PDA

View Full Version : Duke MBB v. Marquette Post-Game thread



throatybeard
11-22-2007, 12:24 AM
10 characters.

77devil
11-22-2007, 12:28 AM
basically a 6 man rotation with a few minutes for nolan smith

OZZIE4DUKE
11-22-2007, 12:28 AM
We don't need no stinkin' depth! But I think a few fresh bodies would have done wonders in the last 10 minutes for us. But hey! We won! What do I know?

dukeisawesome
11-22-2007, 12:29 AM
Well, Marquette's genius strategy of mugging us and hoping the refs got tired of calling fouls eventually ran out of steam as they got into foul trouble. Seriously though, they are good and I thought we looked pretty good, but I would have loved to see a game with more flow to it.

devildeac
11-22-2007, 12:29 AM
10 characters.

ok, Singler, Singler, Singler, Singler, Singler, Nelson, Singler, Henderson, Zoubeck(1st half), Singler

hondoheel
11-22-2007, 12:29 AM
Gotta admit, Nelson impressed the heck out of me.

That was also my first time seeing James. I'm guilty of believing the hype, I guess, but either that was a WAY subpar game for him or he's severely overrated.

Great win for you guys. I don't see any reason why Duke shouldn't be undefeated going into ACC play.

77devil
11-22-2007, 12:31 AM
We don't need no stinkin' depth! But I think a few fresh bodies would have done wonders in the last 10 minutes for us. But hey! We won! What do I know?

assume your joking ozzie otherwise you'll regret that sentiment at the end of the season

sandinmyshoes
11-22-2007, 12:36 AM
Same mental toughness in the crunch that held off Illinois. The shortening of the bench is a worry, but maybe to be expected against this sort of team this early in the season. I confess to fretting that Coach K sacrifices development over the course of a season for individual wins early in the season, but I also have to confess losing stinks. So a win is a win.

BattiersBaby
11-22-2007, 12:36 AM
Hello, Everybody!

I'm new here, but have been a Duke fan since the end of Shane Battier's senior year in 2001. Still love Duke!

Good game tonight, a nice, solid victory over Marquette.

Anyhow, just wanted to make a first post and to introduce myself.
Happy Thanksgiving!

BattiersBaby.

Lord Ash
11-22-2007, 12:38 AM
First off, that was SO satisfying. Yeah there was no real flow, but damn. You could see it on the faces on the bench, and ESPECIALLY on the coaching staff faces; they really wanted this, with such a young team and one that it seems has very good chemistry.

Kyle Singler is real, real good. Period. Cool as the other side of the pillow with 13 seconds to go and him on the line, getting iced by time outs.

Henderson wasn't as amazing as last game, but still really good. He did seem to get a bit frustrated, and I hope he doesn't get in the habit of bouncing the ball extra hard when frustrated.

I am once again in love with Greg Paulus. Tough, tough, TOUGH kid, with good vision. I am glad he is healthy and leading this team again.

Dmark is strong as hell. I do find myself agreeing with an earlier post about him sometimes looking like he decides where he wants to go before making his move, and wonder if this will get him into a little trouble at some point, but jesus he is a bull. Free throws were better at the start, tho they got flat later.

Thomas and Zoubek continue to improve and impress. Lance in particular seems to have the trust of the coaches, and had a few nice moves/baskets. Keep that up, two headed post monster!

My fav at the moment tho is Jon Scheyer. He is just SO smart, and has such a great nose for the ball. Fantastic.

Nice to see that Coach K reads the boards and has agreed that he should use a zone a bit! It honestly does seem to be a nice change and throws a wrinkle into the attacks of other teams.

Okay, now for my gripe. Come on, our big strength is supposed to be our depth, and with like FIFTEEN minutes left I felt like our bench ceased to exist, much as seems to happen in many recent seasons, seasons that end with exhausted legs in the second round of the tournament. Come on, get Taylor in there for a minute of time at the 14 minute mark. Get Pocious in there for 45 seconds of time. Our guys were BLOWN by the end, and I seriously wonder if going with some subs would have hurt. I know a few folks will have a kneejerk reaction to this, but I guess more agree.

Anyway, a real nice way to cap off the start to the season, I think the guys (both players AND staff) will really enjoy this. Duke ball is a lot of fun to watch right now, with no expectations except to enjoy!

dukediv2013
11-22-2007, 12:38 AM
I know that we could have used more minutes from the bench, but the bench players(esp. King) have not had the opportunity to play in any games like this game. We used all of the guards except Pocius. We won! No complaints here!

Bluedawg
11-22-2007, 12:42 AM
Kyle as MVP..Good job Kyle and team!

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 12:43 AM
basically a 6 man rotation with a few minutes for nolan smith

Seriously, i will lose my mind if anyone gripes about the use of depth, the minimal minutes for king, etc. I will especially go nuts if anyone mentions Marty. This was the third game in three days in a tournament we wanted to win to help reestablish confidence. In the final game against a very good team, we played our best guys down the stretch. So what? That's how you win. Play the best guys. This isn't 6 year old soccer.

So many positive things to discuss;

Beat a team that returned basically all guys from a team that soundly beat us last year.

Lance Thomas is a completely different player. Imagine his play in 2 years.

Singler gets it done, including doen the crunch. Just a tough player--and a freshman.

Markie still puts head down and gets tunnel vision, but, aside from occassional brain freeze, he is playing like a man among boys. I love seniors.

Paulus made a couple boneheads down the wire, but, really, what a difference health makes. Again, I think when it is all said and done, we will look fondly on the Paulus era.

I am sure I am forgetting to mention key, but just a great win. This is a very good very young team.

OZZIE4DUKE
11-22-2007, 12:45 AM
I know that we could have used more minutes from the bench, but the bench players(esp. King) have not had the opportunity to play in any games like this game. We used all of the guards except Pocius. We won! No complaints here!

King made (I think) a very brief appearance in the first half. If he doesn't get experience in "this type of game" here, when do you want him to get it? March? Zoubs played pretty well again. Why didn't he get a few minutes in the last 15 minutes? I know I risk involving the 1a gods with comments like that, but at least we don't have to talk about 1e.

RelativeWays
11-22-2007, 12:45 AM
I'm just worried about the shortening of the bench in regards to Taylor and Marty (not worried about Dave, he needs to get his legs back). Niether shot the ball well against Princeton, but I think they needed to play more to make sure our guys are fresh. I do not want to see this team running out of gas towards Feb/March like Redicks last two teams seemed to do.

Lord Ash
11-22-2007, 12:46 AM
Please, don't go losing your mind. No one is talking about "down the stretch." That would imply the last 5, 6, 7 minutes of the game. People are talking about basically THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF of the game. It is a legit thing to ask about, and considering most people have also said they loved a number of parts of the game, it is perfectly fine to discuss, especially when it is a concern and habit that has, arguably, hurt us in the past. After all, why do you think 1A is exactly that?

OZZIE4DUKE
11-22-2007, 12:47 AM
Seriously, i will lose my mind if anyone gripes about the use of depth, the minimal minutes for king, etc. I will especially go nuts if anyone mentions Marty.

Sorry to contribute to your insanity. I typed my post below yours while you were typing yours.

77devil
11-22-2007, 12:48 AM
Seriously, i will lose my mind if anyone gripes about the use of depth

Chill and get over it. Use of depth or lack of it are valid points of discussion whether you agree or not.

RelativeWays
11-22-2007, 12:50 AM
In the other games this season, Marty has been a better ballhandler than his first two seasons, he can help collapse the defense and pass to an open player, he doesn't have to shoot. He just seems a lot more capable on the court and not as scary as before.

Kilby
11-22-2007, 12:52 AM
Great win. I hope that Lance can continue to have strong showings. That, plus positive minutes from Zoubek will make Duke hard to beat. Did anyone notice that when a Duke player would try to come out high to screen the Duke player with the ball, more times than not, moved before the screen was set. Is this a lack of patience by the player with the ball or something that the coaches want?

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 12:53 AM
Please, don't go losing your mind. No one is talking about "down the stretch." That would imply the last 5, 6, 7 minutes of the game. People are talking about basically THE ENTIRE SECOND HALF of the game. It is a legit thing to ask about, and considering most people have also said they loved a number of parts of the game, it is perfectly fine to discuss, especially when it is a concern and habit that has, arguably, hurt us in the past. After all, why do you think 1A is exactly that?

what would drive me nuts is if we were in this close game to win the tournament and, at the 15 minute mark, we sent in a player, not because we thought he was helping us win the game, but to "develop depth."

ps: anyone see the clips of king and marty after the win. they appeared to be sincerely pumped to win the game. team guys, not griping for minutes. in a long season, injuries, inopportune fouls, etc happen. we will be glad we have the depth we possess, regardless of the minutes marty gets game to game. he is a valuable part of the team, and he doesn't need to get 3 minutes of pt in the tourney final to prove it

DavidBenAkiva
11-22-2007, 12:53 AM
What's the purpose of the bench? We keep beating this drum, but honestly, in this situation, I don't really see any use to using guys just to use guys. What player on the bench could we have gone to? Zoubek, though mobile and not slow, was too much of a defensive liability considering the style of play we were up against. Could King or Pocius effectively guarded anyone? At the end of the game, we went seven deep. Maybe when David McClure gets healthy, we'll go eight. I'm fine with that.

I, for one, like using the deep bench in the first half and then relying on our main rotation, especially in a game like this. It would have been more frustrating to see McNeal or James blow by Pocius late in the game than it would have been to see King or Pocius shoot threes. This was not the game for them. There will be many, many games for them. Not tonight.

One last thing, could Illinois and Marquette been any more different? The Illini were big and thin in the backcourt. Marquette was lightning quick at the guard spot - and deep - but didn't have anybody that could post up. Yet, we won both games. Throw in Princeton, and I think that's about as divergent a group as you could come up with. Amazing.

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 12:54 AM
Sorry to contribute to your insanity. I typed my post below yours while you were typing yours.

no worries, oz. just glad to win. all good vibes tonight.

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 12:56 AM
That, plus positive minutes from Zoubek will make Duke hard to beat.

That's what I forgot to mention. Zoubs seems to be improving game to game. Nice contributions the last two games. Again, imagine a fully healthy Zounbs in 1 year, or a senior zoubs in a game with few experienced 7 footers

delfrio
11-22-2007, 01:03 AM
Although Markie and Singler probably deserve MOM, I just love Lance Thomas. Excellent improvement in the off-season, and seems like the guy I'd most like to hang out with (Scheyer would beat me in video games, and we can't have that).

And, tell me when it's time to validate Jumbo's (et al) thoughts about T King.

VaDukie
11-22-2007, 01:05 AM
Those last 4 minutes were ugly....but we got the W. This seems like the type of game we lost last year, and to pull it out is very satisfying.

CatfiveCane
11-22-2007, 01:05 AM
it would have been nice to see more depth. Perhaps Zoubeck to spell some minutes for Singler (since he looked exhausted). Getting King a few more minutes could allowed Nelson and Singler some more rest as well.

We'll just have to see. Coach K doesn't have a real good track record of playing deep into the bench. Sort of reminds me of 1999. We started that season platooning our subs, but by the NCAA Tournament time we were basically down to a 7 man rotation.

It would be nice this year to have a solid 8 man rotation: Zoubeck, Smith, and Scheyer. If Nelson can recover that would be a huge bonus. I am not expected Pocius to get any significant minutes. I'm just not too sure about King this year.

Eitherway, I'm sure Coach K will play the bench a lot more during Nov/Dec.

fan345678
11-22-2007, 01:09 AM
Yeah, playing 9-11 guys would be sweet, but come on...let's enjoy this win. By our standards, it's been a while since we'd won something. Plus, this team looks like a lot of fun.

PLUS- we had a game against a team from the Big East(/Big Ten/any other conference or team who thinks basketball is a 5v5 wrestling match) in which fouls were actually called...That makes me as happy as anything else!

Section 8
11-22-2007, 01:09 AM
Great win. I hope that Lance can continue to have strong showings. That, plus positive minutes from Zoubek will make Duke hard to beat. Did anyone notice that when a Duke player would try to come out high to screen the Duke player with the ball, more times than not, moved before the screen was set. Is this a lack of patience by the player with the ball or something that the coaches want?

Our guys sometimes didn't seem to be running around the screens close enough to the screener to make them effective. I saw more of that than the screener not setting. I chalk it up to Marquette's man to man being tighter on the ball than anything we have faced thus far. Great win in a strange game with no rhythm. Depth issues may be related to matchups in the last two games...

Got_Duke
11-22-2007, 01:11 AM
yeah definitely had enough of the "didn't use the bench"

we're only 5 games into the season

trust me, the bench will definitely be used in ACC play

WiJoe
11-22-2007, 01:17 AM
I'm just thrilled with the victory. Can worry about King not playing later. Really impressed that the guys toughed it out.

A great relief.

:D

JasonEvans
11-22-2007, 01:45 AM
Ok,I'll get dragged into a "use the bench" conversation...

I think it is somewhat unproductive to only think of the bench as number of players. What matters more is how many minutes you use your bench and if those minutes are used to provide your starters with rest.

With that in mind, Duke got 45 minutes from the bench tonight. That's a fairly decent total. Sure, it was almost all from 2 guys (Scheyer and Smith) but we were largely able to give the folks who needed it a rest...

...except for Singler. Kyle played 37 minutes and was clearly cramping at one point in the 2nd half. Still, I am yet to hear anyone say they think Singler should have sat more in this game. He was impacting the game in too many ways, IMO, for him to take any prolonged break. Think about how close and intense this game was. Did you really want to see Singler sit for 2 or more minutes in the 2nd half to give King some run? I like Taylor's potential, but he would have been out of his league in this game chasing Fitzgerald or Hayward around.

I also think the 3-games-in-3-days thing contributed a bit to some of our guys seeming a bit winded. We won't have a situation like this again except (hopefully) in the ACC tourney. I doubt you see any of our guys looking or acting tired in the future.

Also, don't forget that McClure will be at full strength soon and you can bet he will get some playing time going forward. We are gonna be playing at least 8 guys double digit minutes and probably 9 or 10 guys getting at least a couple minutes in virtually every game this season. That's great depth!

One last thing-- I doubt Zoubek has many more games this year where he gets this little playing time. He looks to be improving every game and Marq was clearly a horrid matchup for him with their quickness and lack of much inside game. Things just conspired against him in this game. He's gonna play moving forward.

--Jason "side note-- Marquette committed 27 fouls and no one fouled out... stunning" Evans

jzp5079
11-22-2007, 01:51 AM
Last night against Illinois I saw Lance do a beautiful spin move in traffic and finish. I havn't chugged a beer in quite a while but I have been waiting for that since we got him over Rugters, so I downed one pretty quick in honor of that.

Tonight luckily I wasn't drinking because I would have done it a few more times. He finally looked confident in looking for his shot. Last season he looked for his shot so rarely I was worried he just wasn't good enough to.
Tonight he was 4-8 and finally was getting stuck in on some boards.

Zoubek did great tonight, but overall he still needs to get a little harder in there. He needs some game-face practice, he always looks so emotionless.

Lulu
11-22-2007, 02:02 AM
Yes, we won. Yes, we could have lost. If I'm being completely honest, the lack of depth in the 2nd half took away from my enjoyment of the game and the win a bit, just because the guys out there looked dead and could have been much fresher. Plus, it's just wired into my head now that we refuse to use depth so I'm always looking for it, and rather thought it was promised this year. But, we won, so I was completely wrong.

I think it's just conservative play. Are our 5 best guys, when tired, still better than the guys on the bench? who knows (presumably K). We're supposed to be scoring 100 points a game this season, too, as I recall. Maybe Zoubek would have given up a couple buckets, or maybe he would have blocked a couple shots or got a couple tip-ins. Would King have given up a couple 3s, or made a couple himself? Marty might steal it for another layup or turn it over himself. Who knows. Maybe those guys could have helped add to the lead and with some fresh legs at the end we could have blown Marquette out of the water. Or maybe they would have lost the lead we built, and the game, if being fresh wasn't enough for a comeback. The only thing I know is that we definitely resembled recent years' Duke teams in terms of game philosophy and I don't think anyone can argue that. It was really hard not to see last years team out there in the 2nd half tonight, except that we won a close one at the end and for the most part had a better handle on the ball, and kept our nerves. This talk is just frustrating because we can never know what might have happened. Maybe I'd feel better if we just started the season stating flat-out that we were going to quickly find our best 7 guys and stick with it. I was so excited to see something new, but starting to feel like I was lied to.

Thomas was awesome btw, if history was a factor he'd be my vote for motm. Loved the confidence he showed. A couple of really good finishes, too, and D good as usual. I don't remember seeing him play like that before, and especially not against an opponent like Marquette.

feldspar
11-22-2007, 02:14 AM
Awesome, awesome, AWESOME.

If you saw the bench at the end of the game, you know how much this championship means to this young team.

