Back to the ol' slow-down

[DukeCO2009]

Anyone notice that we went back to last year's slow-down game quite a bit in the second half? I don't know if K was just trying to give the half-court offense some work or what, but it was painful to watch us run the clock down to 7 seconds possession after possession knowing that the team can run so well. I think we've got an incredibly talented team this season, but it's not well-suited to play stall-ball. Scheyer's flurry at the end of the game distorted the figures a bit--the reality is that we were lucky to have 30 points in the second half. I simply don't understand slowing down the pace like that. We had trouble with their zone at the end of the first half, yet in the second half we would grab a board and--rather than attack the basket and not let them set up their defense--walk the ball up the court and let them set up the zone again. Doesn't make sense to me. What gives, oh wise DBR?

[throatybeard]

Auugh...make it stop...make it stop...

[freedevil]

I'm going to disagree with Throaty's extremely thick disgust this thread. I absolute HATE the slowdown. Make the SLOWDOWN stop, not discussion of it. That's what I say.

[DukeCO2009]

I'm going to disagree with Throaty's extremely thick disgust this thread. I absolute HATE the slowdown. Make the SLOWDOWN stop, not discussion of it. That's what I say.

Preach it, brother. The only exciting thing at the end of the game until Scheyer's spurt was when the pep band played "Every Time We Touch" and the student's went crazy. I've been watching Duke basketball forever, and every time we go to the slow-down bad things happen. I don't mean to complain about a 25-point win, but stall-ball has always perplexed me.

[throatybeard]

I was talking about the discussion of it, but to each his/her own.

[jimsumner]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with practicing the delay under game conditions. There will be times this year when Duke will need this to put a win away and I sure don't want to be running it for the first time with a five-point lead on the road.

[jaimedun34]

Slowing the game down probably gives the staff a better opportunity to see where the team stands when it comes to the halfcourt game. Apparently, we don't look so hot in the halfcourt (judging by what I saw from the first half and what I've read about the second half).

We're not going to be able to run all season like we did in the preseason. There will be games in which we might not have those opportunities to push the ball. The guys need to get used to running on offense.

[Troublemaker]

If you count Blue-White, we'd basically played at a breakneck pace for 4.5 games already. To spend one half of one game working on halfcourt / delay shouldn't seem strange to anyone. Also, our best player had 4 fouls at the beginning of the second half and unlike Shaw, this opponent was a team that theoretically could beat us, so it was good to practice playing with foul trouble in a halfcourt / delay setting against a live opponent since that situation will come up again, probably during a crucial game.

[Lord Ash]

The only thing I am MORE sick of than the slowdown is people on this board complaining about discussing it. Don't like it? DON'T READ THE THREAD. Jeez, it isn't difficult.

As for me, I agree, and never more so than with a team that is being bred to run like this one. I don't mind it as much in this situation and getting the team used to it, but if something works, stick with it, you know? I've never quite gotten the thinking there.

[Troublemaker]

Keep in mind that NMSU had A LOT to do with the game slowing down as well. They went to a zone to slow things down and they made a more conscious effort to get back on defense. That was one of the neat outcomes from this game. A team that likes to run decided that Duke was going to mop the floor with them if they ran, so they throttled it down. If NMSU had continued trying to run with us like they did at the beginning of the game, Duke would have won 110-65.

[Troublemaker]

Also, Duke could have gotten them out of the zone had they shot better but aside from Jon's flurry at the end, we didn't shoot well today overall from outside.

[watzone]

It's just one game.

[Jumbo]

The only thing I am MORE sick of than the slowdown is people on this board complaining about discussing it. Don't like it? DON'T READ THE THREAD. Jeez, it isn't difficult.

As for me, I agree, and never more so than with a team that is being bred to run like this one. I don't mind it as much in this situation and getting the team used to it, but if something works, stick with it, you know? I've never quite gotten the thinking there.

That's not how it works, buddy. I don't like it, and I like it even less when it's falsely presented. So I'm going to criticize the starting of a ridiculous thread, and then I'm going to show where it was wrong.

When did Duke go to the "slowdown." Let's see, they scored on a fast break inside of five minutes, so I guess there was no "stall ball" there. Oh, and they were up 17 at the time. Then Duke went to a spread attack with about 3:45 to go ... and executed it perfectly, with Nelson driving and kicking to Scheyer for a three. Next possession? Steal, Singler leads the fast break and is fouled at midcourt. No "slow-down." Then Duke gets the abll back with 2:56 to go, up 22. He tries to set something up quickly, pulls it back out, swings it to Nelson, who drives with about 15 seconds left on the shot clock and gets fouled. That's "stall-ball" too? Next possession starts with about 2:20 to go, and the Devils pull it out there. So, basically, the original poster is complaining about going to the spread set IN THE FINAL TWO MINUTES OF A 25-POINT GAME!!! What are you supposed to do there? Run-and-gun? Is that smart basketball? Gee, maybe Duke should have pressed, too. Or maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to practice something you'll need to use late in a close game. Because, you know, teams often run into single-possession games where they need to hold for the final shot. And -- what do you know -- Duke ran the attack fairly well and got good practice against a live opponent.

Gag me.

[Cameron]

Anyone who doesn't have a problem with stall ball, please refresh yourselves with the BC game from a year ago. We DID end up winning that one, but we nearly choked away a 30 or so point lead after heading to the slowdown plan midway through the second half. Had we lost that game to those thugs, I would have killed myself.

Stall ball really p*sses me off. I'm sorry. It wasn't SO bad tonight, but I was very close to getting irritated again. We should have won this game by 35 plus. We were up by 31 in the second half for God's sake, then it was down to like 18 after we stopped attacking.

We better not take our foot off the gas to early and lose a game because of it this year. Or I'm going to have to step in as interim coach:) (You guys would love me. There would never be a stop of running, chucking threes, or jamming in transistion. We'd score 175 a ball game:) Haha.)

Seriously, though, enough with the slowdown. It disgusts me.

[Cameron]

I agree that it wasn't that bad tonight, Jumbo, but come on, you didn't notice it midway through the second half? We dropped our lead by like 15 points.

Again, though, when we got a couple quick steals for dunks and then back to back Jon threes, it made up for it, so it didn't look as noticeable. It was there, though.

[Grey Devil]

The only thing I am MORE sick of than the slowdown is people on this board complaining about discussing it. Don't like it? DON'T READ THE THREAD. Jeez, it isn't difficult.

As for me, I agree, and never more so than with a team that is being bred to run like this one. I don't mind it as much in this situation and getting the team used to it, but if something works, stick with it, you know? I've never quite gotten the thinking there.

Personally, I think it's a good thing to discuss this now -- because we will likely encounter this same situation later in the season. Some posters will want fast ball all the time, others will say we need to work on a variety of game situations now (whenever that "now" may be during the season) so that we'll be ready for the real discussion when it really counts.

