineup shakeup to improve our defensive rebounding.

That's a bit of an undersell of the situation. Those last five games have come against the #211, #129, #333, #162, and #212 offensive rebounding teams in the country. We should absolutely have expected to rebound well against those teams. And in two of those five games (@NC State and @UVa) we allowed those teams to outrebound their season norms on the offensive glass (State substantially so, UVa nominally so). That we kept Notre Dame, an undersized Va Tech, and Wake off the glass isn't overly impressive considering that two of those 3 are outside the top-200 in offensive rebounding. I most certainly would not call defensive rebounding a strength of ours in the game against Raleigh, where we allowed them to best their OR% by over 6 percentage points.

People bring up our defensive rebounding because we aren't very good at it. Plain and simple. We are #162 in the nation in defensive rebounding. We aren't always bad at it, but it is one of our weaknesses defensively. Are there other things that are bigger concerns? Sure: handling high ball screens is one obvious one. But that doesn't mean that defensive rebounding isn't a concern.

[jv001]

I think our biggest issue is just closing out games. We are remarkably unclutch. Outside of Tre, there isn't a single player on this team that I trust in a late game situation with the score close. We lost the Wake Forest game because of sloppy execution at the end. We lost the UVA game despite Carey having a wide open dunk in the waning seconds. This time of year you have to be able to finish games, and we're simply not good at that.

We lost the Wake game when at the end of regulation, Wendell and Goldwire demonstrated their shaky ball handling. So yes, I agree if Tre doesn't have the ball in his hands at key moments, we will more than likely fail. As someone mentioned, we have too many holes to fill.

GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

That's a bit of an undersell of the situation. Those last five games have come against the #211, #129, #333, #162, and #212 offensive rebounding teams in the country. We should absolutely have expected to rebound well against those teams. And in two of those five games (@NC State and @UVa) we allowed those teams to outrebound their season norms on the offensive glass (State substantially so, UVa nominally so). That we kept Notre Dame, an undersized Va Tech, and Wake off the glass isn't overly impressive considering that two of those 3 are outside the top-200 in offensive rebounding. I most certainly would not call defensive rebounding a strength of ours in the game against Raleigh, where we allowed them to best their OR% by over 6 percentage points.

People bring up our defensive rebounding because we aren't very good at it. Plain and simple. We are #162 in the nation in defensive rebounding. We aren't always bad at it, but it is one of our weaknesses defensively. Are there other things that are bigger concerns? Sure: handling high ball screens is one obvious one. But that doesn't mean that defensive rebounding isn't a concern.

Well, if you're going to break it down like that, we've played seven teams in the top 50 in offensive rebounding this season, and we've held six of the seven to below their season norms on the offensive glass (three of them were below by more than NCSU was above). We may not be great at defensive rebounding, but I don't think we're nearly as bad at it as you seem to think.


You're right, I was incorrect to suggest our defensive rebounding numbers needed help. However, our offensive rebounding has been terrible compared to earlier in the season. Offensive rebounding has been one of the best indicators for postseason success, so that's pretty concerning. Jack White is a good offensive rebounder, but I don't know if it's as simple as just giving Jack White more minutes.

Actually, Jack White is a better defensive rebounder than offensive rebounder. On this year's team, he ranks 6th in OR%. Even taking his career OR% (which is a little better than his performance this season), he'd rank 6th on this year's team.

Overall, our offensive rebounding has been streaky. It's not as simple as "early in the season" vs. "late in the season." Our first three games, for example, our OR% was under 34% in all three (and under 27% in two out of three). Then our next three games we were over 45% in all three (including over 53% in two out of three). Then we had four games of 34% or lower (including three under 27%), then four games of 38% or over (including three over 45%). And so on. Our OR% in conference games is just 31.1% vs. 34.5% in all games, so to that extent we have declined, though the tougher competition might help explain that difference.

I agree with you that offensive rebounding has been a good predictor of postseason success in the past. But I think our inconsistency in that area makes our overall offensive rebounding prospects worse than our season number might suggest.

[CDu]

Well, if you're going to break it down like that, we've played seven teams in the top 50 in offensive rebounding this season, and we've held six of the seven to below their season norms on the offensive glass (three of them were below by more than NCSU was above). We may not be great at defensive rebounding, but I don't think we're nearly as bad at it as you seem to think.