We were able to exorcise the demon of last year in a small way tonight, doing things we weren't able to do in close games last season: hitting big-time free throws, making defensive stops and crashing the boards.

Only one minor quibble, and that is that Henderson forced the ball WAY WAY too much tonight. To our detriment many many times.

But, I'm not going to focus on the negative tonight and enjoy this championship! Undefeated in Maui baby!!!!

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 02:22 AM
]Are our 5 best guys, when tired, still better than the guys on the bench? who knows (presumably K). We're supposed to be scoring 100 points a game this season, too, as I recall.

If you watched this game and came away anything other than happy, well, you are a clear glass half empty person

feldspar
11-22-2007, 02:29 AM
We're supposed to be scoring 100 points a game this season, too, as I recall.

Oh, geez. Says who?

Honestly, it's hard to take you seriously when you make comments like this.

crote
11-22-2007, 02:52 AM
Oh, geez. Says who?


Chris Collins, for one, before the B&W game.

dukemomLA
11-22-2007, 03:40 AM
I also am concerned about not giving more minutes to several guys who spent all/most of their time on the bench.

I truly hope that Coach K doesn't fall into the trap of a 6-7 rotation. There is MUCH more potential on this team. Then again, I'm THRILLED to see a little zone, just for the hell of it.

I LOVE this team. Their excitement, their drive, their D, their bonding. It's exciting to watch! IMHO, this is a team with sick chemistry. They seem to bond, love each other, play the "fist" BB as Coach K preaches. Awesome!

LOVE seeing Markie living up to his potential. LOVE to see BrianZ's improvement, LOVE seeing Markie finally have the injury-free time to show his stuff. LOVE seeing Paulus becoming the PG that he can be. Excited about the development of Lance T. Singler is awesome -- and hopefully he'll be here, getting a great education beyond his freshman year.

This is a wonderful team to watch. Jon S needs to take more shots. Taylor King needs to be given more minutes (...and shoot from anywhere), Nolan S needs more time at PG, so Greg P can play the 2.

BUT, this was a GREAT win against an admirable opponent which will give this young team more confidence going forward. CONGRATULATIONS for another Maui win!!!!

dukelifer
11-22-2007, 06:56 AM
A great win for Duke. They played a strong game throughout. Marquette is a very solid team- certainly upper echelon of the Big East or ACC. This is the kind of game that Duke will see much of the season. There were tired bodies out there- which mostly showed in the second half. But I thought K used Zoubek well in the first half and Thomas played with a lot of energy. In fact, this may have been Thomas's best game at Duke. Also, Zoubek is really figuring out what he can do. He is setting picks, using his length and following shots on the weak side. he is not traveling. Overall, he is improving a lot. Henderson was very tired. It showed throughout although I liked that he stayed aggressive at the end. Paulus played a good floor game- hit some important threes and handled the ball pretty well- but he did struggle at times with the pressure. But credit the marquette guards- they are excellent. But Smith struggled probably more against the pressure.

As for the stars of the game. Nelson is playing very well. He is taking his time more and finding good angles to attack the basket. He looks like a senior and his play was key to the win. If he can improve his free throw shooting- because he is getting to the line a lot- he could be an All-ACC performer. Singler showed his entire repertoire tonight. He plays with intensity and calm at the same time. When he gets his feet set on his three- it is a beautiful shot- almost textbook. He is amazing around the hoop and is a very good rebounder. But he plays with such poise. I am not sure how many Freshman - tired and exhausted- would have hit those throws with the game on the line as he did. Really impressive. In the end, Duke will only be as good as they play in the last few minutes of games. Tonight we saw that Singler could be a goto guy.

Overall a great game-a great win- looked a little like a mid season game. As for the bench- this was the last game of a tourney. You play your best guys and get the win. Also, Duke really stayed out of foul trouble- so the bench was not needed as much as it would have been. If guys were in foul trouble- we would have seen more guys play. K used his bench in the other two games to get to this game. These guys were fresher as a result. When McClure is back- he will definitely play in big stretches. The mentality of a championship game is to win - not to play folks just to build experience. There is plenty of time for that.

4decadedukie
11-22-2007, 06:58 AM
First off, that was SO satisfying. Yeah there was no real flow, but damn. You could see it on the faces on the bench, and ESPECIALLY on the coaching staff faces; they really wanted this, with such a young team and one that it seems has very good chemistry.

Kyle Singler is real, real good. Period. Cool as the other side of the pillow with 13 seconds to go and him on the line, getting iced by time outs.

Henderson wasn't as amazing as last game, but still really good. He did seem to get a bit frustrated, and I hope he doesn't get in the habit of bouncing the ball extra hard when frustrated.

I am once again in love with Greg Paulus. Tough, tough, TOUGH kid, with good vision. I am glad he is healthy and leading this team again.

Dmark is strong as hell. I do find myself agreeing with an earlier post about him sometimes looking like he decides where he wants to go before making his move, and wonder if this will get him into a little trouble at some point, but jesus he is a bull. Free throws were better at the start, tho they got flat later.

Thomas and Zoubek continue to improve and impress. Lance in particular seems to have the trust of the coaches, and had a few nice moves/baskets. Keep that up, two headed post monster!

My fav at the moment tho is Jon Scheyer. He is just SO smart, and has such a great nose for the ball. Fantastic.

Nice to see that Coach K reads the boards and has agreed that he should use a zone a bit! It honestly does seem to be a nice change and throws a wrinkle into the attacks of other teams.

Okay, now for my gripe. Come on, our big strength is supposed to be our depth, and with like FIFTEEN minutes left I felt like our bench ceased to exist, much as seems to happen in many recent seasons, seasons that end with exhausted legs in the second round of the tournament. Come on, get Taylor in there for a minute of time at the 14 minute mark. Get Pocious in there for 45 seconds of time. Our guys were BLOWN by the end, and I seriously wonder if going with some subs would have hurt. I know a few folks will have a kneejerk reaction to this, but I guess more agree.

Anyway, a real nice way to cap off the start to the season, I think the guys (both players AND staff) will really enjoy this. Duke ball is a lot of fun to watch right now, with no expectations except to enjoy!


A superb summary, with which I fully subscribe.

ArkieDukie
11-22-2007, 07:23 AM
This team is fun to watch! They're clearly enjoying themselves. Several of our players (Zoubek, Thomas et al.) are improving game by game and are going to be monsters. I have always liked David McClure and hope that he'll be up to form soon.

I think I disagree with Duke Mom in LA's notion of playing Paulus more at the 2: he has great court vision and passing skills. I'd hate to waste that by moving him away from the point. I also wondered why Pocius didn't get more minutes in this game, but Coach K has won about 3 more championships than I have, so I will let him make the call on this one.

I think this has a number somewhere in the Handy Pocket Guide: did anyone else notice the announcers' repeated statements like, "Player X got away with a push there" or "Player Y may have walked" regarding Duke? I don't seem to remember any such comments about Marquette, but I can come up with at least 3 just off the top of my head regarding various Duke players. It just makes me really tired. Billy Packer and Gary Williams must be proud.

Udaman
11-22-2007, 08:08 AM
Yes, we beat a great guard oriented team that basically beat us pretty soundly last year. Yes, Singler >>>>> McRoberts. Yes Thomas and Henderson are becoming really good players.

But, as I said at the beginning of the year, Coach K quickly resorted back to his mantra of using no bench, and honestly, I can't understand it. Sure we won...but we could have won this game using King, Pocius and Zoubek more. I believe that 100%. Instead, King barely played, Pocious played not at all and Zoubek basically didn't play the 2nd half.

I know, you'll come at me with "they'll play later on," or "Coach K plays his best players," but the last four years have shown that you can't give players "experience" in February because they then are so nervous about playing, and so afraid of getting yanked that they become even more tentative.

As one poster said, our lack of using the bench took away from my enjoyment of this game. We have great talent on our bench, Coach K didn't use it, and our players (especially Singler) were gassed at the end. If this doesn't change (and maybe it will), then get used to us facing a team in March that goes 10 deep and runs us into exhaustion....like say....a team like VCU.

Ughh. Here's hoping McClure will at least make us a 7 man team.

dukestheheat
11-22-2007, 08:22 AM
kilby-

that's an astute pick-up on your part about spacing and movement before screens are set; i didn't notice this but yes, you are correct; if our offensive player moves before the screen is set, that puts the screener in greater danger of getting called for a foul by 'moving screen/moving pick'. also, the affect of the screen is negated by early movement.

so, a double whammy.

Still a tremendous win for our guys and they were so happy to get this championship. they were jumping around afterwards and it was like the good old days all over again. DUKE! DUKE! DUKE! (I'm still giddy).

dth.

gw67
11-22-2007, 08:27 AM
The Devils played a good game against a NCAA tournament-quality team. They again demonstrated that you can stop 2 or 3 of their top players in a game but that others will step up. Last night it was Singler, Nelson and Thomas. Singler played an exceptional game and again showed what he can do against lesser skilled players. Nelson also played a good all around game and contributed some nice passes. Thomas again showed that he has made significant progress since his freshman year. Other thoughts:

James is a very quick little guard. He beat four different Duke players off the dribble but only shot 4-16 and only had 3 assists. You can't stop a player who is that quick and shoots that much but you can make him work to get close to the basket (it appears that he has trouble making anything other than layups) and the Duke defense was successful.
Henderson was lined up against a player, Matthews, who was his physical equal and he struggled offensively. He contributed on defense and on the boards.
Scheyer and Smith provided some minutes off the bench and their contributions were primarily on the defensive end.
We got to see two lineups that several have been clammoring for - Smith and Paulus played together when Henderson was in foul trouble and the small lineup of Nelson, Paulus, Singler, Henderson and Scheyer played several minutes. Neither of these two lineups appeared to make a significant impact


gw67

Lulu
11-22-2007, 08:39 AM
Oh, geez. Says who?

Honestly, it's hard to take you seriously when you make comments like this.

Whatever. I meant it as seriously as our players did when I listened to their post-game and other interviews earlier in the season and heard them remark on it as a "goal" (obviously not a realistic one). It was just part of the philosophy that we were going to go 10 or 11 deep, run, and stay fresh on the court while wearing the other team down. I don't remember exactly which players (or assistant coach) echoed this 100-point sentiment, but I want to say that I at least heard Henderson and maybe Scheyer make some kind of comment, perhaps prodded by reporters or Bob Harris but I just don't remember. It's about depth and style of play, not literally hitting 100 points every game...

Clearly depth was on a lot of people's minds during the game. In the end it was a great win over a great team and that alleviated everything. But coming here I can see I wasn't the only one having this discussion with my TV during the 2nd half. I'm still expecting that we will play deeper this season than we did tonight, and I'm basing that still on what I've heard the coaches and players say thus far. If we really only go 7-deep this year that is not the expectation they set in any pre- or early season comments and interviews.

jgehtland
11-22-2007, 08:40 AM
Ughh. Here's hoping McClure will at least make us a 7 man team.

7 players played 15 minutes or more. Zoubs almost got double digit minutes.

Players you did not get to see:

#9 man, David McClure, currently recovering from injury.
#10 man, Marty Pocious, your guess is as good as mine.
#11 man, Taylor King, who got 1 or 2 minutes against Illinois and clearly had no idea what he was doing on defense. He got 1 minute against Marquette, and clearly had no idea what he was doing on offense. He'll learn. His range will be a great asset to us. But apparently not in Maui.

So, we went 8 deep, with a 9th getting a single minute. That's very different than going 6 deep, which is what we essentially did all last year. Big, big BIG difference.

jlear
11-22-2007, 08:49 AM
Novemeber is not the time to peak, so I am happy that we still have areas to improve on. It is early in the season and the team had 1 day to prepare for a game against a top 15 team. For me, this game fealt different than last year, because late in the game I fealt like we were the better team and would win the game.

No concern about playing the bench in one early season game against top competition. I would bet (at least $2) that the bench gets longer in the next three games. I think, some of the guys on the bench have to improve overall on the defensive end and/or improve their positioning on the offensive end before they are going to see minutes in a game like this.

Very exicited to pass this early season test and to win the rebounding battle. We are going to continue to improve and peak in April!

It is not important, but where do we land in the rankings next week?

77devil
11-22-2007, 08:53 AM
7 players played 15 minutes or more. Zoubs almost got double digit minutes. .

you must have read a different box score than me. both parts of the statement are inaccurate. zoubek=6 smith=14

mgtr
11-22-2007, 09:02 AM
A win is a win is a win. This was a form of prep for ACC tournament. Down the road, if anybody complains that they are tired, Coach can say "remember Maui" -- you did it there.
Most improved player -- Thomas, without a doubt.
Play of the game -- touchdown pass from Paulus to Singler (we need more like that!)

Lulu
11-22-2007, 09:04 AM
I just wanted to add that some teams win by going deep because they know they cannot put the best 5 or 6-man team on the floor. I thought we might be one of those teams this year. We'll get a ton of wins this year even if we never play a 7th or 8th man, but is it the best this team can be? I don't know.

CatfiveCane
11-22-2007, 09:16 AM
Playing your bench is not a strategy to get deeper in the tournament. It's a philosophy and mindset of the team: I will push my kids 110% when they are on the floor and substitute liberally to keep them fresh. That's a perfectly legit way to beat teams, especially in the late second half. Imagine if Singler, Nelson, Paulus had played 10 minutes less how "fresh" they would have been at the end.

Overall this is a great win for Duke, but at least for this year Duke will really need to have a strong bench presence and keep the offense and defense moving at break neck speed. What we lack in interior offense and rebounding, we can make-up for in our speed of the game. But you have to use the bench to keep the guys fresh, and you have to develop a reliable rotation now and during "tough" games. I'm a tad worried (and I think many here are too) that Coach K will go back to the 6 man rotation coming tough ACC games and the NCAA Tournament. I just don't think Duke can go "all the way" by doing that. Yes we can win 25+ games that way, but not the BIG ones we want.

mcdukie
11-22-2007, 09:24 AM
Recently I have been hard on our Dukies for lack of athletes, people on this board saying how good we would be with no basis and lack of a solid big man. Not so after last night's game. This team is so much fun to watch. Do we have room to improve? Of course. We played 8 players last night and I wish Smith and Zoubek would have played a little more and I wish King would have played but K is K. That said, it was a solid victory over a tournament team. I like the following:
-Scheyer (who I wasn't sold on last year) coming off the bench. What a luxury to bring a talent like that off of the bench.
- Paulus looks much better, even though I still want Smith to get more minutes.
-Singler is all that they hyped him up to be, which is rare in this day and age.
-Henderson looks like the player they said he would be. When he came out of high school they said that he and Ellington were very equal, just different games and I didn't see that last year. I see what they were saying.

Could be fun this year.

loran16
11-22-2007, 09:24 AM
BESIDES the lack of depth, i had one observation that irritated me.

We used the zone in the first half for the 2nd straight game. It helped us build a lead for the 2nd straight game.

So we're up 9 in the 2nd half, they start to come back....and we stay in Man to Man?

Seriously K, the zone has looked great this tourny, and he shouldve been using it down the stretch, or at least mixing it up (plus with zoubek in, it gets really formidable for opponents trying to drive). It's no good to learn the zone from boeheim if you dont use it in important situations!!!!

killerleft
11-22-2007, 09:33 AM
I loved the comment above regarding the full/empty glass.

For whatever reason, I felt this was a game Duke was going to win after our first good run. Marquette has a good enough team to beat us, obviously, but we didn't let it happen. Last year, again for whatever reason, I only hoped we would pull out a close one.

This was a big win for Duke. We "defended" our Maui title, most everybody contributed, and our guys were making plays to WIN the game. So often last year, we seemed to be trying not to lose.

We have Several guys willing to WIN the game! That is Duke Basketball! What's not to love?

The Utopian Dream is that we can play 10 guys with no drop-off in our level play. We may yet achieve that, but Coach K, for whatever bestest-coach-in-the-land reason, decided we aren't quite there yet.

I, for one, see that glass just about as full as you can get one early in the season. Rejoice! Give thanks!

Saratoga2
11-22-2007, 09:36 AM
From Duke Lifer

"As for the stars of the game. Nelson is playing very well. He is taking his time more and finding good angles to attack the basket. He looks like a senior and his play was key to the win. "

Great win and what Dukelifer says about Nelson gets to the area of improvement. Last year and before, Nelson would have driven straight into the crowd in front and lost the ball. This year he has changed the angle and it works for him on either side. When he got very tired, he lost his free throw shot and his mid range game suffered as well. This year, he seemed to recognize what was happening and deferred to others except at the end except for his drive to the basket. Great game on defense and rebounding for him as well.

Singler has the special ability to keep his poise and free throw shot despite being exhausted. What a great young player.

Duke has shown a great deal of character in this tournament and now has to be thought of as a top ten team. Great to see the improvement in so many players when compared to last year. The injuries were a part of that, but clearly a lot of work and self examination has gone into the improvements.