Personally I like to watch a fast game as much as the next person. But I also believe that when you have an opportunity to work on situational game tactics under real game pressure than you ought to do it. Let's face it, this is a very young team still, and they need the experience of playing in different game situations. I'm glad that Coach K gave them the opportunity to see how to handle themselves at a different pace. To me they had trouble adjusting to it initially, and it was frustrating to watch it as a fan and spectator (not very pretty to see the sloppy play) but the fact that they had trouble with it indicates even more the wisdom of doing it now. (Note, also, that they still won the second half by ending the game with a bigger margin than they ended the first half. Okay so a four point margin isn't the blow out everybody wants, but the final game score was still a blow out.)

Don't expect to win every game by 30 or 40 points....cuz it ain't gonna happen, even if we run all the time. We're gonna need this experience and it's good that we're trying it out now because it's clear we needed to work on it.

On a more positive note, I do like how we've had a different player each game be the high point guy. I hope that continues all through the season. With different players stepping up each game, more of them gain confidence they can do it, and it's tougher for the opposing team to figure out who they've got to stop. Although I really loved to watch Reddick play, I was always nervous that he'd have an off night.....hmmm, he did have one or two, didn't he (and unfortunately at the wrong time)?

Grey Devil

[DukeCO2009]

That's not how it works, buddy. I don't like it, and I like it even less when it's falsely presented. So I'm going to criticize the starting of a ridiculous thread, and then I'm going to show where it was wrong.

When did Duke go to the "slowdown." Let's see, they scored on a fast break inside of five minutes, so I guess there was no "stall ball" there. Oh, and they were up 17 at the time. Then Duke went to a spread attack with about 3:45 to go ... and executed it perfectly, with Nelson driving and kicking to Scheyer for a three. Next possession? Steal, Singler leads the fast break and is fouled at midcourt. No "slow-down." Then Duke gets the abll back with 2:56 to go, up 22. He tries to set something up quickly, pulls it back out, swings it to Nelson, who drives with about 15 seconds left on the shot clock and gets fouled. That's "stall-ball" too? Next possession starts with about 2:20 to go, and the Devils pull it out there. So, basically, the original poster is complaining about going to the spread set IN THE FINAL TWO MINUTES OF A 25-POINT GAME!!! What are you supposed to do there? Run-and-gun? Is that smart basketball? Gee, maybe Duke should have pressed, too. Or maybe, just maybe, it's a good idea to practice something you'll need to use late in a close game. Because, you know, teams often run into single-possession games where they need to hold for the final shot. And -- what do you know -- Duke ran the attack fairly well and got good practice against a live opponent.

Gag me.

Christ--take a chill pill there, Sir Jumbo. I've read this board for a while and know you're a bit of an elder statesman here, but damn, relax.

I agree that it's a good idea to have a slow-down offense in a team's repetoire--hell, I even suggested in my post that the coaching staff was probably just trying to get a look at the squad's halfcourt capabilities. Stall-ball didn't happen on every possession, but I seem to recall Nelson/Paulus/Scheyer/Smith sitting in the corner near the midcourt line dribbling the clock down quite a few times in the second half. It was just like last season: milk the clock for 25 seconds, set a high screen a couple feet above the top of the key, look for the drive, and kick it out if the drive wasn't there. What frustrated me is that we didn't bust the zone--we let NMSU set it up when we could've beaten them down the court. We struggled mightily against their 2-3/2-1-2 (they seemed to switch the two up, and they're hard to tell apart, anyway), and their were times when we could have beaten them down the court off a rebound and gotten a shot off before they were able to set it up. That's just my two cents, and you're certainly entitled to yours. I know the guys can't score 125 a game, but when you have the luxury of subbing 10 (11 when Dave's healthy) guys almost interchangably, you shouldn't worry so much about resting your players--you should play to your team's strengths, and this team's strength is running.

EDIT: Let me clarify that I'm aware that it's about wins and losses and not about how many points you score. As much as I love seeing a team run-and-gun, I'd rather win 60-59 than lose 124-125. Cameron's mention of the BC game from last year highlights my point, though: it's silly to mess with a good thing. Stall-ball is for maintaining 5ish point leads in the last 3 minutes of a game; it's not for use when you're up by 20 or so with 10+ minutes left, because leads can evaporate veeery quickly, especially against a fast, athletic team.

[Jumbo]

I agree that it wasn't that bad tonight, Jumbo, but come on, you didn't notice it midway through the second half? We dropped our lead by like 15 points.

Again, though, when we got a couple quick steals for dunks and then back to back Jon threes, it made up for it, so it didn't look as noticeable. It was there, though.

No, I didn't notice it. Duke slowed things down for a possession or two, but do you know what that is? COACHING! Maybe K wanted them to run a certain set. Geez. Much of NMSU's "comeback" came when Duke was working on its zone, too. I can't believe the crap people complain about. It's a freaking broken record around here.

[Jumbo]

Christ--take a chill pill there, Sir Jumbo. I've read this board for a while and know you're a bit of an elder statesman here, but damn, relax.

I agree that it's a good idea to have a slow-down offense in a team's repetoire--hell, I even suggested in my post that the coaching staff was probably just trying to get a look at the squad's halfcourt capabilities. Stall-ball didn't happen on every possession, but I seem to recall Nelson/Paulus/Scheyer/Smith sitting in the corner near the midcourt line dribbling the clock down quite a few times in the second half. It was just like last season: milk the clock for 25 seconds, set a high screen a couple feet above the top of the key, look for the drive, and kick it out if the drive wasn't there. What frustrated me is that we didn't bust the zone--we let NMSU set it up when we could've beaten them down the court. We struggled mightily against their 2-3/2-1-2 (they seemed to switch the two up, and they're hard to tell apart, anyway), and their were times when we could have beaten them down the court off a rebound and gotten a shot off before they were able to set it up. That's just my two cents, and you're certainly entitled to yours. I know the guys can't score 125 a game, but when you have the luxury of subbing 10 (11 when Dave's healthy) guys almost interchangably, you shouldn't worry so much about resting your players--you should play to your team's strengths, and this team's strength is running.

EDIT: Let me clarify that I'm aware that it's about wins and losses and not about how many points you score. As much as I love seeing a team run-and-gun, I'd rather win 60-59 than lose 124-125. Cameron's mention of the BC game from last year highlights my point, though: it's silly to mess with a good thing. Stall-ball is for maintaining 5ish point leads in the last 3 minutes of a game; it's not for use when you're up by 20 or so with 10+ minutes left, because leads can evaporate veeery quickly, especially against a fast, athletic team.

As I posted, Duke was still pushing the ball in the final five minutes. So, in short, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have the game on DVR. Want me to give a you a full play-by-play of the entire second half?

[DBFAN]

I agree with the last post because I thought the philosophy of this team was to keep attacking, thats why we won those other games by 70 points, even thought the talent level was less than NMSU we kept attacking so it is something that they do automatically without thinking. On the other hand I do have to think we might have slowed down because Princeton is out next opponent, at least I hope so. But it was very obvious we changed out style of play around the 11-12 minute mark, maybe it was because we did not need to embarrass the other team on national TV, unlike our friends down the road who relish those opportunities. Maybe it was because of Singler getting 4 fouls (pretty cheap ones though). I would not worry about it to much, I think it is apparent to the coaching staff which way they play better, so we probably wont see that too much this year.