I think we are thoroughly mediocre at it, and it is one of the things we do the worst defensively. The stats clearly back me up on this. So, no, I don’t think I have an overly deflated view of our defensive rebounding. We do a lot really well defensively. But I would put handling high ball screens, fouling, and defensive rebounding - in that order - as the three areas of concern defensively.

And to the point, you listed the raw rebound percentage over the last 5 games as evidence that there is no concern. I was merely presenting the obvious counter argument to that, given the paucity of offensive rebounding quality of our opponents in that stretch.

[wsb3]

There are a million ways to accomplish it, but I have been discussing "more Jack" as a way of boosting the defense and the rebounding in the "Is Jack OK?" thread (https://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?44928-Is-Jack-OK&p=1233245#post1233245). Hand in hand with advocating for a bit more Jack is a belief that we need a bit less from JGold. While it may seem foolish talk about playing a wing less and allowing a PF to play more, I believe JGold and Jack's playing times are correlated as a result of Wendell Moore getting minutes at PF rather than on the wing.

I mentioned this on the podcast (https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/duke-basketball-report?selected=VMP5926855581) this week, but Duke has gone from one of the best rebounding teams in the country to a below average one in the past 8-10 games. In our last 10 games, we are 71st in the nation at OReb% and 226th in DReb%. That's a real problem.

Must spread, blah blah.. I agree so much with this. I would add, go back to what was working earlier & play our bench.

As far as Jack goes. He does things that maybe don't show up so much in the stat sheet. I think when he is really in the rotation he adds a toughness this team sorely needs.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Or maybe zone?

[JasonEvans]

So, Jack White never even takes off his warmups and we crush State on the boards by 19. When we missed a shot we were almost as likely to get the rebound as they were (16 ORebs for us to 18DRebs for them).

I give up... no clue what this team is going to be. No clue who is going to play. No clue who is going to play well. No... clue...

The Duke team in the final 15 minutes is a team that can win a title, but the team that played the first half also exists and that team could easily lose at any moment in the tournament.

At this point, JRob simply has to be in the rotation, right? I mean, is there any question?

-Jason "maybe the out of the box idea is zone and turning out 11th man into our 6th man" Evans

[jwillfan]

I give up... no clue what this team is going to be. No clue who is going to play. No clue who is going to play well. No... clue...

I think what you're looking for is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[jv001]

So, Jack White never even takes off his warmups and we crush State on the boards by 19. When we missed a shot we were almost as likely to get the rebound as they were (16 ORebs for us to 18DRebs for them).

I give up... no clue what this team is going to be. No clue who is going to play. No clue who is going to play well. No... clue...

The Duke team in the final 15 minutes is a team that can win a title, but the team that played the first half also exists and that team could easily lose at any moment in the tournament.

At this point, JRob simply has to be in the rotation, right? I mean, is there any question?

-Jason "maybe the out of the box idea is zone and turning out 11th man into our 6th man" Evans

That's what I've been saying for a while now. The guy has a high basketball IQ. He knows the Duke system and seems to be in the right place at the right time. I love how if he can't get a rebound, he knows who to tap the ball to. After the Wake game, I thought for sure J-Rob would be in the rotation at Virginia but he didn't even play. Knowing what each player will do is no more baffling than what Coach K will do. :cool:

GoDuke!

[scottdude8]

A week ago I would've expected K to start Jack and Javin on Saturday, even for a brief moment, on senior night... while he doesn't do what Roy does, considering the pair of them have been key rotation players it wouldn't be out of the box. Now, does Justin start?!?!

[jv001]

A week ago I would've expected K to start Jack and Javin on Saturday, even for a brief moment, on senior night... while he doesn't do what Roy does, considering the pair of them have been key rotation players it wouldn't be out of the box. Now, does Justin start?!?!

I don't think Coach K will do that but you never know. What I want to see is Coach K put all three in with 3 minutes to go and the score be Duke 82-Cheats 50. 9F

GoDuke!

[Kedsy]

A week ago I would've expected K to start Jack and Javin on Saturday, even for a brief moment, on senior night... while he doesn't do what Roy does, considering the pair of them have been key rotation players it wouldn't be out of the box. Now, does Justin start?!?!

I wouldn't be surprised if all three start. They're all captains, right?