Constantstrain 81
11-22-2007, 10:09 AM
I absolutely loved the game and the win. Depth? That is probably a game-to-game call - depending on the opponent and the flow of the game.

1st half minutes are different than 2nd half minutes. So is the mood and tempo and "feel" to the game. I would think that K thinks about that when it comes to figuring out who should play and when.

Nolan Smith isn't playing as much right now for two reasons - (1) Greg Paulus is a veteran and is playing well (he brings intangibles to the team in more ways than just assists or scoring) and (2) Nolan seems a little tentative at times still (just my take). That is okay - he is just a freshmen in his first five games (and I don't mean to imply he is passive or timid - just a little unsure at times - like Henderson last year). Still, he brings valuable minutes and skills.

Marty didn't play last night because Marquette was a powerful, guard-oriented team. We needed our best out there and, in terms of the total package, Marty is our last option. I will say with assurance that if we had continued to trail in the first half and needed a shot of offense, then he would have made an appearance. But... we didn't and he didn't. Marty will play and will hit key shots this year (mark my words) - but not last night.

Taylor King - I want to love this guy. In fast-paced, high level games like this - he just isn't ready for the pace of the game yet. He will be. It is not a matter of skill (Taylor, if you're reading this, it is not a matter of skill), it is a matter of experience. The last two nights, Taylor was playing in a game that was moving too fast for him. Give him time. He has smarts and a good shot - he needs the confidence that he can do it. Lee M. could mix it up as a junior and senior, but was certainly not burning it up as a freshman. Taylor's skills and potential is much higher (sorry, Lee). Still, last night, there was nothing that Taylor could bring for us that would have been as good as a tired starter (I'm talking total package here).

Brian Zoubek - great game. I am so happy that he contributed and made a difference. Still, with his current conditioning (physical and mental), his being in the game forced us to play a certain style (zone). That worked nicely in a few stretches in the first half, but wasn't the answer for the second. So ... Brian sat.

Remember, I think, to consider bench use and strategy in the context of the flow and situation of the game. The use of the zone in the first half came at a good time. Both teams had weathered each other's best shots. The zone forced Marquette to think and change strategy - they didn't handle it well at first and we gained an edge. It also enabled us to use Brian Zoubek and made him effective on defense as well as offense.

In the second half, we needed to keep the lead (we did, except for one instance). We needed to keep the pressure on. We needed to rattle them with the pace of the game. Remember how many close shots and lay-ins that seemed to roll out for them? That is not just bad luck - it is stress and fatigue and forcing things - that came from our defense. The zone is more passive. If we had gone to the zone in the 2nd half - they would have hit threes (they were 5-5 at one point in the 2nd half anyway). We needed an attacking defense, not the passive defense. It was a good call for both halves.

Why did the game stay close then? (Other than Marquette is a good team). Was is the chosen defense or fatigue? I believe that it was a combination of several things. Several missed free throws (including the front end), a stretch of four turnovers in a row (which could be due to fatigue), and some questionable shot selection in places. I believe that K and the staff will work on fixing those things. If you are tired, don't put yourself in position to be turned over. If you need points - get the ball to the scorers. If you are tired, don't shoot a contested, fall away almost 3 pointer without making a single pass. Those are mental things and they can be fixed.

I will not worry about depth - not today. 8 players played significant minutes (I count Zoubek as significant). The two who didn't could not truly have helped us last night more than the players they would have replaced.

Go Duke!

Lord Ash
11-22-2007, 10:16 AM
A couple thoughts now that I have slept on it:

I was particularly impressed at how deep Thomas was when he got his points. It felt like a few of them were from under the backboard, which is a tough place to score from, but he still managed to get them up through hands and arms and into the basket. Good stuff.

I agree with what some folks said about lack of depth being because of bad matchups. However, I stick by the fact that a few minutes of rest at the 14 minute mark would have left a fresher team of players for the last few minutes.

They woofed. A LOT. I cannot STAND that.

We are SUPER athletic. I check in on Inside Carolina once in a while (and normally come back so angry at the stupidity that I cannot see straight) and some Carolwhina fans actually try to say we are really NOT athletic. But wow. Thomas, Scheyer, Pocious, Nelson, Henderson, Smith, all athletic. Heck, even Greg is athletic in a football player sort of way.

And yes, his touchdown pass was INCREDIBLE. Wow.

Good stuff. Cool how much fun everyone has had with this team. Lowered expectations (i.e. NOT viewing only a title as acceptable:D ) is a fun thing!

Deschet
11-22-2007, 10:21 AM
A great win, especially for the fifth game into the season. Singler seems to have justified his very lofty expectations. In general, Duke looks far more aggressive than Duke teams of the recent past, who seemed to predicate their offense on the skills of a pure (and streaky) jump-shooter. Henderson and Thomas seem poised for great things and Nelson seems finally ready to show us what he has been capable of doing for three years prior.

However, as much as the depth (or lack thereof) issue may be tired and played out, it bears mentioning. In short, Krzyzewski does not use a deep bench. And, while in the past, teams could use a six man rotation and still be successful, it is next to impossible today.

Let's face it, teams are younger than they were even ten years ago. Early NBA defections have changed the landscape of college basketball. While it may have made sense to run with three seniors, a junior and a sophomore in years where this was a possibility, it is now next to impossible, given the current landscape of college basketball. Recently, many of the most successful teams have utilized a wide player rotation, yet Krzyzewski continually attempts to utilize a six man rotation. In short, it is hurting us. This is undeniable.

Not only are kids transferring out, they are not developing at the same rate as they would if they just played. Pocius and King have both showed moments of brilliance, yet they are localized... like flashes in the pan.

I won't argue that Krzyzewski wanted his best to play in last night's very tough game with Marquette. And, of course, I am happy with such a big win. However, it is less important to win early on than it is to get all the players on the team playing like a team. Losses in the pre-conference season are no fun... but they are surely better than losses in the March Tournament.

dw0827
11-22-2007, 10:22 AM
BESIDES the lack of depth, i had one observation that irritated me.

We used the zone in the first half for the 2nd straight game. It helped us build a lead for the 2nd straight game.

So we're up 9 in the 2nd half, they start to come back....and we stay in Man to Man?

Seriously K, the zone has looked great this tourny, and he shouldve been using it down the stretch, or at least mixing it up (plus with zoubek in, it gets really formidable for opponents trying to drive). It's no good to learn the zone from boeheim if you dont use it in important situations!!!!

My recollection is about the same . . . in the last two games, we used a zone in the first half a little bit to provide a different look, I guess. Then in the second half, used it very sparingly and primarily to hide defensive deficiencies. I remember them going to it when Greg and Zoub were in at the same time. James had been zooming by everyone.

I'm not a zone fan but I understand its use in isolated instances. I think we've had success with it because other teams are not yet prepared (this early in the season) to crack zones effectively. One of my concerns is that we are going to have trouble rebounding on our best days . . . and using zone will only make that worse.

My other concern, and others disagree, is that I see zones as inherently passive . . . and I'd like to see us stay uptempo, force it, and keep the pressure on. We have the horses, and the depth (lol) to do it. Others talk about an "active zone."

I say, Naaaaah.

So I'm all for zone as a change of pace . . . and maybe to hide deficiencies . . . but only for a few possessions.

Anyway, it fun to recall all the threads (and arguments) this summer about the team and this player and that player.

Some people were saying that Singler was gonna be a stud . . . and were they ever right. (I was skeptical since he was a freshman. I was wrong.) Some people said that Nelson was going to be a stud . . . and were they ever right. (I was skeptical because I thought he'd continue to dribble the ball off his foot as he drove. I was wrong.) Some people (including me) though Gerald would be a stud . . . and he's certainly showing signs of it. Now if he can gain consistency. In particular, I thought (or hoped) Lance would be much better. And I was particularly gratified to see him last night. Not a stat stuffer but he really really played well. Played very hard and was a real asset out there. And thats great because he got almost no love this summer on this board . . . almost like he was a forgotten man. True, Paulus threw one boneheaded pass late in the second half. But hasn't he played well so far? Great to see because he's been so maligned. Tough kid. Scheyer? Are you kidding? He does so much you can't help but love him.

But most important. Did you watch the reaction of the team and the coaches at the end of the game? Amazing. They were all so happy for each other. What a great group and so supportive of each other. Last year, it seemed like they could hardly stand being in the same room together. But not now. And THATS why we're gonna have a good year . . . not because of Singler or Nelson or this player or zone or depth or world peace. We're gonna have a good year because we've got a group of talented guys who understand what it is to be a team . . .

wilko
11-22-2007, 10:42 AM
What a tense game. It felt like a March game in some ways.

My observations:
Nolan... As soon as he and the coaches get comfortable he is prolly going to be the primary handle bringing the ball up court. Experience, savvy and the 3ball are keeping Greg in the game. Maybe it was this particular matchup, but Greg was really slow. He hit some tuff shots and made good decisions.

Jon... Hes a 2 guard with some point skills. He did alot of work to distribute and handle. Takes away from his natural game a bit.

Markie... 3 words: A may zing. Who the heck is this guy? His power and reach are stunnng. There was a point in the 2nd half where he was missing FT's badly and was short on some other shots. Sheer will to win pushed him to keep going

Gee... Off nite. Got in some early foul trouble and was hindered as a result.

Kyle... He is somewhere between Dunleavy and Alarie.

Brian.. Continues to develop. I like what I'm seeing. Bad matchup for him particularly.

Lance.. He had his best game as a Blue Devil. Hope this grows his confidence. Now I see what all the hype was when he signed wih us over Rutgers. He has made strides.


I REALLY like the zone. Its a nice variation that has been working so far. I can see how its going to help protect Zoubek in the post. Kinda like in Rocky 2 where he was waiting for the right moment to go "Southpaw". At some point it wont work and the wrong team on the wrong nite will torch us and cost us the game. and folks will complain.. well fine, but complain when it works too, just be consistent.. :D

Speaking of complaining... Bench development?!? Now? Really?
It WAS a championship game. I totally understand wanting to galvanize the core guys in this matchup. To get them used to winning and executing at crucial moments. Developing trust and chemisty. Building a high performance core that knows the can get it done really will help the other guys as the matchups dictate. A great game for us.

Calls were inconsistent... Some tic-tac bs away from the ball and then folks scatter lke bowling pins on other trips with no calls.. We played hard and converted enuff to win. Hope we continue to grow.

Charles Wicker
11-22-2007, 10:50 AM
I thought last night's games was good on several fronts for Duke. Lance Thomas looked great. Nelson I believed has arrived, the best I think he's looked at Duke so far. Paulus looks solid, stronger, wiser and very game. Zoubek, I like his play. Singler, HE IS FOR REAL! Tough, smart, offense minded; can you say Larry Bird/Christian Laettner type?

Henderson looked decent, exceptional athletic ability, will get better and better. Scheyer, well can you say JJ Reddick? I like him, but off the dribble is not necessarily his game. His handles are good/decent, but he's a great three point shooter. For those who say Marty isn't as good as Scheyer, I don't know about that. In fact I believe one of the reasons you don't see Marty play, is because he may steel some of the "McDonalds All Americans," minutes.

We looked good, but as has been mentioned before, we need to develop our bench more earlier in the season. As great as Dawkins was at Duke, I'm wondering how much influence he has on the bench. Work with me community, I've been a Duke fan for over thirty years. Help me, with my afixation on Marty Pocious. Maybe he's not that good, and all my reflections will prove most of you right. If he's as unskilled defensively and demonstrates an inability to be as productive as the others you feel are; I'll be the first to join you and say, he deserves to be on the bench, while the others log more minutes.

I just don't believe we've seen enough of him. Overall, we'll be fun to watch.

Happy Thanksgiving!

RockyMtDevil
11-22-2007, 10:52 AM
Anyone see Dominic James' post-game comments about how it really wasn't anything we did to stop him, he just missed some easy shots.

Whatever. 4-12.

Marquette sure woofs a lot, anyone know if this will be a point of emphasis by the refs this year, seems like everytime someone made a basket they got in our grill, I've watched two games and I'm sick of that crap already...

Charles Wicker
11-22-2007, 10:53 AM
I thought last night's games was good on several fronts for Duke. Lance Thomas looked great. Nelson I believed has arrived, the best I think he's looked at Duke so far. Paulus looks solid, stronger, wiser and very game. Zoubek, I like his play. Singler, HE IS FOR REAL! Tough, smart, offense minded; can you say Larry Bird/Christian Laettner type?

Henderson looked decent, exceptional athletic ability, will get better and better. Scheyer, well can you say JJ Reddick? I like him, but off the dribble is not necessarily his game. His handles are good/decent, but he's a great three point shooter. For those who say Marty isn't as good as Scheyer, I don't know about that. In fact I believe one of the reasons you don't see Marty play, is because he may steel some of the "McDonalds All Americans," minutes.

We looked good, but as has been mentioned before, we need to develop our bench more earlier in the season. As great as Dawkins was at Duke, I'm wondering how much influence he has on the bench. Work with me community, I've been a Duke fan for over thirty years. Help me, with my afixation on Marty Pocious. Maybe he's not that good, and all my reflections will prove most of you right. If he's as unskilled defensively and demonstrates an inability to be as productive as the others you feel are; I'll be the first to join you and say, he deserves to be on the bench, while the others log more minutes.

I just don't believe we've seen enough of him. Overall, we'll be fun to watch.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Lavabe
11-22-2007, 11:00 AM
Rebounds: Duke 34 (10 off), Marquette 24 (7 off): Sing & Markie w/7 each, 5 for LT, and 4 for Scheyer.

Cheers,
Lavabe

loran16
11-22-2007, 11:05 AM
Rebounds: Duke 34 (10 off), Marquette 24 (7 off): Sing & Markie w/7 each, 5 for LT, and 4 for Scheyer.

Cheers,
Lavabe


That's accurate? From watching the game i would've thought it was easily the other way.....

gw67
11-22-2007, 11:19 AM
In response to a previous post, Paulus plays 27 mpg because he is the best point guard on this team (game experience, ballhandling, playmaking and shooting). Smith has done a good job filling in for Paulus and averages about 14 mpg. IMO, this split in playing time is about right. It allows for fresh legs and gives Smith the opportunity to learn the position as a freshman.

All this talk about Paulus's speed (or lack of) reminds me of a comment by Keith Jackson several years ago when he was doing a college football game with Florida(?). Emmitt Smith was a young running back and Jackson stated that the coach said that he was the slowest back on the team but he was the best football player. Emmitt was never a burner, he was just a great player. I suspect that Nolan Smith can easily beat Paulus in a race but basketball is played by five players at a time and Paulus' skills fit better with the team at this time.

gw67

Troublemaker
11-22-2007, 11:19 AM
I'm not surprised that 80% of the posts following this great win deal with depth but I still think it's silly as heck (with the silliest being the mention of the effort to score 100 pts/gm, as if that were a goal to measure ourselves against instead of just an attitude the team wants to bring each game, and as if we haven't been terrifically efficient on offense so far this season on an per-possession basis, which is all that really matters). If we had played Pocius, Zoubek, and the King the number of minutes the depth-mongers want to give them, we would've lost this game. We were trying to win a championship so we went with the best players and specifically the best matchups against a good team in Marquette that played great and obviously wanted the trophy just much as we did. Does that mean Zoubek and King will always get little burn in the ultracompetitive games we play this season? No, I don't expect that. But we will always have a different rotation for close games than for blowouts, and that's the case with every college basketball program, not just us. At this point in the season, considering the matchups, and considering the depth we had used the previous two days to keep the team fresh, I thought the use of depth was perfect. We leave Hawaii with a hard-fought trophy by sticking with the best matchups against a relentless opponent and obviously having enough in the tank to hit clutch free throws and play good defense down the stretch to seal it.

Many more thoughts to come later this weekend, but it's turkey time. Happy Thanksgiving to all! For those that "couldn't enjoy" this awesome win in an awesome game because of the bench usage, don't let it ruin your turkey also. LOL.

Exiled_Devil
11-22-2007, 11:27 AM
Some thoughts, with some foundation in observation, but mostly speculation and intuition -

I think that Gerald's game was effected by the fact that it was the third game in three days, and he may not have pulled 100% back from last year's phantom asthma.

I like the zone, and I think that our depth may be related to how often we run it. I have a feeling that Marty gets more time when we play zone, because he is more skilled in zone than m2m, and still has the offensive capabilities. NO real data to back up either part of that (Marty's zone skill or the increased playing time) but a hunch that both are true.

On the zone - our zone is good. I disagree with dw0827's assertion that zone is primarily a passive defensive measure. We move almost as much as we do in man. Also, we seem to have developed a third defensive look that is a mix of zone and man - I need to watch for it closer to point it out in future games.