[DukeCO2009]

As I posted, Duke was still pushing the ball in the final five minutes. So, in short, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have the game on DVR. Want me to give a you a full play-by-play of the entire second half?

Jesus H. Christ--I know! If you read my post, you'd see that I fully recognize that we didn't slow it down every possession. As the poster above my said, though, there was a clear shift in the game plan at the 11-12 minute mark--I'd even say around the 14ish minute mark. If you really want to waste your time re-watching the game, be my guest.

[Jumbo]

Jesus H. Christ--I know! If you read my post, you'd see that I fully recognize that we didn't slow it down every possession. As the poster above my said, though, there was a clear shift in the game plan at the 11-12 minute mark--I'd even say around the 14ish minute mark. If you really want to waste your time re-watching the game, be my guest.

That was right around when Duke went to its zone. A lot of people complain about not zoning too. I guess the team can't win for trying.

[DukeCO2009]

That was right around when Duke went to its zone. A lot of people complain about not zoning too. I guess the team can't win for trying.

True, but I don't think it has much to do with the zone. We got a lot of fast breaks out of the zone against Central the other night, so I don't think it necessarily correlates to slower play on our offensive end. The key is to not let the other guys set up in a zone if we can help it, because that's what slows the game down considerably.

[feldspar]

I was talking about the discussion of it, but to each his/her own.

You do realize, throaty, that if people on this board only discussed original ideas and concepts, this board would have died out a long time ago, right?

You're turning into the curmudgeonly old man sitting on his porch telling the kids to get off his lawn.

[throatybeard]

You do realize, throaty, that if people on this board only discussed original ideas and concepts, this board would have died out a long time ago, right?

False dichotomy. There's a lot of space in between flogging the same ten horses and "original ideas and concepts."


You're turning into the curmudgeonly old man sitting on his porch telling the kids to get off his lawn.

Turning into? That horse has been out of the barn for years.

[4decadedukie]

The reasons many of us dislike s-l-o-w-i-n-g the pace of the game down in the final period have been thoroughly discussed in this -- and other -- threads. After years of considering this, mostly while mashing my teeth and yelling at the TV "they'll blow the win, don't do it," I want to add an observation.

It seems to me when Duke engages in an intentional delay toward the conclusion of a game, the team -- crucially -- frequently loses its "cutting edge," its aggressiveness on defense as well as offense. It is almost as if, psychologically, the team (all years, certainly not just last night) feels "this one's in the bag" and simply stops playing hard.

I realize the ridiculousness of me (a true novice) de facto suggesting that Coach K (a Hall of Fame honoree and arguably the best collegiate coach in history) just doesn't get it, but on this relatively small facet of the game (and with unlimited respect for K), I really do not understand what he is trying to accomplish and why. Is it conditioning, fear of injuries, some other reason, or is it simply an arithmetically-founded time-tactic? If it's the latter, I believe is is fraught with significant risks, because it neglects the psychological aspects of this strategy to both teams: (a) to Duke, it suggests the win is locked up and playing by "cruise control" is permissible; while (b), to our opponenents, it provides an opportunity for last-minute victory, with our Blue Devils concentrate almost exclusively on ball control and the clock.

There are MANY more-knowledgeable individuals who participate in DBR than I, and their opinions re the foregoing would be sincerely appreciated.

[dukestheheat]

DukeCO2009-

I, too, noticed a return to last year's form for most of the second half. They looked to be the same team all over again during that stretch, no doubt.

But, I think that we didn't so much as GO to small-ball or the stall as is suggested, but rather that we had trouble scoring from the outside versus their zone. When the Aggies controlled our tempo, they were much more competitive versus Duke; when our tempo was forced to slow, we looked ordinary.

So, it appeared that we were trying to take the air out of the ball, but in reality I do think we just weren't hitting the outside shot versus the zone. Our shooting % must be quite lower for this game (though I haven't seen the % and am guessing). We missed so many shots tonight.

King and Singler were decidedly 'off' last night, and I haven't seen the FF % but I think that it's less than the 84% we'd put up versus NCCU.

But here is the good thing to take away from this game: We are getting A LOT of shots b/c of the focus on up-tempo. Sometimes more of those shots will fall, sometimes, like last night, it'll be way less, but the number of shots should encourage all of us. Duke is looking good, imo.

dth.

[captmojo]

Alrighty. Everybody needs to calm down. Defense will dictate tempo. Aggies did a remarkable job of hustling downcourt to set up their zone. Duke had an off night with outside shooting. When the defense shifts the gears, the offense has to adjust and sometimes the focus takes time to make that adjustment. This is evident in the 3 point percentages. Give NMSU, and their coaching staff, some credit.

Taking the air out of the ball may not excite the crowd, but when the other team puts up defense to dictate the flow, you have to go with it and beat it. There are going to be plenty of times this season when opponents are going to throw up this wall and to be successful, the squad on the floor in blue is going to have to overcome. I think they performed remarkably well for seeing it as well as this opponent set it up. It's very difficult to downshift from that wide open full throttle to half court set after 30 minutes of pedal to the metal. There will also be nights when those 3 are raining down and through so well that you'll never have "stall ball" cross your mind.

With the outcome not in doubt, remember that full throttle game you'd really like to see for 40 minutes can also greatly increase risk of injury. With only 12 uniforms filled with DUKE across the chest, you must have a degree of care. This is early in the season and a learning process for the team. These aren't a group of juniors and seniors that have been together for 2 or 3 years. This style of play takes time to develop and what they look like now will look much better in February and March, considering they stay focused on the current path.

[Channing]

(1) I personally do not like "stall ball."

(2) I dislike running up the score on an opponent even more.

(3) To be honest, I did not actually see the team go into "stall ball." What I saw was a half court offense that did not produce very many points. There is a difference. Unless I am mistaken, stall ball is where we pass the ball around the outside and dont get into trying to make something happen until there is roughly 8 or 9 seconds left on the shot clock. Anyone complaining about Duke running and practicing a half court offense needs to rethink their position.

[throatybeard]

Taking the air out of the ball may not excite the crowd

Unless you're Carolina's team and you made off with some manhole covers.

[mapei]

(1) I personally do not like "stall ball."

(2) I dislike running up the score on an opponent even more.

(3) To be honest, I did not actually see the team go into "stall ball." What I saw was a half court offense that did not produce very many points. There is a difference. Unless I am mistaken, stall ball is where we pass the ball around the outside and dont get into trying to make something happen until there is roughly 8 or 9 seconds left on the shot clock. Anyone complaining about Duke running and practicing a half court offense needs to rethink their position.

That's the way it looked to me, too. We were out of sync, but it wasn't due to a change in strategy as far as I could see.

[captmojo]

Unless you're Carolina's team and you made off with some manhole covers.

Wouldn't that technically be taking air out of tires?

[_Gary]

To be honest, I did not actually see the team go into "stall ball." What I saw was a half court offense that did not produce very many points. There is a difference. Unless I am mistaken, stall ball is where we pass the ball around the outside and dont get into trying to make something happen until there is roughly 8 or 9 seconds left on the shot clock. Anyone complaining about Duke running and practicing a half court offense needs to rethink their position.