In the depth argument, it seems that people are talking past one another in one regard for last mights game - we used all but one of our scholarship guards. It's inside depth that we aren't using well. I don't feel strongly either way on that, but I did want to point out that distinction and see where both sides of the argument came in on that idea.

I liked Lance Thomas last year - he was my Reggie Love, energy and excitement guy. I am so psyched to see him playing well - not great yet, but well. He could be great in two years. Now, he is officially my favorite player on the team. G is a close second, but that is because he is just so freaking athletic.

Exiled

gw67
11-22-2007, 11:29 AM
In response to a previous post, Paulus plays 27 mpg because he is the best point guard on this team (game experience, ballhandling, playmaking and shooting). Smith has done a good job filling in for Paulus and averages about 14 mpg. IMO, this split in playing time is about right. It allows for fresh legs and gives Smith the opportunity to learn the position as a freshman.

All this talk about Paulus's speed (or lack of) reminds me of a comment by Keith Jackson several years ago when he was doing a college football game with Florida(?). Emmitt Smith was a young running back and Jackson stated that the coach said that he was the slowest back on the team but he was the best football player. Emmitt was never a burner, he was just a great player. I suspect that Nolan Smith can easily beat Paulus in a race but basketball is played by five players at a time and Paulus' skills fit better with the team at this time.

gw67

GDT
11-22-2007, 11:47 AM
We were trying to win a championship so we went with the best players and specifically the best matchups against a good team in Marquette that played great and obviously wanted the trophy just much as we did.

Agreed, and I also think the experience of playing through fatigue and managing to seal a victory against a good team is possibly more important (both in terms of the players' confidence and the coaching staff's trust) long term than playing a couple of players for 3-5 minutes in this particular game. For example, it was clear that Singler has talent, but now I think it's equally clear that he has a lot of heart (as does the rest of team).

OrangeDevil
11-22-2007, 12:01 PM
This is the most exciting Duke team in years and, not coincidentally, the most athletic and versatile. The clamor and outright whining concerning bench use and player rotation that has come from some on this board is unwarranted. I am a big Taylor King fan and believe that some very bright moments await Nolan Smith, but both need to be brought along slowly and used selectively given the opposition and game situation. Marquette goes small and their ultra-quick and experienced perimeter players would have made mincemeat of Taylor and Nolan. Dominic James' crossover blowby against Nolan that made the highlight reels would have been routine and greatly diminished Duke's chances for victory had Taylor and Nolan logged major minutes in this one. As others have noted, both will play and contribute this year, but their playing time will be situational.

Who gets the ball in late game, lead protection situations? Greg? Jon? DeMarcus? No, it's got to be Super K. He's solid and strong with the ball, expects to get fouled, and wants to go to the line. I think what we saw late against Marquette will continue to be refined: bring Singler to the top of the key and allow him to turn and face his defender (what big can handle him if he puts in on the floor and heads to the hole?) while Gerald and Dee try to backdoor their defenders for throwdowns and layups. For an experienced pointguard, Greg remains insecure and scary with his handle and decision-making in crunchtime situations. And for a pointguard, he's not the high percentage free throw shooter needed in a late game ball handler.

I particularly liked the look of joy and excitement exhibited by the whole team starting with Coach K. Folks, we just won an important CHAMPIONSHIP! It is a suggestion that great things lie ahead, this year, if we avoid major injury and the younger players gain confidence and find their roles.

Stay tuned, this is potentially a very special season.

tbyers11
11-22-2007, 12:07 PM
Anyone see Dominic James' post-game comments about how it really wasn't anything we did to stop him, he just missed some easy shots.

Whatever. 4-12.

Marquette sure woofs a lot, anyone know if this will be a point of emphasis by the refs this year, seems like everytime someone made a basket they got in our grill, I've watched two games and I'm sick of that crap already...

Didn't see those comments but they sound about right for someone from a team that woofs a lot (Cubillan's stupid dance move after hitting a 3, the woofing and clapping on defense the entire game from most of their guards). James missed 3 or 4 short shots after drives, but it was because they were highly contested by Duke's defense.

James gets most of the hype, but I think both McNeal and Matthews are better players. James can be awesome when he is on (see their 2006 upset of the highly touted UConn team his freshman year) but he is way too inconsistent for an elite player. His shot selection is frequently very poor (see Crean benching him in the first half against Chaminade) and he forces things.

Teton Jack
11-22-2007, 12:16 PM
What many of us overlook, is the comparison of this game to last year's. Marquette abused our guards last year and pushed us around under the basket. This year, with Marquette having most of the same personnel, we went toe to toe and face to face - and won. It's mental toughness that wins the big games. The longer I live, the more I understand that having talent isn't always the defining factor in success.

Kudos the team! "Team", I didn't see that last year. As an earlier poster said, the absolute joy of those on the bench when the final horn sounded was very reassuring for Duke's future.

Teton Jack

throatybeard
11-22-2007, 12:24 PM
This is the most exciting Duke team in years and, not coincidentally, the most athletic and versatile. The clamor and outright whining concerning bench use and player rotation that has come from some on this board is unwarranted.

QFT.

slower
11-22-2007, 12:25 PM
I thought last night's games was good on several fronts for Duke. Lance Thomas looked great. Nelson I believed has arrived, the best I think he's looked at Duke so far. Paulus looks solid, stronger, wiser and very game. Zoubek, I like his play. Singler, HE IS FOR REAL! Tough, smart, offense minded; can you say Larry Bird/Christian Laettner type?

Henderson looked decent, exceptional athletic ability, will get better and better. Scheyer, well can you say JJ Reddick? I like him, but off the dribble is not necessarily his game. His handles are good/decent, but he's a great three point shooter. For those who say Marty isn't as good as Scheyer, I don't know about that. In fact I believe one of the reasons you don't see Marty play, is because he may steel some of the "McDonalds All Americans," minutes.

We looked good, but as has been mentioned before, we need to develop our bench more earlier in the season. As great as Dawkins was at Duke, I'm wondering how much influence he has on the bench. Work with me community, I've been a Duke fan for over thirty years. Help me, with my afixation on Marty Pocious. Maybe he's not that good, and all my reflections will prove most of you right. If he's as unskilled defensively and demonstrates an inability to be as productive as the others you feel are; I'll be the first to join you and say, he deserves to be on the bench, while the others log more minutes.

I just don't believe we've seen enough of him. Overall, we'll be fun to watch.

Happy Thanksgiving!


Really? You think Marty is as good as Scheyer? Wow. I just don't see it.

Devilsfan
11-22-2007, 12:48 PM
When the going gets tough we all seem to revert back to what has worked in the past for us. It's human nature I guess. BUT the harder the opponent got the fewer players saw the court. The final saw a 7 man rotation unless you count Zoubs' six minutes. Both teams seemed to have left everything on the court. That's fine. I loved the game and the outcome. I hope we have legs in Feb. and March. Guess Zoub is a work in process (I know about the foot injury), Marty and King are not ready for prime time and Dave's still hobbled.

jma4life
11-22-2007, 12:54 PM
I haven't read everything so sorry if I repeat something but...

I've always been one of those guys who thought Coach K should use more depth. And I've always felt that Pocius deserved more playing time.

BUT I can absolutely not complain about the minutes yesterday. The games where I want extensive use of the bench are games where Duke is dominating or up comfortably. In a game like yesterday's where every possession is key, you can't worry about developing players or about saving player's energy.

Also, I am confident that in games like yesterday's, McClure will emerge as a legitimate 8th man so I think that ultimately, in tournament games we will have an 8 man rotation.

If we see Coach K play Singler, Henderson, Scheyer and Demarcus 38 minutes in a game where Duke is up comfortably throughout, then yea, I will be disappointed. But using 7 men in a game like yesterday's is the right move and is not concerning to me, especially given the fact that McClure should step up as the 8th guy when he gets back into game shape.

CatfiveCane
11-22-2007, 12:56 PM
All this talk about Paulus's speed (or lack of) reminds me of a comment by Keith Jackson several years ago when he was doing a college football game with Florida(?). Emmitt Smith was a young running back and Jackson stated that the coach said that he was the slowest back on the team but he was the best football player. Emmitt was never a burner, he was just a great player. I suspect that Nolan Smith can easily beat Paulus in a race but basketball is played by five players at a time and Paulus' skills fit better with the team at this time.

gw67

This is a good thought in theory, but it doesn't pan out. We lost a lot of games last year due to our slow perimeter defense.

CatfiveCane
11-22-2007, 12:58 PM
What many of us overlook, is the comparison of this game to last year's. Marquette abused our guards last year and pushed us around under the basket. This year, with Marquette having most of the same personnel, we went toe to toe and face to face - and won. It's mental toughness that wins the big games. The longer I live, the more I understand that having talent isn't always the defining factor in success.

Kudos the team! "Team", I didn't see that last year. As an earlier poster said, the absolute joy of those on the bench when the final horn sounded was very reassuring for Duke's future.

Teton Jack

talent is not everything. it's only about 95% of the game. Sorry we are "more talented" than last year. Way more. With a healthy Nelson and henderson our atheltic prowess has improved. Add in Smith and Singler. wow.

shadowfax336
11-22-2007, 01:15 PM
But most important. Did you watch the reaction of the team and the coaches at the end of the game? Amazing. They were all so happy for each other. What a great group and so supportive of each other. Last year, it seemed like they could hardly stand being in the same room together. But not now. And THATS why we're gonna have a good year . . . not because of Singler or Nelson or this player or zone or depth or world peace. We're gonna have a good year because we've got a group of talented guys who understand what it is to be a team . . .

My thoughts exactly...

Seeing this team around campus, and in preseason warmups, and cheering on the bench...

they genuinely like each other, enjoy playing together, and want to win together
and they're very very good

I'm really pumped for this season

YmoBeThere
11-22-2007, 01:28 PM
but Coach K has won about 3 more championships than I have,

Umm, that would be 4 actually.....

Maui Invitational championships that is.

Lavabe
11-22-2007, 02:04 PM
That's accurate? From watching the game i would've thought it was easily the other way.....

I know the Scheyer & Markie stats were accurate ... call me a geek, but I was tracking it during the game. The rebounding stats I found were from ESPN.com. IMO, I think it's partly explained by the difference in FG%. We were much more accurate. They had many more missed shots, and so we had more opportunities for rebounds.

Still, I felt the same way about rebounding before looking at the tallies.

Cheers,
Lavabe

Saratoga2
11-22-2007, 02:05 PM
Who gets the ball in late game, lead protection situations? Greg? Jon? DeMarcus? No, it's got to be Super K. He's solid and strong with the ball, expects to get fouled, and wants to go to the line. I think what we saw late against Marquette will continue to be refined: bring Singler to the top of the key and allow him to turn and face his defender (what big can handle him if he puts in on the floor and heads to the hole?) while Gerald and Dee try to backdoor their defenders for throwdowns and layups. For an experienced pointguard, Greg remains insecure and scary with his handle and decision-making in crunchtime situations. And for a pointguard, he's not the high percentage free throw shooter needed in a late game ball handler.



I think the guys you want on the floor late in the game if you have a lead are the ones with the best handle and the ones that are also the best fouls shooters. Paulus, Scheyer and Singler are the best three in that regard. The others can offer defense and scoring, but if they get fouled they tend to be a liability. I was pleased to see Henderson, who I thought looked very tired during the game, hit his free throws when they really counted. Thomas looked okay at the line and Nelson seemed to revert to his problems at the free throw line when he got really tired.

jipops
11-22-2007, 02:18 PM
I can't believe we have a huge win like this with future tournament implications and half the thread is dedicated to griping about depth. What is wrong with you people!? You don't frikin get it do you!?

So all the depth whiners appear to have issue with King and Pocius not getting time. Please explain to me how they would have fit into last night's game. Marquette totally relies on the quickness of it's perimeter. I fail to see how Taylor King could have been plugged in to disrupt that. Also, who do you take out? - Lance?, who was having one of his best games? Zoubek?, who effectively clogged up the lane and gave us big boards and some scores underneath? Do you really think King would have been capable of this? Nelson was unstoppable getting in to the lane, should King have been put in to replicate that? Should Nolan Smith have been taken out and replaced by Pocius to guard either Acker, James, or McNeil? Really, that would have been a good idea!!!??? Singler was close to dominating the game in the second half, should he have just been taken out despite that? I have lots of questions for these depth whiners but I'm betting I won't get any proven answers.

Last night's game was a huge win that this team wanted very, very badly. Nelson was quoted as saying that last year's team didn't win anything. This year's team very much wants to accomplish something. Simply putting in players just to have minutes misses the point. King will end up being a very nice player at Duke but right now he simply fits one role and that is to shoot 3's. We needed much more than that last night. It's also difficult to see how Pocius would have fit into the defensive battle that occurred last night. I'm sure he has improved in this area, but we needed the combination of ball handling and defense found in Scheyer and Smith. We still had 3 guys give us very, very productive minutes off the bench. Sounds like some damn good depth to me and heck of a lot more than we've had in quite some time.

I firmly believe K will still be playing a lot of players throughout the season. But he simply can't over-expose weaknesses just for the sake of playing a lot of guys.

GMR
11-22-2007, 02:18 PM
There were many bright spots in this 3 game tournament:

--Nelson is much improved over the last three years. He is confident, tough, and doesn't dribble into trouble as much as last year. It seems that his penetrations are best when Duke spreads the court to allow him one-on-one room to use his strength. When he gets double-teamed, he's in trouble. My biggest complaint from last night was his free throw shooting. I don't know how he ended up, but at half time, he was 4-8, and missed both free throws with .9 seconds to go in the half that would have extended the lead from 7 to 9 points. He will go to the line a lot this year, and we need him shooting close to 70% from the line.

--Henderson had a great game against Illinois, but looked hesitant and unsure of himself last night. I think the guy defending him was comparable in athleticism, and that seemed to intimidate him because he depends so much on his quickness and jumping ability. Nevertheless, I'm still enthused about GH.

--Singler was the opposite to Henderson. He was wonderful against both Princeton and Marquette, but was less than that against Illinois. He is so court savvy for a freshman, and seemed to pick up his "toughness" last night. Plus, he found his outside shooting. He is very competent under the basket, and like Nelson, he will go to the line a lot this year...wonderful that he's a magnificent free throw shooter. I think he's over 90% so far in this short year.

--Paulus has cut back on turnovers, and improved in the assist area. Plus, he hits some key threes, which really help. His "football" pass to Singler was a thing of beauty last night. He will get beat off the dribble many times this year, but so far the team has demonstrated the ability to cover for him quite well. I'm pleased, especially with his attitude.

--Lance Thomas' improvement is perhaps the biggest surprise to me so far. He's become a good, but not great, offensive player, which is exactly what we need. Combined with Zoubek, we are getting points, rebounds and defensive effort that really fills our "5" weaknesses. I did not expect this kind of effort from our 5's, especially this early.

--Jon Scheyer is so intelligent and well rounded. He is a good shooter, but not a great shooter. He is a good defensive player, not a great defensive player (Marquette's quickness explored his lack of quickness a few times last night). He is a very good passer, and can rebound well given his slight build. He's a coach on the floor for Duke.

--Nolan Smith. He's quick, handles the ball well, defends well and has good quickness. His shooting is only so-so, but I think we'll see some drive penetration from him against the not-so-athletic, quick teams like Marquette. What a wonderful gift to have him relieve Paulus for 7-10 minutes a game.

--Brian Zoubek is another very pleasant surprise to me, much like Thomas. I did not expect Zoubek to be this improved at this point, especially given his summer injury that set back his conditioning and improvement process. I was disappointed that he did not see the court in the second half last night after playing well in the first half. He still has a lot of room for improvement, but he's getting there, if K will play him in tight situations.

The biggest downside I took away from Hawaii was, as has been mentioned many times in this thread, the downsizing of the bench. I think what we saw against Illinois and Marquette, the only reasonably competitive games we've been in so far, is, following the past few years of history, is the trend we'll see in all competitive games this year ( I define competitive for K as any game that is 15 points or less). If anything the 7 or 8 man bench may get shorter.

I'm a strong believer that what happens in the NCAA defines a season. I believe that a basketball season, including other tournaments, should focus on preparing for March/April. I don't believe we should sacrifice the regular season, including losing more games totally for the sake of hopefully a better prepared team for the NCAA's. But if it means taking a little more risk, which may mean a slightly higher probability that we may lose one or two more games than playing 6 or 7 players might result in, then so be it. Do you think when someone is cutting down the nets to advance to the final 4, if Duke were to be defeated in that regional final game, that there would be a lot of fans saying, "that's OK, we won the Maui Invitational"?

Referring to last year's dismal end of the year, I quote K. "We basically ran out of gas. And I could not put more gas in them...I think they were really tired. How could I have done a better job of keeping them fresher? By the end, we were dead". Well, one or two games in Maui would not be a big contributor to a fresher team in March, but a season-long string of games not using the bench more would, in my opinion.