You are correct. I don't think Duke went to a "stall ball" set at all (well, maybe the last couple of possessions). But they did try to run some half court sets, and the results were definitely not much different from last year, IMHO. Fortunately, Scheyer got pretty hot towards the end of the game and hit some shots that kinda bailed us out of what was otherwise some poor offensive sets in the half court offense. I'd still prefer we just have the mindset to run if at all possible (which I think we did do for the most part all last night) - OR - if the break is not available at least have our wings attack a little more. That's what Nelson and Henderson were doing at the beginning of the game, and that's the portion of the half court set that disappeared in the second half. We simply kept trying to run Greg off high picks at the top of the circle and then he'd either keep the ball but not push all the way to the basket or he'd try to kick out for someone and hope they'd hit a three. As I said, Scheyer did oblige some and that helped us. But we didn't see the attacking to the basket in the second half like we did in the first, and that's what hurt us, IMHO. On top of that, I noticed a time or two when guys had open threes and passed up shots and Coach was not happy with them. We have to shoot the open three if it presents itself and quit trying to pump fake looking for something better. Shoot the shot in rhythm when you receive the pass if you are open! That will make the half court offense a lot better. That, and having Greg go ahead and penetrate a bit more. He did it some in the first half and ended up getting a layup or two. But in the second half he seemed a tad more reluctant to go all the way to the bucket.

On top of all this, we lost Singler's low post presence due to silly fouls (and at least one bad foul call from the ref) and that hurt our half court sets. You can see that Kyle knows how to seal off defenders and create good passing lanes for easy buckets. But he had to play it a tad safe and so that hurt our half court sets a bit.

Overall I was pleased with the performance. The "D" was absolutely great, and I have no real worries there at all (other than the obvious issue of rebounding against bigger teams - but there's not a lot we can do about that one). On offense I was fairly pleased with everything I saw. I just want the guys to keep attacking, even in the half court sets. That's what makes the difference, IMHO.

Just my two cents.

[rsvman]

.....every time we go to the slow-down bad things happen. ...

This is simply not true.

SOMETIMES bad things happen, and when they do, it is memorable. Therefore, you remember the times this happened, but don't remember all the times that "stall-ball" led to victory.

A couple of seasons ago, I pulled out a little notebook and wrote down the score at the time they went into the slowdown, how much time was left on the clock, and what the final score was. Although the margin was usually reduced slightly, most of the time the result was a victory. It was a rare occasion when the margin was reduced by a large margin, and even rarer when it led to a loss.

Maybe I should do the same thing this year and post the results at the end of the season. Then again, the "true disbelievers" will probably not believe, even if faced with cold, hard facts.

[feldspar]

False dichotomy. There's a lot of space in between flogging the same ten horses and "original ideas and concepts."

What you fail to realize, probably due in large part to your long tenure here, is that people sign up at DBR every day, and those people want to talk about issues we've already talked about before.

And you know what? That's okay. I hate to break it to you, but there's not much new and fresh we can talk about on here other than specific games and current events around the Duke program. Other than that, EVERYTHING is old hat.

But what's wrong with that? What's wrong with newer posters coming on here and expressing their opinions about topics you feel have been hashed out over and over again. No one is forcing you to become a part of the discussion. In fact, you expend more energy griping about it than you would just shrugging your shoulders and moving on to the next thread.

Just leave people be. New Duke fans are born every minute. Let's not be haughty enough to deprive them of the same privilege we had of griping about stall ball 10 years ago when we thought our ideas were fresh and original.....news flash: they weren't.

[throatybeard]

A lot of the dead horse flogging comes from the same established posters, Feldspar.

I think it would be good if I cease debating you about this. I'm sure you understand.

[Kilby]

I just finished watching the K video. I think he said something like he didn't know why we slowed down in the second half but it may have been because we were tired. So, it wasn't a call from the bench to run half court sets. I would like for Duke to really get back into the habit of running so what happend doesn't occur again. I know that the great defense that they played in the first half takes energy but Duke has the bench now to sub and keep going.

[Johnboy]

I would appreciate it if certain posters didn't offend religious sensibilities on this board. Obscenity is not permitted, so I'm not sure why DukeCO2009 should be permitted to offend in this way, twice, in this thread alone. Thanks in advance to the moderators.


FTR, I agree with Jumbo and Gary . . . and Throaty.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

Well said Feldspar. I've been lurking for more than 7 years here and at other sites and have also seen/grown weary of some of these discussions. But I know that a) many DBR discussions are more/less interesting for me than for others and b) that's ok. As long as we use stallball/use a short bench/play some players more than others/whatever, people are going to discuss it.

I'd also like to echo steven's point that stallball is a great way to be gracious with an overmatched opponent. Another team, who shall remain nameless (for privacy's sake let's call them "the Tar H's" . . . No, that's too obvious. Uhh, let's say the "T. Heels") really looked bad last season sprinting down the court at the end of blowouts to jack up as many 3's or throw down as many dunks as they could. By not continuing to run we decrease the number of possessions, the chance of injury, can practice some new wrinkles, and don't look like jerks rubbing an overmatched team's noses into the mud.

[feldspar]

A lot of the dead horse flogging comes from the same established posters, Feldspar.

Let's take a thread at a time. This particular thread was started by a poster who has been posting only since March.

The larger point, however, that you seem to be missing is that what seems like beating a dead horse to you is actually probably new concepts to a lot of posters, just as it was to you and me 10 years ago. So, just let them have their discussions. In the end, it's not hurting anyone.

[_Gary]

I would appreciate it if certain posters didn't offend religious sensibilities on this board... Thanks in advance to the moderators.

Me too.

I really hope the profanity is kept in check here. Especially when it includes religious references. Not necessary at all.

[Jumbo]

This is simply not true.

SOMETIMES bad things happen, and when they do, it is memorable. Therefore, you remember the times this happened, but don't remember all the times that "stall-ball" led to victory.

A couple of seasons ago, I pulled out a little notebook and wrote down the score at the time they went into the slowdown, how much time was left on the clock, and what the final score was. Although the margin was usually reduced slightly, most of the time the result was a victory. It was a rare occasion when the margin was reduced by a large margin, and even rarer when it led to a loss.

Maybe I should do the same thing this year and post the results at the end of the season. Then again, the "true disbelievers" will probably not believe, even if faced with cold, hard facts.

Please do this. It would be great. I'll keep charting games when I have the opportunity, and I hereby deem you the official Stall-Ball Correspondant of DBR. Godspeed, my friend.

[mehmattski]

Watching the game from the grad section, with the offense coming at me, I was thinking in the middle of the second half, "We're struggling in the half court set, not getting shots off until deep into the clock... but I'm sure there will be people on DBR complaining about stall-ball!!!"

Back in Februrary, following the BC game, I tried to make the same argument that Jumbo makes, going back and examining the "slow-down" offense, which in that game included two possessions of exactly four seconds and a break-away dunk. In the middle Duke controlled the ball for 90 seconds at one point, and although it ended badly (a McRoberts pass out of bounds), you simply can't argue that keeping possession of the ball for that long is somehow detrimental to winning.

Or I guess there are some people who would rather see Duke take terrible shots early in the shot clock rather than waiting for a good shot. Even with our slightly improved offensive rebounding ability this year, taking terrible shots early in the shot clock just for the sake of a fast offense is a sure way to give the other team more possessions with which to shorten their deficit.

[CameronBlue]

You do realize, throaty, that if people on this board only discussed original ideas and concepts, this board would have died out a long time ago, right?

You're turning into the curmudgeonly old man sitting on his porch telling the kids to get off his lawn.

In my version, he's got a shotgun and a corncob pipe.

[-jk]

Let's take a thread at a time. This particular thread was started by a poster who has been posting only since March.

Feldspar, please, if you're going to argue a point, at least do it with reasonable support.

This incarnation of the board went live on Feb 26th, giving us three posting days before March. Most posters here have "only been posting since March."

According the this board, you've only been posting since Feb 26th. The poster who started this thread joined on Feb 26th and his first post was on March 2. Nothing persuasive there. I think you would be better off letting this particular example go.

So please support your arguments reasonably. Unless, of course, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I hear enough of that amongst my kids, though, so please don't.

-jk

[Duvall]

Let's take a thread at a time. This particular thread was started by a poster who has been posting only since March.

You say that as if the "stall ball" argument hasn't been beaten to death just in the months since March.

[feldspar]

Feldspar, please, if you're going to argue a point, at least do it with reasonable support.

This incarnation of the board went live on Feb 26th, giving us three posting days before March. Most posters here have "only been posting since March."

According the this board, you've only been posting since Feb 26th. The poster who started this thread joined on Feb 26th and his first post was on March 2. Nothing persuasive there. I think you would be better off letting this particular example go.

So please support your arguments reasonably. Unless, of course, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. I hear enough of that amongst my kids, though, so please don't.

-jk

You're right, my bad. I forgot that the board as it exists now has only been around for a year.

It's been a long year.

[Kilby]

I would rather see Duke run whenever they have the opportunity. I would rather they have a few extra turnovers trying to run so that they figure it out, get into the habit of running, and stay aggressive. Even when they have to run a half court set, Paulus needs to make his defender pay for pressing him. He is not going to be able to run the offense and keep from losing the ball otherwise. If the team doesn't develop it as a habit we will revert to the style we played all last year.

[JasonEvans]

Me too.

I really hope the profanity is kept in check here. Especially when it includes religious references. Not necessary at all.

For what it is worth, there is a "report post" button that allows you to inform the moderators when someone has said something offensive to you. It allows you to comment as to why that post was offensive.

I think this is oftentimes a better means of dealing with posts than calling someone out in public. Though I think a polite PM to a poster can also work well.

-Jason "mods been working overtime lately folks" Evans

[ugadevil]

With this talk about how Duke should run all the time and take advantage of the team speed, it makes me wonder if there are any games where Duke playing a fast pace would not match up as well.

I haven't seen them play but I feel like an up and down game against UNC might be just as beneficial for Carolina as it would for Duke. Therefore, working on the half court offense now will be helpful when we face teams who can run just as well and we need to be strong in the halfcourt game. Also, playing a team like Pitt, who will slow the pace down, will be another game where I feel like we'll have to execute in the half court. Lastly, I'm almost certain we'll face a team in the tournament who will force us to slow down and play a game where we must execute the half court offense.

I agree that this team is suited to run, but I think that if we can improve our half court offense early on in the season, then we certainly should take advantage of the opportunities to work on it during games.

[captmojo]

With this talk about how Duke should run all the time and take advantage of the team speed, it makes me wonder if there are any games where Duke playing a fast pace would not match up as well.

I haven't seen them play but I feel like an up and down game against UNC might be just as beneficial for Carolina as it would for Duke. Therefore, working on the half court offense now will be helpful when we face teams who can run just as well and we need to be strong in the halfcourt game. Also, playing a team like Pitt, who will slow the pace down, will be another game where I feel like we'll have to execute in the half court. Lastly, I'm almost certain we'll face a team in the tournament who will force us to slow down and play a game where we must execute the half court offense.

I agree that this team is suited to run, but I think that if we can improve our half court offense early on in the season, then we certainly should take advantage of the opportunities to work on it during games.

This is a point I was trying to make earlier. ( post 28, I think ) There is going to come a time when they will be forced to adjust to different offenses. If the 3 point shooting had been better last night, I don't think we'd be hearing as many complaints now.

[mayrer]

Two problems I saw with last night's game. First, Duke's zone offense remains ineffective, as it has been in the past, especially when three-point shooting is not at its best.

Second, our two frontcourt starters, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas, both accumulated four fouls in limited playing time, against a team with a limited inside presence. Not encouraging.

[4decadedukie]

Would anyone care to comment on my thesis, posted earlier in "Back to the ol' Slow Down," re the potential, adverse impact of the delay game to our team's offensive and defensive performance? Here's what I originally posted and your viewpoints would be valued:

The reasons many of us dislike s-l-o-w-i-n-g the pace of the game down in the final period have been thoroughly discussed in this -- and other -- threads. After years of considering this, mostly while mashing my teeth and yelling at the TV "they'll blow the win, don't do it," I want to add an observation.

It seems to me when Duke engages in an intentional delay toward the conclusion of a game, the team -- crucially -- frequently loses its "cutting edge," its aggressiveness on defense as well as offense. It is almost as if, psychologically, the team (all years, certainly not just last night) feels "this one's in the bag" and simply stops playing hard.

I realize the ridiculousness of me (a true novice) de facto suggesting that Coach K (a Hall of Fame honoree and arguably the best collegiate coach in history) just doesn't get it, but on this relatively small facet of the game (and with unlimited respect for K), I really do not understand what he is trying to accomplish and why. Is it conditioning, fear of injuries, some other reason, or is it simply an arithmetically-founded time-tactic? If it's the latter, I believe it is fraught with significant risks, because it neglects the psychological aspects of this strategy to both teams: (a) to Duke, it suggests the win is locked up and playing by "cruise control" is permissible; while (b), to our opponents, it provides an opportunity for last-minute victory, with our Blue Devils concentrate almost exclusively on ball control and the clock.

There are MANY more-knowledgeable individuals who participate in DBR than I, and their opinions re the foregoing would be sincerely appreciated.

[DukeCO2009]

No need to start a thread about a topic that's currently being discussed on the front page. Someone will respond to your post in the other thread in due time.

[dw0827]

Two problems I saw with last night's game. First, Duke's zone offense remains ineffective, as it has been in the past, especially when three-point shooting is not at its best.

Second, our two frontcourt starters, Kyle Singler and Lance Thomas, both accumulated four fouls in limited playing time, against a team with a limited inside presence. Not encouraging.

Our zone offense "remains" ineffective? In our second game?

. . . and the guys got 4 fouls each in what was essentially a blow out. If the game was more competitive, I suspect Coach K would have been more judicious about their playing time with fouls.

Let's not hit the panic button here. This whole thread is way over the top. We just played our second game, trying to do things that we didn't do last year, while trying to incorporate three new guys into the system. What do you expect? Mid-season form? Unrealistic.