That's my fear and takeaway from Hawaii...I deeply hope that what we saw in K's substitution pattern the last two nights does not become the pattern for the season. If it does, I'm real concerned that we will see end of the season collapses like we've seen the past few years.

GMR

CatfiveCane
11-22-2007, 02:25 PM
I can't believe we have a huge win like this with future tournament implications and half the thread is dedicated to griping about depth. What is wrong with you people!? You don't frikin get it do you!? Get a pacifier and stop I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ing.

So all the depth whiners appear to have issue with King and Pocius not getting time. Please explain to me how they would have fit into last night's game. Marquette totally relies on the quickness of it's perimeter. I fail to see how Taylor King could have been plugged in to disrupt that. Also, who do you take out? - Lance?, who was having one of his best games? Zoubek?, who effectively clogged up the lane and gave us big boards and some scores underneath? Do you really think King would have been capable of this? Nelson was unstoppable getting in to the lane, should King have been put in to replicate that? Should Nolan Smith have been taken out and replaced by Pocius to guard either Acker, James, or McNeil? Really, that would have been a good idea!!!??? Singler was close to dominating the game in the second half, should he have just been taken out despite that? I have lots of questions for these depth whiners but I'm betting I won't get any proven answers.

Last night's game was a huge win that this team wanted very, very badly. Nelson was quoted as saying that last year's team didn't win anything. This year's team very much wants to accomplish something. Simply putting in players just to have minutes misses the point. King will end up being a very nice player at Duke but right now he simply fits one role and that is to shoot 3's. We needed much more than that last night. It's also difficult to see how Pocius would have fit into the defensive battle that occurred last night. I'm sure he has improved in this area, but we needed the combination of ball handling and defense found in Scheyer and Smith. We still had 3 guys give us very, very productive minutes off the bench. Sounds like some damn good depth to me and heck of a lot more than we've had in quite some time.

I firmly believe K will still be playing a lot of players throughout the season. But he simply can't over-expose weaknesses just for the sake of playing a lot of guys.


What exactly did Duke win last night? A preseason tournament. Let's not over exaggerate the importance of this win or the HUGE significance of the pre-season tournament. Sure, winning something is always good for the team psyche. But then again some coaches believe that loses helps a team stay grounded as well.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. It's a long season. If we want to be playing April, then we need a long term vision. I think Depth will be key. If King, Zoubeck, or Pocious aren't ready by then... we could be in trouble.

mph
11-22-2007, 02:42 PM
I really like this team. Watching this team at Maui, I was reminded of the 1999-2000 team at the Coaches v. Cancer tournament. It's not an issue of style of play, but I remember thinking after we opened that season with losses to Stanford and Connecticut that we were going to be very good. Even though we lost both games there were signs of good things to come. Near the end of last night's game I was thinking the same thing. Win or lose, there are signs of good things to come.

I echo most of what's been said about Kyle and Markie. They've been great and Kyle will only get better. I absolutely love Kyle's attitude. The tussle in the Illinois game and the look on his face at the free throw line last night says a lot about the kind of career he's going to have. You can't coach that.

Greg has improved his A/T ratio, is playing with poise, and still nailing open threes.

Even though the shots weren't falling last night, Gerald looks much more confident than last year. He needs to take fewer contested jumpers, but he's hitting his open jumpers and finishing strong when he drives.

Lance played a great game last night. The most encouraging thing about to this point is he looks more settled and confident with the ball. Last year he seemed frenetic when he had the ball in the low post. This year he's much more deliberate. Last year Lance turned the ball over 43 times in 463 minutes (an average of 1 t/o every 10.75 minutes). This year he's turned the ball over 4 times in 112 minutes (an average of 1 t/o every 28 minutes).

I agree with Jason when he said we'll see more of Zoub in future games last night. He was solid the last two games and is should continue to improve as the season goes on. If he improves his defensive awareness and learns to keep the ball above his 7'1" body, he'll be a significant contributor.

Nolan is going to be good. I love his quickness and his handle is better than I remember when watching his HS games on ESPN last year. I expect him to improve a lot throughout this season. The most memorable moment for Nolan was when he brought the ball up after Cubilan made a 3. Cubilan was pressuring the ball and waving his hands wildly (more wild waving than pressure). Nolan looked rattled and turned the ball over. This is exactly the sort of thing he'll be able to handle as the season wears on.

The bottom line is this team can defend and we have a variety of scoring threats who can score in a variety of ways. We're running a great fast break, we can get to the rim and create our own shots, and we can score from the outside. If Lance, Zoub, and Kyle can give us consistent scoring in the post, we'll be even better. If this team continues to improve, we will be a very good team by the time the tournament rolls around.

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Kilby
11-22-2007, 03:07 PM
Greg has improved his A/T ratio, is playing with poise, and still nailing open threes.

Even though the shots weren't falling last night, Gerald looks much more confident than last year. He needs to take fewer contested jumpers, but he's hitting his open jumpers and finishing strong when he drives.


One thing that I like about Henderson and Scheyer is that when they aren't feelng it they do not jack up twenty shots. They stay aggressive, they contribute in other ways. They do not act like they are the teams only option to score. There may be times when Henderson has to take it because he can truly produce his own shot but with as many weapons as this team has I like to see an opportunistic offense that doesn't have someone forcing it too much.

tbyers11
11-22-2007, 03:13 PM
What exactly did Duke win last night? A preseason tournament. Let's not over exaggerate the importance of this win or the HUGE significance of the pre-season tournament. Sure, winning something is always good for the team psyche. But then again some coaches believe that loses helps a team stay grounded as well.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. It's a long season. If we want to be playing April, then we need a long term vision. I think Depth will be key. If King, Zoubeck, or Pocious aren't ready by then... we could be in trouble.

While I agree that no one is going to look back and say what a great year this team had because they won the Maui Invitational there were, IMO, several reasons why this game was very important

-Duke completely folded in the last 5 minutes against Marquette last year. Combined with their inability to make the big play late in several games last year (FSU, UVa, VaTech, UNC @home, NCST in ACC tourney, VCU) this win has to boost our teams confidence, particularly in late game situations, immensely.

-Marquette is a very good team. Not counting UNC, this is likely the highest ranked and one of the best teams that we will play all year. Winning this game could be the difference between a 2 and 3 seed come Selection Sunday. That is also important to the big picture.

-Despite all of the complaints about lack of depth, we played a true 8 man rotation (with a minute from King) in the first half and a 7 man rotation in the second half. When McClure is healthy, I am certain he will get minutes in the frontcourt. There is a reason why King and Pocius are the 9th and 10th men. If they played 5 minutes each, our chances of winning decrease significantly. If they are still glued to the bench against EKU, Davidson, Michigan, Albany, Cornell, and Temple then I will agree that we aren't "developing" our depth very well

Salty Breezes
11-22-2007, 03:23 PM
Must admit I didn't have time to read the entire thread, what with cooking my Blue Turkey and all, but the depth issue for me wasn't about this game. I agree with most that, in a competetive game like this, the goal is to win, and if King and Pocius don't help us do that right now, then they shouldn't play.

My bigger concern is the next month. If K shortens the bench in December, we have two problems: 1) no one to spell tired players in key games (Thomas could really have used a sub in the second half) and, 2) we fall back into the trend of relegating freshmen to the bench that eventually lose confidence in themselves and the system (Boateng, Thompson, even Casey Sanders come to mind to some degree). I don't think that King will fall into this trap, but it does bring up some bad memories.

We don't need Pocius to compete for an ACC championship. We do need King.

Jumbo
11-22-2007, 03:53 PM
I'm posting this before I read the thread and start reacting to what people say (which I'm sure will be a mix of positive comments about the wins and sniping about depth). But the biggest thing about the game was this:
It was exactly the type of game Duke lost over and over last year.
The psychological lift gained from winning that game necessitated doing whatever it took to achieve that. You could see how much it meant to the players and the coaches afterwards. Last year's players, in particular, were battered. This goes a long way toward healing last year's wounds and instilling them with confidence to the point where they will come to expect to win every close game.

captmojo
11-22-2007, 04:01 PM
Using the Capt's missed free throw/winning margin theory.....

Duke missed 8 (19-27)
Marquette missed 6 (14-20)

If Marquette makes half of those they missed.....
Final score-Duke77 Marquette76

Still a win, but only a one point margin.

If Duke makes half their misses.....
Final score-Duke81 Marquette73

Fatigue created most of these misses. Shooters need to remember that they have plenty of time to take the shot after the ref gives them the ball. Step back, catch your breath, then follow through your routine for a more effective result. Tight games such as this, cannot afford leaving scoring opportunities uncapitalized.

Floor play was really good in this game. A total team effort throughout the tournament was needed to come home with the title. I like the fact that this team has players so complimentary to each other, in that one having an off night is made up for by a better performance by his teammate. Three games in three days is tough stuff and this team needs to remember the effort and desire needed to win when conference tourney time rolls around.

The ability to rebound when playing zone defenses has been questioned. Rebounding out of the zone defense is quite possible to do as long as you can keep track of 1) knowing where you are on the floor, 2) following the whereabouts of the ball and anticipation of the shot. Mike Gminski averaged 10.2 per game, playing in Bill Foster's 2-3 defense. It can be done just as well as from man-to-man, if you know how to do it. Higher numbers can be accomplished from the combination. The main thing is to be at the right place at the right time. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have desire for the ball, a la Dennis Rodman, only with better body control.

jimsumner
11-22-2007, 05:17 PM
Jumbo is absolutely correct. Last year's Duke team would not have won the Marquette game. Maybe not the Illinois game, after they made that big run late in the 1st, early in the second; remember the FSU game last season?

One of the things Nelson and others talked about in the pre-season was that last year's team wasn't tough enough to make the big plays down the stretch. Last night's team was. To lose this in discussions of how much the 9th man should have played or whether Duke is going to a delay too soon or too often is practically a text-book definition of losing the forest for the trees.

Sure it's November. But Duke went to Maui to win a championship as a part of building towards winning more important championships later on in the season. Beating a good Illinois team and a very good Marquette team is a major step along the road to restoring Duke to national prominence. It was a big week.

mgtr
11-22-2007, 06:17 PM
I think the bottom line is that, while I will always be a Duke fan (or maybe a Coach K fan, I am not sure which), the extraordinary effort of an exhausted team made me very proud to be a Duke fan. Go get 'em, guys!

Troublemaker
11-22-2007, 07:06 PM
What exactly did Duke win last night? A preseason tournament. Let's not over exaggerate the importance of this win or the HUGE significance of the pre-season tournament. Sure, winning something is always good for the team psyche. But then again some coaches believe that loses helps a team stay grounded as well.

Losses don't help a team that has lost close games over and over again the previous season. This win was HUGE. Players are not robots. You saw how happy they were on the bench when victory was achieved. They came to Maui with a goal and they accomplished the goal. This builds confidence. The next time Duke is in a tournament/championship setting and the opposing team comes out punching hard at the start of the 2nd half to take a lead, Duke will have the confidence that they've been in that situation before, have handled it and come back to win. The win was HUGE. We won a trophy. I like trophies.

Indoor66
11-22-2007, 07:12 PM
Losses don't help a team that has lost close games over and over again the previous season. This win was HUGE. Players are not robots. You saw how happy they were on the bench when victory was achieved. They came to Maui with a goal and they accomplished the goal. This builds confidence. The next time Duke is in a tournament/championship setting and the opposing team comes out punching hard at the start of the 2nd half to take a lead, Duke will have the confidence that they've been in that situation before, have handled it and come back to win. The win was HUGE. We won a trophy. I like trophies.

Amen and Happy Thanksgiving.

_Gary
11-22-2007, 08:10 PM
Very gratifying win! Very gratifying. And I agree with others that there was a psychological need for this group to win this type of game and this tourney (even though, as some have mentioned, it's only a preseason one).

I've loved seeing the confidence of Lance Thomas, the incredible driving of Nelson and Henderson, the continuing development of Z, the consistent play of Greg and John, and the spectacular basketball IQ of Singler. Nolan seems solid as well, and while I must admit that before the season began I thought he and Greg would literally split minutes at the point, I think the distribution that we've seen over the last 3 games is just right for those two. Greg definitely needs to be on the floor around 30 minutes a night, with Nolan spotting him the other 10. And of course both can play together in certain circumstances.

I thought GMR had some great thoughts that have mirrored mine, so I'll quote some of his post:


The biggest downside I took away from Hawaii was, as has been mentioned many times in this thread, the downsizing of the bench. I think what we saw against Illinois and Marquette, the only reasonably competitive games we've been in so far, is, following the past few years of history, is the trend we'll see in all competitive games this year ( I define competitive for K as any game that is 15 points or less). If anything the 7 or 8 man bench may get shorter.

I'm a strong believer that what happens in the NCAA defines a season. I believe that a basketball season, including other tournaments, should focus on preparing for March/April. I don't believe we should sacrifice the regular season, including losing more games totally for the sake of hopefully a better prepared team for the NCAA's. But if it means taking a little more risk, which may mean a slightly higher probability that we may lose one or two more games than playing 6 or 7 players might result in, then so be it. Do you think when someone is cutting down the nets to advance to the final 4, if Duke were to be defeated in that regional final game, that there would be a lot of fans saying, "that's OK, we won the Maui Invitational"?

Referring to last year's dismal end of the year, I quote K. "We basically ran out of gas. And I could not put more gas in them...I think they were really tired. How could I have done a better job of keeping them fresher? By the end, we were dead". Well, one or two games in Maui would not be a big contributor to a fresher team in March, but a season-long string of games not using the bench more would, in my opinion.

That's my fear and takeaway from Hawaii...I deeply hope that what we saw in K's substitution pattern the last two nights does not become the pattern for the season. If it does, I'm real concerned that we will see end of the season collapses like we've seen the past few years.

A few things. I saw the downsizing against Illinois so last night was not a shock to me at all. Am I mad? No. Am I disappointed? Sure. Not just because I'd like to see a deeper bench on principle alone, but because our guys were absolutely gassed last night during most of the second half, and I don't feel it had to be that way. Had we used Marty and Taylor more the night before and in the first half last night, we would have had fresher legs during the stretch run. Of course someone will say, "We might not have been in the position to win had we used those guys more." Someone always says that. I say "Pooh" to that nonsense. Not because I deny that both games were tight and either could have been lost. But I just hate to hear that stuff this early in the season. Plus it's a hypothetical that just doesn't need to be entertained.

But there was a second reason I would have liked to have seen Taylor and Marty in the first half last night. Until late in the half, we were not hitting our three's at all. No one was on at first, and I think it would have been worth it to give both those guys a few minutes to see if either was "hot." That to me is the beauty of our potential depth this year. With all our wings we should almost never suffer from a terrible night beyond the 3-point line. I know we give up something on defense, although with the addition of the zone I don't think it's as big a worry as last year. We have a heady inside player in Singler, and Lance and Z can cover for some mistakes on the perimeter. So I was looking forward to having numerous options on the offensive side as far as outside shooting goes.

And before anyone says it, I'm not for us living and dying by the three. And it's not necessary at all this year, since we've not only got an improved Lance inside (and to a lesser extent an improved Z), but we also have a strong, smart player in Singler. We also have guys driving to the bucket in great fashion. Nelson and Henderson in particular are very impressive at getting all the way to the hoop. And so far they've basically been under control. Certainly better than last year. So I'm not for heaving up threes just to do it. BUT, I do think it's nice to have a lot of different options that can hit the outside shot. When we take Marty and Taylor out of the rotation that option shrinks. It's O.K. when the "regulars" are on, but not so great when they are off (like they were until late in the first half). I know we started 0-4 from the outside at the beginning of the game, and I just would have liked to see if Marty or Taylor were on. Fortunately Greg and Kyle heated up toward the end of the first half and it gave us a little cushion. But perhaps we could have been out to a further lead...

Anyhow, I have really gotten to the place where I'm not expecting us to run 9 or more deep. At least not in anything resembling a competitive game. And I don't believe it's a conscious decision by Coach K to shorten the bench. I just think it's a function of his type of personality (and that's in no way a slam on him). He just seems to be the type of guy who, when he "goes to war", is more apt to rely on a few guys he feels really, really good about rather than extend the bench. Even if those guys are gassed. He just feels more comfortable with those few guys. And that's not a fault. It's just who he is. So I'm in the position at this point where, when it comes to seeing Duke play deep benches, I have to simply say I'll believe it when I see it even though I have seen it in the past ('99 was the last, IMHO - although even that bench shortened in the Final Four).

Having said all that about the bench, I still think this team is greatly improved from last year and that we will run 7 to 8 guys this season. But not 9, 10, or 11 (which I thought was possible at the beginning of this tournament).

Go Duke!

Gary

dukestheheat
11-22-2007, 08:26 PM
Lord Ash-

I didn't really notice our guys woofing a lot; I did, however, on several occasions watch their players woof after their long-bomb shots. Especially that one guard who would cat-walk back up the court sticking his hand out in front of him kind of like he was trying to flag down a taxi cab or something stupid like that.