[Lord Ash]

I disagree this thread is over the top. Over the top would be...

"We are going to fail this year and win only ten games!"

or

"We are going to win the title this year!"

or something like that.

Saying that someone feels we tried something in this game that they feel is not beneficial and has not worked as well as hoped in the past is hardly over the top.

[mayrer]

I think I'll stick with what I said. The zone offense remains ineffective. It was ineffective last year and the prior year, and it appeared to be ineffective in the second game of this year. It's not the players nor their execution that concern me, it's the structure of the zone offense itself. It appears, in this, the second game of the year, to have been the same structure that has been ineffective in the past.

[Jumbo]

Saying that someone feels we tried something in this game that they feel is not beneficial and has not worked as well as hoped in the past is hardly over the top.

And if that's all this thread said, I might agree with you. But that's not all it says. Plus, the "evidence" presented early in the thread was completely wrong. So, yeah, it's nutty.

[Lord Ash]

Okay, I am sorry if some people get annoyed by this, but I think it needs to be said.

IMO there has been too much of this "Cooler than thou" attitude recently where posters are jumped on for posting a thought or comment because, according to a few people, those topics are not worthy of discussion or are too common to be treated respectfully.

I think that people should remember that the internet is a wonderful place because if you want to ignore a post, YOU CAN. It isn't hard. If someone wants to post a thread at the start of the basketball season about an issue that has been raised in years past, and you do not want to contribute, then simply don't. If you want to contribute, I think our goal should be to contribute not in a snide or snippy way, but in a truly thoughtful and engaging way. Remember, we are all Duke fans here, so if you think someone is off about something, the way to approach that effectively is to tell them why simply and politely, not with a ton of "What the hell, why are you people still discussing this, this is all just old news and whining."

EDIT: Can I ask why this got moved? I would PM a mod but I am not sure who moved it. This wasn't really just in response to this thread but to the posting environment in general.

[Lord Ash]

I dunno, I think over the top is a pretty strong adjective. I think the original post was pretty moderate;


Anyone notice that we went back to last year's slow-down game quite a bit in the second half? I don't know if K was just trying to give the half-court offense some work or what, but it was painful to watch us run the clock down to 7 seconds possession after possession knowing that the team can run so well. I think we've got an incredibly talented team this season, but it's not well-suited to play stall-ball. Scheyer's flurry at the end of the game distorted the figures a bit--the reality is that we were lucky to have 30 points in the second half. I simply don't understand slowing down the pace like that. We had trouble with their zone at the end of the first half, yet in the second half we would grab a board and--rather than attack the basket and not let them set up their defense--walk the ball up the court and let them set up the zone again. Doesn't make sense to me. What gives, oh wise DBR?

No "GOD I AM SICK OF STALL BALL" or anything; just "did anyone notice" and admitting they don't know if maybe that was on purpose to practice and just voicing the feeling that maybe a slow-down, a style we've used in the past, is particularly difficult for a team made for running. A little stat analysis, and then an open invite for someone to correct him or point something out. Pretty relaxed, I think.

If someone wants to say "Yeah this post wasn't that well thought out and here is why," I think that is a great response. And there have been some good responses here for sure regarding tactics in the game and their effect on us running our offense. But just disregarding the post altogether isn't very helpful to anyone.

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

IMO, this board displays attributes of many boards on the net. The longer-term posters appear unwilling to discuss frequently discussed topics and appear to try to control the conversation by hijacking threads they do not want to discuss. This makes many newbies resistant to post and creates the perception of a less than friendly board.

One thing somewhat unique to this board, compared to others that I frequent, is the willingness of some of the mods to utilize this approach. That adds to the illusion of a less than friendly environment.

Just my views,
Jeffrey - a newbie - waiting for the abuse! :D

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not sure how the length of time one has posted has anything to do with the validity of their point of view. Shane Battier never posted here until last week. I'll take his observations over anyone here (myself included).

I frankly don't care if it was beaten to death last month or last year. It happened LAST NIGHT. How do you discuss a game without discussing what happened in it?!?

Let's face it -- what part of Duke's program hasn't been beaten to death over the summer? Under that rationale, no one should discuss Paulus' speed (pro or con), Pocius' minutes (sorry, covered that a few weeks ago), the depth we have (didn't I read that last week?), etc.


Wait until I start a thread about "missing the weave" we ran last year . . . .

[ojaidave]

I'm not sure how the length of time one has posted has anything to do with the validity of their point of view. Shane Battier never posted here until last week. I'll take his observations over anyone here (myself included).

I frankly don't care if it was beaten to death last month or last year. It happened LAST NIGHT. How do you discuss a game without discussing what happened in it?!?

Let's face it -- what part of Duke's program hasn't been beaten to death over the summer? Under that rationale, no one should discuss Paulus' speed (pro or con), Pocius' minutes (sorry, covered that a few weeks ago), the depth we have (didn't I read that last week?), etc.


Wait until I start a thread about "missing the weave" we ran last year . . . .

FWIW, I believe Shane posted to an earlier incarnation of this board a couple of times when he was playing for Duke.

Dave

[Johnboy]

For what it is worth, there is a "report post" button that allows you to inform the moderators when someone has said something offensive to you. It allows you to comment as to why that post was offensive.

I think this is oftentimes a better means of dealing with posts than calling someone out in public. Though I think a polite PM to a poster can also work well.

-Jason "mods been working overtime lately folks" Evans

You are correct, Jason. I should have PM'ed the poster. He PM'ed me a very considerate apology and all is OK with me now. I was wrong to call him out like that. My apologies to the mods and to Duke CO2009.

[rsvman]

Hi,
One thing somewhat unique to this board, compared to others that I frequent, is the willingness of some of the mods to utilize this approach. That adds to the illusion of a less than friendly environment.


I hate to say it, but this is spot on. I've been around the board for about 7 years, so I'm not exactly a newbie, but not really a grizzled old-timer, either.

I function as a moderator at another board, and the moderators are specifically asked to refrain from making those types of comments.

[Carlos]

Anyone notice that we went back to last year's slow-down game quite a bit in the second half? I don't know if K was just trying to give the half-court offense some work or what, but it was painful to watch us run the clock down to 7 seconds possession after possession knowing that the team can run so well. I think we've got an incredibly talented team this season, but it's not well-suited to play stall-ball. Scheyer's flurry at the end of the game distorted the figures a bit--the reality is that we were lucky to have 30 points in the second half. I simply don't understand slowing down the pace like that. We had trouble with their zone at the end of the first half, yet in the second half we would grab a board and--rather than attack the basket and not let them set up their defense--walk the ball up the court and let them set up the zone again. Doesn't make sense to me. What gives, oh wise DBR?

A couple of points -

Duke scored 59 points in the first ~25 minutes of play which is a point every .42 minutes. Over the next 7 minutes they scored just 10 points or a point every .8 minutes. During that span Duke's possessions were:


3 seconds (score)
14 seconds (miss)
11 seconds (miss)
16 seconds (miss)
14 seconds (score)
16 seconds (turnover)
9 seconds (turnover)
11 seconds (turnover)
15 seconds (score)
19 seconds (miss)
15 seconds (score)
14 seconds (non-shooting foul)
16 seconds (turnover)
13 seconds (non-shooting foul)
15 seconds (score)


Note that none of these possessions went over 20 seconds on the shot clock. That is not stallball, that is poor execution of halfcourt offense.

Secondly, I think it's a bit ironic that you can casually dismiss Scheyer's flurry at the end of the game as distorting the figures when that flurry came during the same delay game that you lament. Essentially you're saying that discounting the points that we scored in the delay game the delay game didn't score many points.

[DukeCO2009]

A couple of points -

Duke scored 59 points in the first ~25 minutes of play which is a point every .42 minutes. Over the next 7 minutes they scored just 10 points or a point every .8 minutes. During that span Duke's possessions were:


3 seconds (score)
14 seconds (miss)
11 seconds (miss)
16 seconds (miss)
14 seconds (score)
16 seconds (turnover)
9 seconds (turnover)
11 seconds (turnover)
15 seconds (score)
19 seconds (miss)
15 seconds (score)
14 seconds (non-shooting foul)
16 seconds (turnover)
13 seconds (non-shooting foul)
15 seconds (score)


Note that none of these possessions went over 20 seconds on the shot clock. That is not stallball, that is poor execution of halfcourt offense.

Secondly, I think it's a bit ironic that you can casually dismiss Scheyer's flurry at the end of the game as distorting the figures when that flurry came during the same delay game that you lament. Essentially you're saying that discounting the points that we scored in the delay game the delay game didn't score many points.

Thanks for the info--you've definitely done your homework. Perhaps it wasn't classic stallball so much as it was Duke struggling against the zone when it could've pushed the ball and not given NMSU the opportunity to set up the zone. We didn't push the ball as much in the second half--especially off rebounds--as we did in the second half. Just my two cents, and you're certainly entitled to yours. This thread has clearly pissed some people off, but I appreciate your critiquing my opinion in a civilized and constructive manner instead of acting like I'm a raving lunatic.

[snowdenscold]

Hi,

IMO, this board displays attributes of many boards on the net. The longer-term posters appear unwilling to discuss frequently discussed topics and appear to try to control the conversation by hijacking threads they do not want to discuss. This makes many newbies resistant to post and creates the perception of a less than friendly board.

One thing somewhat unique to this board, compared to others that I frequent, is the willingness of some of the mods to utilize this approach. That adds to the illusion of a less than friendly environment.

Just my views,
Jeffrey - a newbie - waiting for the abuse! :D

Oooooh, all this discussion has obliged me to go back and re-read a lot of Flame Warriors (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/)

For those on OT and PP, can you spot "Loopy"?

[RepoMan]

This thread has clearly pissed some people off, but I appreciate your critiquing my opinion in a civilized and constructive manner instead of acting like I'm a raving lunatic.

Here's the thing. You started this thread, which you entitled "back to the ol' slow down." You argued that the team was lucky to score 30 points etc.

People then disproved your thesis with facts, persuasively showing that there was no stall-ball. Evidently, you have no facts to support your initial opinion, but you remain unhappy with the tone of the posts of those who challenged your views and wish to feel free to annouce your "opinions," notwithstanding the facts.

What I fail to understand is why it should be acceptable to voice whatever opinion pops into your head, but a breach of protocol to challenge that opinion with facts and evidence. Frankly, that seems bassackwards to me.

[Jeffrey]

Oooooh, all this discussion has obliged me to go back and re-read a lot of Flame Warriors (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/)

For those on OT and PP, can you spot "Loopy"?

Hi,

Just more support of the "less than friendly environment" belief.

Is this the way most longer-term posters believe a newbie should be treated?

Best regards,
Jeffrey

[dw0827]

Note that none of these possessions went over 20 seconds on the shot clock. That is not stallball, that is poor execution of halfcourt offense.


Exactly.

Cracking a zone takes time and patience. We didn't do a very good job of it and that makes the game a little ugly to watch. But I'm not worried about it because this was their second game of the year. They will get better at it . . .

Someone stated that our zone offense was ineffective last year and the year before and that we are seeing a continuation of that trend. That same person also stated "It's not the players nor their execution that concern me, it's the structure of the zone offense itself. It appears, in this, the second game of the year, to have been the same structure that has been ineffective in the past." I don't want to be accused of putting words in anyone's mouth, so I'd ask the poster what conclusion should I draw from that quote.

[DukeCO2009]

Here's the thing. You started this thread, which you entitled "back to the ol' slow down." You argued that the team was lucky to score 30 points etc.

People then disproved your thesis with facts, persuasively showing that there was no stall-ball. Evidently, you have no facts to support your initial opinion, but you remain unhappy with the tone of the posts of those who challenged your views and wish to feel free to annouce your "opinions," notwithstanding the facts.

What I fail to understand is why it should be acceptable to voice whatever opinion pops into your head, but a breach of protocol to challenge that opinion with facts and evidence. Frankly, that seems bassackwards to me.

I won't even respond to this except to say that a lot of people actually do agree with me, believe it or not, including the Chronicle. I'm sorry I don't have a DBR to go back and rewatch games like some people here. I didn't say it was a breach of protocol to challenge my opinions; I was simply remarking that many have chosen not to do so constructively. I'm actually really glad this thread took off like this, to be honest, because this is one of the first times I've seen legitimate debate at the DBR--I like it. I would have been more offended if my opinion hadn't been attacked.

[OldPhiKap]

Exactly.

Cracking a zone takes time and patience. We didn't do a very good job of it and that makes the game a little ugly to watch. But I'm not worried about it because this was their second game of the year. They will get better at it . . .

Someone stated that our zone offense was ineffective last year and the year before and that we are seeing a continuation of that trend. That same person also stated "It's not the players nor their execution that concern me, it's the structure of the zone offense itself. It appears, in this, the second game of the year, to have been the same structure that has been ineffective in the past." I don't want to be accused of putting words in anyone's mouth, so I'd ask the poster what conclusion should I draw from that quote.

My concern is not the time it takes to attack a zone. As you state, that takes patience. It's the foul-line extended offense, with two guards dribbling near the midcourt line, that brings back bad memories for me. Unless those guards can break the defender down one-on-one, which is not the strongest aspect of some of our guards, we end up with a one-and-done shot at the end.

Carlos' stats are interesting. I note that they do not cover the last 8 minutes of the game, though (if I am reading it right).

I think the key, though, is that it is only the second game. We can certainly improve on our execution -- this offensive tactic has paid big dividends in the past. But I'm with the folks who get a bit uneasy when we switch to it.

[Maltedone]

1. I do not agree with the groaning, dismissive response to the initial post, as that type of respone DEFINITIVELY CAN inhibit dissemination of new information. Case in point, this thread on "Stall Ball" resulted in me learning that, in fact, Duke did not do a tremendous job in half court offensive execution. If the initial premise (stall ball was used and is lame), which seems to have been incorrect, was not expressed or the thread died after the pejorative second post, I would not have learned this. Therefore, to me, there is value in these oft discussed topics.