That player totally irked me.

How often did you catch our guys woofing it up? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I am just saying I didn't see it.

thanks, dth.

jipops
11-22-2007, 08:48 PM
What exactly did Duke win last night? A preseason tournament. Let's not over exaggerate the importance of this win or the HUGE significance of the pre-season tournament. Sure, winning something is always good for the team psyche. But then again some coaches believe that loses helps a team stay grounded as well.

Let's not lose sight of the big picture. It's a long season. If we want to be playing April, then we need a long term vision. I think Depth will be key. If King, Zoubeck, or Pocious aren't ready by then... we could be in trouble.

You're missing the point. This win probably can't be emphasized enough. Last year's team never would have won this game. The coaches and players wanted this win very, very badly. Did you see the reactions after the game? True this was a game in November, but this win IS important to the big picture. I'm sure this has been enormous for the team psyche. More tests are ahead and there certainly will be pitfalls. But I think this team learned a bit more about themselves by winning this one than if they had lost it.

Bob Green
11-22-2007, 09:05 PM
There are many positives to take away from the team's performance in Maui. Most positives have been covered. I am impressed with the play of Lance Thomas and Brian Zoubek. Through five games, they are combining for 36 minutes, 12 points, and 8 rebounds per game. That is solid post play. It will be interesting to track their development as the season unfolds. The next "big" team we play is Wisconsin. The Badgers should provide a real test for our two-headed post player.

Dukefan4Life
11-22-2007, 09:33 PM
I was impressed with Z overall, but i still think he is liability on defense! i think by playing zone more we can utilize his talents more!

Jumbo
11-22-2007, 10:03 PM
and it's not because of all turkey and stuffing I downed tonight. Nope, it's because I just finished reading this thread.

(Here is where I pause, attempt to channel my inner Crazy, and think of an "I Beg To Differ" way of saying what I want to say, somewhat civilly.)

WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU???

(Yeah, I failed there.)

But, seriously, I can't believe that after what any rational person has to consider a monumental win in the development of this team, that a huge portion of this discusion would focus on gripes, particular about bench use. Depth? Depth??? Seriously? Guys, come on. There are too many posters to name, and too many posts to respond to individually. So, I'll do it all here.

Want some perspective Try this one -- the 1997-98 Duke team not only might have been Duke's deepest ever, it's one of the deepest teams I've seen in college hoops in the past 15-20 years. K played a ton of guys all year.

Well, that group went to a little tourney in Maui. They were still learning how to win. They played Arizona in the final -- the defending national champion. And Duke won. Here was the minute breakdown:

Wojo 38
Langdon 29
Brand 29
Battier 31
Chappell 14
Avery 20
James 5
McLeod 24
Burgess 10

Hmmm... looks kind of similar to last night, right? Seven guys played 14 or more minutes. A backup big man played a little less. And a ninth guy got a brief stint. Yet for many of those reserves, their minutes expanded greatly later in the season.

I've got news for you, foks. The definition of depth isn't playing a lot of players. The definition is having a lot of players you can play. Duke has that. But against Marquette, in a game everyone wanted SO BADLY, right from K down to the last manager, K went with the guys who had been playing the best. Big deal. Did Taylor King look upset? The kid was leading the charge when Duke won!

Who didn't play much? Three guys -- King, Pocius and McClure. (Zoubek's stint was shorter than usual, but he's clearly a part of the rotation and I think pretty clearly just wanted to go small in the second half). So, let's look at where they stand.

McClure -- He has just come back from an injury. He didn't look good against Princeton. He's still working his way back into shape. I think Duke will really need him at some point this year, but he's just not ready yet. No harm no foul.

King -- I said all preseason that he'd be a situational player. He has the ability to stretch a defense in the right matchup, but can also be a liability at the other end in the wrong matchup. Plus, a team with a small 4 (like Marquette), neutralizes some of his perimeter effectiveness. Oh, and did I mention that he's a FRESHMAN who has played all of five games? Maybe, just maybe, he'll improve as the year goes on and K can use him more.

Pocius -- Look, we can sing his praises all we want, and I like his game. But the bottom line is that Duke has five better guards. None of those guards played significantly exhausting minutes (Singler was the only guy who did). It's just going to be tough for him to break in front of the other guys. I've crunched the numbers in my heads, and I just don't see any way to get Marty enough minutes without seriously sacrificing minutes for Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer, who are three of Duke's four best players.

Folks, you've got to stop. This was a win to savor. It represented such a turnaround from last year, such a major step, and such a harbinger of even better things to come that dwelling on worries about bench use (and actually admitting that it made the game less enjoyable for you) reveals more about you than it does K. Stop. Watch. Enjoy. And ease up on a non-issue.

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 10:18 PM
What exactly did Duke win last night? A preseason tournament.

You're right. Freaking K. What an idiot. He was smart 6 years ago, but now, all this focus on winning instead of depth. We can do better

77devil
11-22-2007, 10:33 PM
and it's not because of all turkey and stuffing I downed tonight. Nope, it's because I just finished reading this thread.

(Here is where I pause, attempt to channel my inner Crazy, and think of an "I Beg To Differ" way of saying what I want to say, somewhat civilly.)

WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU???

(Yeah, I failed there.)

But, seriously, I can't believe that after what any rational person has to consider a monumental win in the development of this team, that a huge portion of this discusion would focus on gripes, particular about bench use. Depth? Depth??? Seriously? Guys, come on. There are too many posters to name, and too many posts to respond to individually. So, I'll do it all here.

Want some perspective Try this one -- the 1997-98 Duke team not only might have been Duke's deepest ever, it's one of the deepest teams I've seen in college hoops in the past 15-20 years. K played a ton of guys all year.

Well, that group went to a little tourney in Maui. They were still learning how to win. They played Arizona in the final -- the defending national champion. And Duke won. Here was the minute breakdown:

Wojo 38
Langdon 29
Brand 29
Battier 31
Chappell 14
Avery 20
James 5
McLeod 24
Burgess 10

Hmmm... looks kind of similar to last night, right? Seven guys played 14 or more minutes. A backup big man played a little less. And a ninth guy got a brief stint. Yet for many of those reserves, their minutes expanded greatly later in the season.

I've got news for you, foks. The definition of depth isn't playing a lot of players. The definition is having a lot of players you can play. Duke has that. But against Marquette, in a game everyone wanted SO BADLY, right from K down to the last manager, K went with the guys who had been playing the best. Big deal. Did Taylor King look upset? The kid was leading the charge when Duke won!

Who didn't play much? Three guys -- King, Pocius and McClure. (Zoubek's stint was shorter than usual, but he's clearly a part of the rotation and I think pretty clearly just wanted to go small in the second half). So, let's look at where they stand.

McClure -- He has just come back from an injury. He didn't look good against Princeton. He's still working his way back into shape. I think Duke will really need him at some point this year, but he's just not ready yet. No harm no foul.

King -- I said all preseason that he'd be a situational player. He has the ability to stretch a defense in the right matchup, but can also be a liability at the other end in the wrong matchup. Plus, a team with a small 4 (like Marquette), neutralizes some of his perimeter effectiveness. Oh, and did I mention that he's a FRESHMAN who has played all of five games? Maybe, just maybe, he'll improve as the year goes on and K can use him more.

Pocius -- Look, we can sing his praises all we want, and I like his game. But the bottom line is that Duke has five better guards. None of those guards played significantly exhausting minutes (Singler was the only guy who did). It's just going to be tough for him to break in front of the other guys. I've crunched the numbers in my heads, and I just don't see any way to get Marty enough minutes without seriously sacrificing minutes for Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer, who are three of Duke's four best players.

Folks, you've got to stop. This was a win to savor. It represented such a turnaround from last year, such a major step, and such a harbinger of even better things to come that dwelling on worries about bench use (and actually admitting that it made the game less enjoyable for you) reveals more about you than it does K. Stop. Watch. Enjoy. And ease up on a non-issue.

wow-that was quite a rant. this is a discussion board. let people write what they want.

RepoMan
11-22-2007, 10:35 PM
and it's not because of all turkey and stuffing I downed tonight. Nope, it's because I just finished reading this thread.

(Here is where I pause, attempt to channel my inner Crazy, and think of an "I Beg To Differ" way of saying what I want to say, somewhat civilly.)

WHAT IS WRONG WITH SOME OF YOU???

(Yeah, I failed there.)

But, seriously, I can't believe that after what any rational person has to consider a monumental win in the development of this team, that a huge portion of this discusion would focus on gripes, particular about bench use. Depth? Depth??? Seriously? Guys, come on. There are too many posters to name, and too many posts to respond to individually. So, I'll do it all here.

Want some perspective Try this one -- the 1997-98 Duke team not only might have been Duke's deepest ever, it's one of the deepest teams I've seen in college hoops in the past 15-20 years. K played a ton of guys all year.

Well, that group went to a little tourney in Maui. They were still learning how to win. They played Arizona in the final -- the defending national champion. And Duke won. Here was the minute breakdown:

Wojo 38
Langdon 29
Brand 29
Battier 31
Chappell 14
Avery 20
James 5
McLeod 24
Burgess 10

Hmmm... looks kind of similar to last night, right? Seven guys played 14 or more minutes. A backup big man played a little less. And a ninth guy got a brief stint. Yet for many of those reserves, their minutes expanded greatly later in the season.

I've got news for you, foks. The definition of depth isn't playing a lot of players. The definition is having a lot of players you can play. Duke has that. But against Marquette, in a game everyone wanted SO BADLY, right from K down to the last manager, K went with the guys who had been playing the best. Big deal. Did Taylor King look upset? The kid was leading the charge when Duke won!

Who didn't play much? Three guys -- King, Pocius and McClure. (Zoubek's stint was shorter than usual, but he's clearly a part of the rotation and I think pretty clearly just wanted to go small in the second half). So, let's look at where they stand.

McClure -- He has just come back from an injury. He didn't look good against Princeton. He's still working his way back into shape. I think Duke will really need him at some point this year, but he's just not ready yet. No harm no foul.

King -- I said all preseason that he'd be a situational player. He has the ability to stretch a defense in the right matchup, but can also be a liability at the other end in the wrong matchup. Plus, a team with a small 4 (like Marquette), neutralizes some of his perimeter effectiveness. Oh, and did I mention that he's a FRESHMAN who has played all of five games? Maybe, just maybe, he'll improve as the year goes on and K can use him more.

Pocius -- Look, we can sing his praises all we want, and I like his game. But the bottom line is that Duke has five better guards. None of those guards played significantly exhausting minutes (Singler was the only guy who did). It's just going to be tough for him to break in front of the other guys. I've crunched the numbers in my heads, and I just don't see any way to get Marty enough minutes without seriously sacrificing minutes for Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer, who are three of Duke's four best players.

Folks, you've got to stop. This was a win to savor. It represented such a turnaround from last year, such a major step, and such a harbinger of even better things to come that dwelling on worries about bench use (and actually admitting that it made the game less enjoyable for you) reveals more about you than it does K. Stop. Watch. Enjoy. And ease up on a non-issue.

Sometimes, I wish I was Jumbo.

I'm starting to think that UNC fans are just screwing with us. Who else, after a huge and impressive Duke win, would wallow in issues of 9th man depth?

Troublemaker
11-22-2007, 10:45 PM
wow-that was quite a rant. this is a discussion board. let people write what they want.

Poor point. Everyone IS writing what they want to write. Sometimes, that includes responding to the writings of others. I think Jumbo's post is dead-on.

Troublemaker
11-22-2007, 10:51 PM
Sometimes, I wish I was Jumbo.

I'm starting to think that UNC fans are just screwing with us. Who else, after a huge and impressive Duke win, would wallow in issues of 9th man depth?

I dunno, but they should probably check out the rotation used by Ben Howland, coach of UCLA, the best team in the country, when they played in the championship game of the CBE Classic against Michigan State. I don't think Howland was particularly interested in "developing depth" (as if Duke isn't deep) that day, either. Great coaches tend to focus more on winning championships than playing everyone when those championship opportunities arise. Funny how that is.

77devil
11-22-2007, 11:03 PM
Poor point. Everyone IS writing what they want to write. Sometimes, that includes responding to the writings of others. I think Jumbo's post is dead-on.

glad you think so. suggest you read the post more carefully. lot's of strident language declaring what others should and should not do.

Bob Green
11-22-2007, 11:23 PM
There are a lot of great points being communicated in this thread. It is great to be discussing basketball again. IMO, everyone is freely participating in the discussions but there are some posters who are glass half-empty types and some posters who are glass half-full types. The two will always be at odds over specific analysis of specific events. The depth issue is one example. I agree with Jumbo and the rest of the posters who believe we are deep and will play deep all year. Those who believe Coach K is already shortening the bench disagree. In the end, game stats will tell the story. At the end of the year, the telling stat will be how many players averaged double-digit minutes for the season. I predict eight: Singler, Nelson, Paulus, Thomas, Henderson, Scheyer, Zoubek, and Smith. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. It is no big deal either way, but I enjoy discussing it.

WiJoe
11-22-2007, 11:42 PM
Lord Ash-

I didn't really notice our guys woofing a lot; I did, however, on several occasions watch their players woof after their long-bomb shots. Especially that one guard who would cat-walk back up the court sticking his hand out in front of him kind of like he was trying to flag down a taxi cab or something stupid like that.

That player totally irked me.

How often did you catch our guys woofing it up? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I am just saying I didn't see it.

thanks, dth.

Cubillan. The kid's a punk. Saw a lot of that crap last season. Someone needs to give him an elbow in the balls, ala Chris Paul. Maybe that would end that crap. He's sure not going to get it from his mf whining coach.

Troublemaker
11-22-2007, 11:52 PM
glad you think so. suggest you read the post more carefully. lot's of strident language declaring what others should and should not do.

I always read carefully. He said people should stop the depth complaints. I agree. Doesn't mean they have to listen to me.

jgehtland
11-23-2007, 08:40 AM
Of course someone will say, "We might not have been in the position to win had we used those guys more." Someone always says that. I say "Pooh" to that nonsense. Not because I deny that both games were tight and either could have been lost. But I just hate to hear that stuff this early in the season. Plus it's a hypothetical that just doesn't need to be entertained.


This is my favorite argument of the whole thread. Basically, you are saying it is specious to argue that we might not have been in a position to win if those two guys played more because it is "hypothetical", but at the same time, you argue for playing them more because they "might" have hit some threes and "might" have shown us something positive.

Look, folks, *every* argument about how things could have been done differently in that game is hypothetical. In fact, the only thing that ISN'T hypothetical is that Duke won -- doing what it did, which was having an 8 man rotation.

And the best part of all this is that I can remember a time when that was the best we would ever hope for out of our rotation. Somehow, people's expectations of what an acceptable rotation is have been skewed - probably by Pitino's platooning at UK in the late 90's or Nolan Richardson's "40 minutes of hell" teams. But we won three NCs with either 7 or 8 man rotations.

Remember what K said during Dunleavy's freshman year. It isn't the number of bench players you have, its how you can use them. His point then was that Dunleavy was so versatile that his 15-20 minutes off the bench might spell players at 3 different positions, so he acted as a three-man bench all by himself. Well, against Marquette, only two players played more than 30 minutes: Singler and Nelson, and I'd argue that every minute of theirs was an important one.

What counts with a bench isn't how many minutes an individual off the bench gets, but how much rest the starters get, and if our guys can't go 30 minutes out of 40, that's (to me) unreasonable expectations on the part of the fans.

Now, I'd love to see Singler get some more rest, but we've been hearing over and over about Markie's off season endurance training, etc., so 34 minutes a game shouldn't be unreasonable for our only senior and team captain.

If he starts going 40, I'll worry.

DFS78
11-23-2007, 09:21 AM
I have to say the improvement of Lance stood out over everything.Great win especially after last years beat down from them.

_Gary
11-23-2007, 09:24 AM
This is my favorite argument of the whole thread. Basically, you are saying it is specious to argue that we might not have been in a position to win if those two guys played more because it is "hypothetical", but at the same time, you argue for playing them more because they "might" have hit some threes and "might" have shown us something positive.

Look, folks, *every* argument about how things could have been done differently in that game is hypothetical.

One big difference here. Those of us who have suggested that a deeper bench would be beneficial in the long run have admitted that, while we don't want to lose solely as a means to develop depth (no one wants that, yet it also is brought up as a straw man consistently), we do understand that it's possible we might lose a game here or there in the process of being devoted to developing a deeper bench. And if that prepares us for the unexpected foul trouble of a Final Four game, or a late season injury, so that we can still compete at a high level, I'm all for it. That's the difference in these hypotheticals.