2. Somewhat related to this topic, but moreso to an earlier topic where folks were lambasted for jumping to early conclusions on player development etc., I think that there can be value to constructing a hypothesis on player attributes, etc. after just a single game. The key here is that it must be a hypothesis that you are willing to "test" and "modify" based on subsequent data. Case in point, if after the first exhibition, someone forms the hypothesis of, "Hey, Zoubek's not much more mobile than he was last year and may not contribute much this year", this statement is probably going to allow me and others to focus on Z's mobility the next time I watch him, and I'll be able to come up with my own hypothesis that may or may not be consistent with the initial hypothesis.

maltedone

[mayrer]

There are other zone offenses that feature aggressive use of passing the ball into and out of the post (high or low) that appear to be more effective than the Duke zone offense, which tends to feature four guys standing or moving around the perimeter, passes over the zone, etc. I'd like to see Duke try another zone offense.

[dukediv2013]

Duke was playing really well in the first half and scored a lot of points off of fast break opportunities. Stop complaining about Duke's slowdown and credit NMSU for their defense. They made huge defensive adjustments at halftime and tried to slow the game down on both sides of the ball. Duke had to play a "slowdown"/ half court offense because NMSU wasn't making as many turnovers and bad decisions.

[MChambers]

There are other zone offenses that feature aggressive use of passing the ball into and out of the post (high or low) that appear to be more effective than the Duke zone offense, which tends to feature four guys standing or moving around the perimeter, passes over the zone, etc. I'd like to see Duke try another zone offense.

Don't worry, our coaches know how to beat a zone. Just ask John Chaney.

[cf-62]

I agree that it wasn't that bad tonight, Jumbo, but come on, you didn't notice it midway through the second half? We dropped our lead by like 15 points.

Again, though, when we got a couple quick steals for dunks and then back to back Jon threes, it made up for it, so it didn't look as noticeable. It was there, though.

Cameron, the lead diminished because of a set of mental errors and a few unlucky bounces / calls that happened right in a row, not because of stall ball. K did call a timeout and ask them to run a few slow sets because the freshmen (especially Nolan) got a little over-excited, stopped playing defense (remember we were putting them on the line every foul at this point) -- and were trying to make spectacular plays instead of just playing.

Nolan threw the ball the length of the court -- that's not slow down -- but Lance was being closely guarded and they got a steal. Then, Nolan tried to throw an alley-oop on the break (not stall ball) -- and it hit the rim. Then Nolan drove the lane (not stall ball) and lost the ball off his leg as he tried to split a triple team unsuccessfully.

That was 10 points right there -- 2 3's, 4 FT's for them - then after the timeout, we got called for three seconds (seemed BS at the time) - they hit another basket.

I don't recall holding the ball and running motion offense (as Jumbo has pointed out). I did watch us -- AT THAT TIME -- run specific plays, as opposed to a free wheel offense, which means that when the play doesn't work we reset to midcourt and start again.

That would result in a shot clock getting down to 10.

I don't like to stall out a game. I recognize there's times when it has to be done (I GUARANTEE you we will go to stall at some point this year because Singler or Paulus is in foul trouble). And this thread will start up again and blame the stall, when -- in fact -- the fact that a key player played only 8 minutes because of foul trouble was probably more damning.

Monday, the fact that we committed seven fouls in 4 minutes had as much to do with the "comeback" as anything else. Once we reached that point, if we breathed on them, it was 2 points.

Jumbo and I don't always see eye to eye, but facts are facts. We didn't run the 2-3 stall until the 2 minute mark.

[Jarhead]

Stall ball is not my favorite style of play. It has its equivalents in other sports, too, and it often results in heartbreak. Against NMSU, though, I had even commented to my wife that they were working on the zone and front court stall. It didn't bother me. I'd rather we do it against the weaker competition, and not wait until we need it in a crucial game.

[Travi_K]

I think a lot of the reason for concern is that we have a bad tase in our mouth from last year. I know for myself that about every game I had what became a false hope that this would be the offensive break through game, only to be disapointed after most games we played. We have a fear in the back of our minds that the offense will not improve playing against a zone or against other teams that are effective in forcing a slow tempo. As we have seen before, just because it is the "second game" doesn't always translate into improvement 8 games down the road. However, the good news is that most Duke teams improve throughout the year. We have many more offensive options and a lot of depth. I look forward to this season and watching this team progress.

[mike88]

Thanks to Carlos for the additional information. My interpretation (based on watching live, no benefit of replays) was that several things happened in the second half:

1. NMSU executed better on offense. We are not as good (yet) at running after made baskets.

2. NMSU got back better on defense. I actually don't think it was so much that they played zone per se, but that they prevented us from getting good transition opportunities and better defended penetration.

3. Apart from 1 and 2, Duke became less aggressive in pushing the ball, and also made some ill-advised passes.

4. All of this took place well before Duke entered into its delay offense near the end of the game.

So what should we take away from the first 3 games? We are doing much better this year in playing an up-tempo game, but we are still not able/willing to score in transition unless our defense is playing well and forcing bad shots or turnovers. We still need to get better in the half-court offense, too- hopefully, we will get some more experience next week vs. Princeton.

[dw0827]

I think a lot of the reason for concern is that we have a bad tase in our mouth from last year. I know for myself that about every game I had what became a false hope that this would be the offensive break through game, only to be disapointed after most games we played. We have a fear in the back of our minds that the offense will not improve playing against a zone or against other teams that are effective in forcing a slow tempo. As we have seen before, just because it is the "second game" doesn't always translate into improvement 8 games down the road. However, the good news is that most Duke teams improve throughout the year. We have many more offensive options and a lot of depth. I look forward to this season and watching this team progress.

A couple of thoughts. First, maybe the team will get better playing against a zone . . . and maybe it won't. But I am confident that Coach K and the staff know what they're doing and are able to develop and teach a "zone offensive" that works. They've done it too many times in the past to suddenly get stupid now. But can the guys on the team actually execute against a zone? That's the question. My guess is yes but it will take time.

Second, we always start the season with high hopes. And then we stomp a few people in exhibition games and beat a team by a zillion points and suddenly we are a great team and our expectations are sky-high? And then we only win by 25 in our second game and, in the second half, don't look pretty doing it . . . and even show some unsightly warts. And the criticism starts . . . and we are disappointed. That's neither reasonable or fair to our team.

It occurs to me that the NMSU game is a much better gauge of who and what were are as a team right now than the abberant exhibition games and NCCU game. We (by our standards) weren't that good last year. Although I expect us to be better this year, it will take time to work out the running game while incorporating three new guys into the team. Thats what coaching (teaching) is about. And I suspect that Coach K will, before its over, get the maximum effort and potential from his team. As a fan, that's all I could ever ask. So I'm going to fasten my seat belt and enjoy the ride. But be warned, it may be a bumpy ride.

I've been a Duke fan for about 40 years now. I have seen some really stinky Duke teams in those years. But they were my teams. And they did the best they could and they did it with class. And this team will do the same. Disappoint? Are you kidding?

So if I get aroused about people getting all weirded out after the second game of the season, indulge an old fart . . .

[Jumbo]

Jumbo and I don't always see eye to eye, but facts are facts.

We don't? Did you used to post under a different name?