On another note, I'll quickly share something that has really bothered me over the last 5 years here at the DBR when this subject comes up. Back when JJ was a freshman and he kinda hit a wall in March, one or two folks gently mentioned that perhaps he was worn out. That was meant with the usual sarcasm, denial and condescension that some in this very thread have used for years. After JJ's second year, the same concerns were raised that perhaps depth would have helped a tad because it seemed like he and some of the other guys were tired at the end. Again we were received the same smart aleck, know-it-all comments from certain posters. Yet at the beginning of his junior year, JJ and some of the coaches admitted - SHOCK - that the guys were tired at the end of the previous year. Nevertheless the same pattern ran through the year here at the DBR. As JJ's senior year started and the same pattern was emerging, even after Coach K himself mentioning fatigue, we still had guys that just wouldn't admit they had perhaps been wrong in previous years when they out and out dismissed concerns about depth. And so the beat goes on.

Look, I see the truth in what Bob has said. A lot of this is perception. Some see the glass half empty and some see it half full. But the problem is certain posters write as if they are the cat's meow and demigods that simply can NOT be wrong. Ever. And they dismiss the concerns of others as trolling (utterly stupid in this case) or just the delusions of the mad. And they do this in spite of the fact they were proven dead wrong in years past, by the statements of the head coach himself. But will you ever once hear some of these guys admit they were even a little wrong? Never. Not gonna happen. That would be to admit that not only are they not perfect, but some of us they so love to disparage were right. God forbid.

I think this current team will go deeper than recent teams. We do seem to have enough solid players to allow us more flexibility and enough guys that, even if they don't get the minutes during the year I'd like to see them get, we should be in good shape come March. We shouldn't see the JJ syndrome come into play with anyone this year. And I don't think we will. But I can't believe my point about simply wanting to see if Marty or Taylor could hit some open shots when the regulars weren't on early is that far afield. Surely that point at least merits more than condescending dismissal. It's not an outrageous thing. If you want to say the win, psychologically, was more important to this particular team than risking playing those guys then I'll entertain that. I even agreed in my first post it was important. So I'm not condescendingly dismissing others thoughts ( like those that start a post with "this is my favorite argument" - sarcasm duly noted). I just think that should go both ways here at the DBR.

Just my two cents.

Gary

Lord Ash
11-23-2007, 09:53 AM
Lord Ash-

I didn't really notice our guys woofing a lot; I did, however, on several occasions watch their players woof after their long-bomb shots. Especially that one guard who would cat-walk back up the court sticking his hand out in front of him kind of like he was trying to flag down a taxi cab or something stupid like that.

That player totally irked me.

How often did you catch our guys woofing it up? I'm not saying it didn't happen, I am just saying I didn't see it.

thanks, dth.

Hey,

No no, not OUR guys, I meant theirs. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

jgehtland
11-23-2007, 10:00 AM
One big difference here. Those of us who have suggested that a deeper bench would be beneficial in the long run have admitted that, while we don't want to lose solely as a means to develop depth (no one wants that, yet it also is brought up as a straw man consistently), we do understand that it's possible we might lose a game here or there in the process of being devoted to developing a deeper bench. And if that prepares us for the unexpected foul trouble of a Final Four game, or a late season injury, so that we can still compete at a high level, I'm all for it. That's the difference in these hypotheticals.

On another note, I'll quickly share something that has really bothered me over the last 5 years here at the DBR when this subject comes up. Back when JJ was a freshman and he kinda hit a wall in March, one or two folks gently mentioned that perhaps he was worn out. That was meant with the usual sarcasm, denial and condescension that some in this very thread have used for years. After JJ's second year, the same concerns were raised that perhaps depth would have helped a tad because it seemed like he and some of the other guys were tired at the end. Again we were received the same smart aleck, know-it-all comments from certain posters. Yet at the beginning of his junior year, JJ and some of the coaches admitted - SHOCK - that the guys were tired at the end of the previous year. Nevertheless the same pattern ran through the year here at the DBR. As JJ's senior year started and the same pattern was emerging, even after Coach K himself mentioning fatigue, we still had guys that just wouldn't admit they had perhaps been wrong in previous years when they out and out dismissed concerns about depth. And so the beat goes on.

Look, I see the truth in what Bob has said. A lot of this is perception. Some see the glass half empty and some see it half full. But the problem is certain posters write as if they are the cat's meow and demigods that simply can NOT be wrong. Ever. And they dismiss the concerns of others as trolling (utterly stupid in this case) or just the delusions of the mad. And they do this in spite of the fact they were proven dead wrong in years past, by the statements of the head coach himself. But will you ever once hear some of these guys admit they were even a little wrong? Never. Not gonna happen. That would be to admit that not only are they not perfect, but some of us they so love to disparage were right. God forbid.

I think this current team will go deeper than recent teams. We do seem to have enough solid players to allow us more flexibility and enough guys that, even if they don't get the minutes during the year I'd like to see them get, we should be in good shape come March. We shouldn't see the JJ syndrome come into play with anyone this year. And I don't think we will. But I can't believe my point about simply wanting to see if Marty or Taylor could hit some open shots when the regulars weren't on early is that far afield. Surely that point at least merits more than condescending dismissal. It's not an outrageous thing. If you want to say the win, psychologically, was more important to this particular team than risking playing those guys then I'll entertain that. I even agreed in my first post it was important. So I'm not condescendingly dismissing others thoughts ( like those that start a post with "this is my favorite argument" - sarcasm duly noted). I just think that should go both ways here at the DBR.

Just my two cents.

Gary


I wasn't condescendingly dismissing your whole argument; I was condescendingly dismissing the notion that the "glass half-full types" were just arguing a "hypothetical", as if EVERYbody isn't arguing hypotheticals in this whole thread.

You'll note that the rest of my post very clearly laid out why I think the depth questions aren't an issue, but also how I'm willing to change my mind given certain conditions (like Nelson logging 40 minutes a game, like JJ did for a year or so).

So, argue away. I never said you couldn't, nor did I insult you. I do, however, take umbrage at the notion that I'm somehow arguing a hypothetical while others aren't, because that's just not true.

Lord Ash
11-23-2007, 10:06 AM
And again, I have to agree that there is a reason depth comments came up. People are pointing out that Taylor King was happy we won and wasn't sitting on the bench sulking. So? What does that have to do with anything?

We have run into a wall of exhaustion in years past. It has been clear. Almost EVERY single poster who posted here posted about how happy they were about a WIDE number of aspects of the game. However, a few have said that, in a game where we ended up with some really exhausted players after a 3 game/3 day stretch, which was during a preseason tournament, they would have liked to see a little more of a player or two early on in the second half of the game with the hope that this would have kept the primary mover-and-shakers a touch more well rested for the end of the game. They have enough faith in King and Pocious that if those guys had played a minute at the 12 minute mark it would not have cost us the game, and would have actually been a benefit in the long run. Pretty simple. And to take it a step further, some have said that they hope that we will use these guys, especially to keep a valuable freshman rested so that when the games that REALLY matter come at the end of the year he will not hit the Freshman Wall that SO many freshmen hit.

I don't get why this is causing such commotion, especially since it is an issue that we HAVE, like or not, been burned by in the past. In this particular issue have things looked generally better this year? Yes. Does that mean it ceases to exist? No. Are there a multitude of aspects to this, such as potential match-ups? Yes. Does it mean that there is nothing left to discuss and that we shouldn't watch for this? No.

While I was chatting with a fellow Tent #1er on the phone postgame, I mentioned I was glad to see a little zone. He sighed and said "Yeah, but we've been saying for years that a little zone could have helped in some situations. I just wish we had seen it earlier; this wasn't some amazing development like some announcers are making it out to be, it has felt like weakness for years." This feels slightly similar.

So take a long view at all the comments that were made first. Then, take the depth comments that were made in context, both within the context of the post and historical context.

Now, how about Lance Thomas; he got a lot of crunch minutes! Do you think that will continue all year, or was it a result of his good play earlier in the game?

_Gary
11-23-2007, 10:13 AM
I wasn't condescendingly dismissing your whole argument; I was condescendingly dismissing the notion that the "glass half-full types" were just arguing a "hypothetical", as if EVERYbody isn't arguing hypotheticals in this whole thread.

You'll note that the rest of my post very clearly laid out why I think the depth questions aren't an issue, but also how I'm willing to change my mind given certain conditions (like Nelson logging 40 minutes a game, like JJ did for a year or so).

So, argue away. I never said you couldn't, nor did I insult you. I do, however, take umbrage at the notion that I'm somehow arguing a hypothetical while others aren't, because that's just not true.

Jgehtland, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough. While I do admit I thought you might be taking a swipe at me with your opening line, I really wasn't directing my comments at you in particular. Heck, I don't remember your stance on these things over the long haul enough to do that. I was thinking of a collective whole (kinda like the Borg - LOL) who have consistently put down others with condescension and smarmy comments (often straw men creations), while never willing to admit they were even a little wrong. You were not who I had in mind at all. Sorry about that.

Take care,

Gary

3rdgenDukie
11-23-2007, 10:15 AM
One big difference here. Those of us who have suggested that a deeper bench would be beneficial in the long run have admitted that, while we don't want to lose solely as a means to develop depth (no one wants that, yet it also is brought up as a straw man consistently), we do understand that it's possible we might lose a game here or there in the process of being devoted to developing a deeper bench. And if that prepares us for the unexpected foul trouble of a Final Four game, or a late season injury, so that we can still compete at a high level, I'm all for it. That's the difference in these hypotheticals.

On another note, I'll quickly share something that has really bothered me over the last 5 years here at the DBR when this subject comes up. Back when JJ was a freshman and he kinda hit a wall in March, one or two folks gently mentioned that perhaps he was worn out. That was meant with the usual sarcasm, denial and condescension that some in this very thread have used for years. After JJ's second year, the same concerns were raised that perhaps depth would have helped a tad because it seemed like he and some of the other guys were tired at the end. Again we were received the same smart aleck, know-it-all comments from certain posters. Yet at the beginning of his junior year, JJ and some of the coaches admitted - SHOCK - that the guys were tired at the end of the previous year. Nevertheless the same pattern ran through the year here at the DBR. As JJ's senior year started and the same pattern was emerging, even after Coach K himself mentioning fatigue, we still had guys that just wouldn't admit they had perhaps been wrong in previous years when they out and out dismissed concerns about depth. And so the beat goes on.

Gary

Here's another hypothetical. A deep bench can inhibit the critical, intuitive aspects of offensive and defensive teamwork between the most important players on the team. Singler needs to play in actual game situations as much as possible with DeMarcus, Lance and Gerald. Sacrificing five minutes a game so he can play with Marty or Taylor is damaging to his learning the very intricate details of the tendencies of players he will be playing with to win games, and that ain't Marty and Taylor, God love 'em. See UNC, 2007, for a golden example of guys who sometimes had no idea how to play with each other.

As for JJ, that wall he hit was always a bit mysterious to me. Was the wall before or after the 3-games-in-a-row ACC tourney in March? You know, the one where he provided numerous spectacular performances, usually in the third game. Was he dog-tired when he poured in 33 against NCSU - most in the second half - his freshman year? Or was he 'fresh' then, and hit the wall a after a 4-5 day layoff in between the ACCs and the NCAAs?

I think a lot of people just think the 'wall' theory is unsupported by much evidence. Weird how some players who logged minutes equal to or greater than JJ in the past - Dawkins, Hurley, Battier, etc. - seemed to have no issue whatsoever with the 'wall' - as they saved superhuman performances for games beyond the point where they should have been 'dead'. And those guys expended MUCH more energy on the defensive side of the floor. And even weirder is how many great college, or even HS players, seem to be able to immediately step up and contribute in the MUCH more brutal NBA season in terms of minutes played. If 18-22 year old kids can't run hard for 35 minutes twice a week, the issue is with our conditioning program, not K's strategy.

RepoMan
11-23-2007, 10:16 AM
And they do this in spite of the fact they were proven dead wrong in years past, by the statements of the head coach himself.

The head coach has said, on occassion, that certain players were faitgued and/or that the team ran out of gas. Can you find a quote where he said he should have given more PT to someone on the bench to avoid that problem?

Maybe, just maybe, the head coach has some insights on the degree to which the bench players could meaningfully contribute to game play, and maybe he concluded that, while giving more PT to the bench might decrease fatigue, it also decreased the chance of success because of a decrease in quality of play.

In any event, its amazing to me that, after watching the Marquette victory, people are more worried about bench usage than optimistic about the chances for an exceptional season.

_Gary
11-23-2007, 10:18 AM
Thanks again, Lord Ash. Very well said! I'm in full agreement, and hope that others you disagree with the depth issue in general will at least pause for a moment to consider your well worded post.

Gary

_Gary
11-23-2007, 10:24 AM
The head coach has said, on occassion, that certain players were faitgued and/or that the team ran out of gas. Can you find a quote where he said he should have given more PT to someone on the bench to avoid that problem?

Other guys here are much better at Googling old quotes and such. But it seems to me that within the context of saying some players were fatigued at the end of the previous season there was at least one comment by Coach K and/or assistant coaches and players that it wouldn't be like that again because of more depth. I may be wrong, but I sure remember something like that being said before the start of a recent season.

As for JJ getting tired and whether or not the stats bear that out, all I'll say is that JJ and the coaches did own up to it at some point. So anyone that wants to say it was a myth is not only disagreeing with me (and fellow posters here), but much more importantly disagreeing with JJ himself and the coaching staff. Having a good game in the ACC or whatever does NOT negate the very clear evidence that he did get tired. And again, testimony from "the horse's mouth" should be the end all of that discussion, IMHO.

Gary

Saratoga2
11-23-2007, 10:27 AM
The head coach has said, on occassion, that certain players were faitgued and/or that the team ran out of gas. Can you find a quote where he said he should have given more PT to someone on the bench to avoid that problem?

Maybe, just maybe, the head coach has some insights on the degree to which the bench players could meaningfully contribute to game play, and maybe he concluded that, while giving more PT to the bench might decrease fatigue, it also decreased the chance of success because of a decrease in quality of play.

In any event, its amazing to me that, after watching the Marquette victory, people are more worried about bench usage than optimistic about the chances for an exceptional season.

I don't buy the idea that kids of that age tire out over the season. What I do buy is that the kids can tire out when playing three games in three days or when playing in a tournament and then jumping right into another tournament, such as going from the ACC to the NCAAs.

In Maui, both Duke and Marquette had tired players who weren't performing at their peak. Some of the missed shots and free throws could have been the result of tired players on both sides. The coaches have to make the decision on whether a tired player who matches up well is better than a rested player with matchup problems.

Duke won the game and I have to believe the coaches did well with their substitutions. Less competitive games will see more of the bench getting playing time. I am satisfied that will provide the development that they need without risking a loss on the record.

Troublemaker
11-23-2007, 10:40 AM
But I can't believe my point about simply wanting to see if Marty or Taylor could hit some open shots when the regulars weren't on early is that far afield. Surely that point at least merits more than condescending dismissal. It's not an outrageous thing. If you want to say the win, psychologically, was more important to this particular team than risking playing those guys then I'll entertain that. I even agreed in my first post it was important. So I'm not condescendingly dismissing others thoughts ( like those that start a post with "this is my favorite argument" - sarcasm duly noted).

No, no, you missed the point. The point was that you "said pooh" to the "nonsense that doesn't need to be entertained" (that's not condescending, Gary?) that Duke could've lost by playing their weaker players more. Your reasoning was that it is a hypothetical. Then, you go and lay out hypotheticals involving Marty / Taylor / whoever. Which is hilarious. And by hilarious, I mean hypocritical (and hilarious). And by hypocritical, I mean hypocritical two times over when you count that you condescended while complaining about being condescended to.

Anyhoo, I'm trying to limit how many times I post something that is word-for-word what I've said a dozen times before. But please keep in mind, folks, that there are dozens of things that cause a player to fatigue over the course of the season. And there are dozens of things that cause a freshman to hit a wall at the end of the season. The difference of 5 minutes (or whatever) of playing time probably does not rank high among those things. Keep in mind that at top tier basketball programs, it is quite common for players to say that practices are tougher than games, for example. The idea that 5 extra minutes of PT controls fatigue is taken as an assumption by some of you. Don't assume it.

duketaylor
11-23-2007, 10:42 AM
I would think K used this tourney and coached as if a precursor for the March tourney when Duke will have three games in three days (we hope), looking to see where this team is now and where he wants it to be then. Factor that in and the point Jumbo made about match-ups and you have a tourney-managed win over a very good team. We couldn't afford the defensive liability, IMO. I thought K and the team played with great energy and emotion and this experience should bode well down the road.

captmojo
11-23-2007, 10:43 AM
I would wager that if JJ had it to do all over again, he'd want to have won a nc. He had a bad night against a good group of defenders. He was entitled to it. The law of averages will tell you that you probably subject to an occasional tough performance from time to time. Nolan Ryan never struck out all 27. The last season for him looked like a team that stood waiting to watch a great player hit phenomenal shots and if he missed, there would be Shelden to put'em back.

This season looks like a more team effort in that when one slips, others are picking up the slack. These early games are proving this and are a good sign of things to come. I trust Coach in being able to substitute the right players for the right circumstance.

Troublemaker
11-23-2007, 10:58 AM
Does anyone want to entertain the idea of having a stickied "Depth" thread at the top of the board that can be a catch-all for these repetitive postgame depth discussions that seemingly cause strife among the members of this community? Note: it would be the "strife" part, not the "repetitive" part that might make this a good idea. We repeat things all the time but only a few subjects cause strife. So why not a dedicated thread for that topic? That way, those that want to talk about it can, and those that don't can just ignore (technically, you can ignore them anyway when they're merged into the main thread, but I have a feeling this would help the strife). I'm just throwing this suggestion out there. It could be horrible (likely) or good.

Also, I'm not suggesting more work for the moderators. How it would work would be community members take it upon themselves to put depth discussions there, and if depth discussion occurs elsewhere, members can just remind each other "Please see depth thread" or something.

_Gary
11-23-2007, 11:09 AM
No, no, you missed the point. The point was that you "said pooh" to the "nonsense that doesn't need to be entertained" (that's not condescending, Gary?) that Duke could've lost by playing their weaker players more. Your reasoning was that it is a hypothetical. Then, you go and lay out hypotheticals involving Marty / Taylor / whoever. Which is hilarious. And by hilarious, I mean hypocritical (and hilarious). And by hypocritical, I mean hypocritical two times over when you count that you condescended while complaining about being condescended to.

Troublemaker, do you not see the difference between a post of mine which speaks in generalities (without calling anyone out by name) and toward a general attitude VS. you calling me out by name and insulting me? Seems the difference should be very, very clear.

Oh, and I could say the same thing about reposting things word-for-word that I've posted many times over the years. So there's no superior ground there.

Gary

3rdgenDukie
11-23-2007, 11:27 AM
Other guys here are much better at Googling old quotes and such. But it seems to me that within the context of saying some players were fatigued at the end of the previous season there was at least one comment by Coach K and/or assistant coaches and players that it wouldn't be like that again because of more depth. I may be wrong, but I sure remember something like that being said before the start of a recent season.

As for JJ getting tired and whether or not the stats bear that out, all I'll say is that JJ and the coaches did own up to it at some point. So anyone that wants to say it was a myth is not only disagreeing with me (and fellow posters here), but much more importantly disagreeing with JJ himself and the coaching staff. Having a good game in the ACC or whatever does NOT negate the very clear evidence that he did get tired. And again, testimony from "the horse's mouth" should be the end all of that discussion, IMHO.

Gary

Fine, maybe he was tired, but the stats would then clearly indicate that 'being tired" wasn't the cause for his poor performances, as he certainly had many great performances when he should have been 'too tired' to have them. And it wasn't just 'a good game in the ACC', it was many spectacular performances over four years against great competition in a physically grueling three day event late in the season.

As far as 'they said it, therefore it must be the case', I totally disagree. Fatigue is a reliable late-year excuse, and make no mistake, there has to be an excuse. Some alternatives would be, "our game plan was flawed, we didn't get it to Shelden", "we slowed it down too much", "our team is too slow", "we completely overlooked the opponent", etc. 'The fatigue factor' is A LOT easier to use when players and coaches are pressed for reasons why they lost.

JJ had bad shooting nights when we lost, because if he didn't, we wouldn't have lost. It happens, especially at the highest levels of competition against FF teams who have great athletic defenders, and is completely mutually exclusive of fatigue.

Lord Ash
11-23-2007, 11:31 AM
In any event, its amazing to me that, after watching the Marquette victory, people are more worried about bench usage than optimistic about the chances for an exceptional season.

Now THAT is a strawman if I've ever seen one. Not a single poster has said that they are more worried about the bench than optimistic about a great season. In fact, many have gone out of their way to say the opposite.

elvis14
11-23-2007, 11:35 AM
What a great thread full of heated discussion and some good observations. I'll add mine, everyone else already has:

- First, I hope everyone had a Happy Thanksgiving celebrating Duke's tournament victory. No matter how small, it's always nice to win tourneys and it's good experience for our young team.

- Add me to the list of guys that thought Lance and Brian looked good and continue to improve

- I continue to like the way different guys step up in different games and different situations.

- Add me to the list of guys that think this is the type of game we would have lost last year.

- Add me to the list of guys that really likes this team, how together they are and how much fun they are to watch

- Add me to the list of guys that thought we should have used more players in the second half (See Lord Ashes comment, I agree and don't need to go typing the same thing).

- Henderson, was off and we still won. That's so cool.

- Singler's all around game, nice!

- I was on the phone with a good friend and fellow Duke fan during the game. He made an interesting point about Paulus. I think we all know that Paulus is very beatable off the dribble. What bothered my friend wasn't just that (who didn't James beat off the dribble before he missed another shot?) it was what Paulus did afterwards. He pointed out his poor recovery and rotation. I thought it was an interesting observation and it's something I'll watch in the future to see if he's correct.

- Last year I often thought that McClure was the teams "glue" and that he did lots of positive things that don't always show up in a stat line. I look forward to getting him back on the court. So far this year, I see Jon in that role somewhat....even when his stats are not great, good things happen for Duke when he's on the court.

- Someone else mentioned something I noticed as well, we often did a poor job coming off screens (basically not using the screen well b/c we were too far from the screener and allowing the defender to stay right with us).

- If anyone needs me to use their ticket to the E. Ky game on Sunday, you know where to find me :D, I'm willing to help out.

Elvis

_Gary
11-23-2007, 11:36 AM
As far as 'they said it, therefore it must be the case', I totally disagree. Fatigue is a reliable late-year excuse, and make no mistake, there has to be an excuse. Some alternatives would be, "our game plan was flawed, we didn't get it to Shelden", "we slowed it down too much", "our team is too slow", "we completely overlooked the opponent", etc. 'The fatigue factor' is A LOT easier to use when players and coaches are pressed for reasons why they lost.


Wow. All I can say is that I don't believe JJ or the coaches were lying to us when they talked about fatigue at any point. But that's just me. And yes, I do realize some coaches look for the most convenient "excuse" they can. But I've never seen Coach K in that light. I'm not saying he's a saint, but I've always felt he was a straight shooter.

Gary

_Gary
11-23-2007, 11:41 AM
Last year I often thought that McClure was the teams "glue" and that he did lots of positive things that don't always show up in a stat line. I look forward to getting him back on the court. So far this year, I see Jon in that role somewhat....even when his stats are not great, good things happen for Duke when he's on the court.

Absolutely. At least on the "defensive" end. And since we know he's slowed by an injury right now and his lack of time in Maui isn't how it will be a month or two from now (he absolutely will be in the rotation) I'm not as worried about the depth. That's why I think we will have 8 regulars for sure, and not just 7.

Gary

jimsumner
11-23-2007, 11:49 AM
What do we mean by fatigue? Maybe Redick's perceived fatigue at the end of the '06 season was more emotional and psychological fatigue than physical fatigue. Players might play 4 or 4 hours or hoops every day in the summer for weeks on end. But they don't do it on national TV, with thousands of screaming fans, and national honors at stake.

Over the years I've talked to lots of players and former players and I've never heard anyone complain about playing too much basketball. But I've had more than a few comment on how emotionally and mentally draining the whole thing is.

I suspect that it's more important for a team to effectively manage the emotional ebb and flow of a season than it is to worry about an extra couple of minutes per game in playing time.

Troublemaker
11-23-2007, 11:59 AM
Troublemaker, do you not see the difference between a post of mine which speaks in generalities (without calling anyone out by name) and toward a general attitude VS. you calling me out by name and insulting me? Seems the difference should be very, very clear.

Oh, and I could say the same thing about reposting things word-for-word that I've posted many times over the years. So there's no superior ground there.

Gary

Gary, where's the insult? Keep in mind that if I ever do something inconsistent like calling an argument "nonsense" and then using that same argument myself, I would expect you to call me out on it. And I would not take it as an insult. As for the difference between quoting your post and responding directly to you as opposed to beating around the bush and referring to "certain people" this and "certain people" that, the difference is that my way is less confusing and annoying. Just my 2 cents.

Lastly, when I spoke about reposting things verbatim, I was not reaching for higher ground. As far as I'm concerned, I'm always on higher ground ;) . What I was doing was trying to remind you that there are a bunch of factors that cause fatigue over the course of the season, and I've pointed that out for years now. How much do the 5 extra minutes of PT really affect fatigue in comparison to practice minutes that outnumber game minutes by a factor of X (again, keeping in mind, that players at big-time programs often say games are easier than practices), the taxing travel schedule, the mental energy of juggling school and basketball and girlfriends and who knows what else, the mental energy of dealing with the media, and for freshmen, dealing with living away from home for the first time and doing all of the above for the first time, including incorporating themselves into Duke's conditioning program for the first time, and on and on and on. Kyle Singler and the other freshmen will become fatigued at the end of the season regardless of whether he plays 32 minutes a game or 27 minutes a game. All college basketball players will suffer some mental and physical fatigue at the end of a long grinding season regardless of whether they play 32 minutes a game or 27 minutes a game.

Lord Ash
11-23-2007, 12:02 PM
I totally agree; fatigue isn't always that you ran around so much. The reason guys like Battier didn't "fatigue" like guys like J.J. is that a guy like Battier was never put through the same paces as J.J., who was a guy who had to run, constantly, for 40 minutes with guys hanging on his sleeves and bumping him and crowds tossing batteries at him. I think it is different. To be honest, the only guy I am worried about with fatigue this year is Kyle. As a freshman he just won't be in the same shape as the older guys, he won't know instinctively when to "conserve" or HOW to "conserve," and he will also be a big target this year. The other guys, especially the older guys, I think will do just fine. I will say he managed his potential cramps VERY nicely in the game.

Just gotta point out Jon Scheyer again. The more I think about him, the more I adore his game. He just has such a nose for the ball, and is constantly in the right place at the right time. He may technically be a bench guy, but it seemed to me we did our best when he was in. I'll have to look at the old +/- thread to see if that bears out.

dukestheheat
11-23-2007, 12:03 PM
a quick take on 'depth' and K, since it's an important part of this thread.

1) Depth comes down to players you can 'use' in certain situations.
2) Having a lot of bodies on a team doesn't necessarily mean you are deep.
3) K plays who will help us win, period. If the player isn't in the game, K feels that that player can't contribute most/much right at THAT moment of the game.
4) The Marquette game was very close and it was a battle! (not to be confused with Duke versus NCCU, where K could/wanted to/did play all Duke players to help each player).
5) A close, competitive game may not be the best proving ground for developing the game of each player on the team; in those games, K is rolling the marbles for the WIN.

So, I do appreciate discussions of player 'depth'; my point is that during close, highly competitive games (ie, Marquette) fewer players on our roster will make it in b/c of the need for the win, and in lesser games (NCCU, etc.) many more Duke guys will get in.

GO DUKE!

dth.

CatfiveCane
11-23-2007, 12:05 PM
Here's another hypothetical. A deep bench can inhibit the critical, intuitive aspects of offensive and defensive teamwork between the most important players on the team. Singler needs to play in actual game situations as much as possible with DeMarcus, Lance and Gerald. Sacrificing five minutes a game so he can play with Marty or Taylor is damaging to his learning the very intricate details of the tendencies of players he will be playing with to win games, and that ain't Marty and Taylor, God love 'em. See UNC, 2007, for a golden example of guys who sometimes had no idea how to play with each other.

As for JJ, that wall he hit was always a bit mysterious to me. Was the wall before or after the 3-games-in-a-row ACC tourney in March? You know, the one where he provided numerous spectacular performances, usually in the third game. Was he dog-tired when he poured in 33 against NCSU - most in the second half - his freshman year? Or was he 'fresh' then, and hit the wall a after a 4-5 day layoff in between the ACCs and the NCAAs?

I think a lot of people just think the 'wall' theory is unsupported by much evidence. Weird how some players who logged minutes equal to or greater than JJ in the past - Dawkins, Hurley, Battier, etc. - seemed to have no issue whatsoever with the 'wall' - as they saved superhuman performances for games beyond the point where they should have been 'dead'. And those guys expended MUCH more energy on the defensive side of the floor. And even weirder is how many great college, or even HS players, seem to be able to immediately step up and contribute in the MUCH more brutal NBA season in terms of minutes played. If 18-22 year old kids can't run hard for 35 minutes twice a week, the issue is with our conditioning program, not K's strategy.


I'm not too sure why people have a hard time believing in the "wall". Almost every athlete says it true. They always warn rookies to "pace themselves". Heck every time I go back to running, my body starts to "break-down" after several weeks.

Anyway, you mention that maybe Singler needs his big-time minutes to be a great player. This may be true. yet this isn't about Singler. It's about DUKE. And from where I'm sitting, in order for Duke to win BIG... we will need out depth. We will have to mask are obvious defiencies with a fast pace offense and defense.

Didn't several of the players say we were going to average 100 ppg? Well in the past 3 we've probably average 80 or so. Sorry, but for this team, I'm not too sure that's going to equal success in March/April. So we're going to need a run and gun system. If Singler can play 40 minutes every game for an entire season with no drop-off.... GREAT! But I doubt he can.

jimsumner
11-23-2007, 12:08 PM
"Didn't several of the players say we were going to average 100 ppg."

Not to my knowledge. 100 ppg is absurdly unrealistic. 90 ppg is not.

CatfiveCane
11-23-2007, 12:12 PM
a quick take on 'depth' and K, since it's an important part of this thread.

1) Depth comes down to players you can 'use' in certain situations.
2) Having a lot of bodies on a team doesn't necessarily mean you are deep.
3) K plays who will help us win, period. If the player isn't in the game, K feels that that player can't contribute most/much right at THAT moment of the game.
4) The Marquette game was very close and it was a battle! (not to be confused with Duke versus NCCU, where K could/wanted to/did play all Duke players to help each player).
5) A close, competitive game may not be the best proving ground for developing the game of each player on the team; in those games, K is rolling the marbles for the WIN.


dth.

1) You have to develop depth. It just doesn't magically appear. Coaches and players gain confidence because they have been used in prior situations.

2) Exactly. That's why you have to develop depth. Put them in real game situations.

3-5) This is the crux of the problem for many here. There is not only ONE way to win. It's obvious Coach K likes to put his faith in 6-7 players a year. That's fine except what happens when the are fatigued or in foul trouble (like in 2004 vs UConn). We are in trouble. And in FACT this seems to happen a lot for Duke. Coach k puts all his eggs in one basket. He never developed a bench and thus he doesn't put them in critical situations. Yet this doesn't have to be . Many other coaches really develop a deep bench where certain positions are interchangable. Wouldn't it be great if we have minimal drop-off when certain starters goto the bench? Yes it would. and yes it's possible. But you have to work at it all season long.

_Gary
11-23-2007, 12:13 PM
TB, no harm no foul. All is good, I'm just trying to keep things civil and I do personally believe one of the ways that can be accomplished is to speak to points and philosophies as opposed to individuals, especially if one is apt to use sarcasm or condescension. Generally, online boards are not the best places for those things because we aren't privy to facial expressions, voice inflections and like things. Therefore it's difficult to know when someone is being friendly and when they really are being mean-spirited. But again, no harm no foul as far as I'm concerned with you. Thanks.

I also agree that fatigue is more than just minutes played. And there's no doubt in JJ's case it was exactly about those things Lord Ash pointed out. However, that doesn't mean a deeper bench with a tad less on court pressure wouldn't have helped JJ a bit in all these facets. Just saying.

I'd love to see us wear teams down with great full court pressure d the entire season. But I don't think we can accomplish that with only 7-8. Not a big deal, but I still think it'd be nice to literally run 10 guys a game (even if some of them are only seeing a few minutes each half) because I do believe at the end of the season we'd be more apt to be fresh. I also like the fact that, with this particular team's makeup (many wing-type players that can fire up the long ball), we could look for a guy or two that's hot from outside and possibly not have to suffer from poor shooting nights as much. Just seems logical to me. But again, that's just my two cents.

Gary

dyedwab
11-23-2007, 01:01 PM
One thing I noticed down the stretch, more so in Marquette than in Illinois, but noticebale in both was that K was using a situational substitution model, using Lance on the defensive end and Gerald in the offensive end.

I hadn't seen him do that in a long time - and I think it is an attribute to how we are building depth this year.

A great three days for our guys....I agree with other who said that this is a game we would not have won last year.

dw0827
11-23-2007, 01:01 PM
I'd love to see us wear teams down with great full court pressure d the entire season. But I don't think we can accomplish that with only 7-8. Not a big deal, but I still think it'd be nice to literally run 10 guys a game (even if some of them are only seeing a few minutes each half) because I do believe at the end of the season we'd be more apt to be fresh.

Gary

I, too, would love to see us run opponents into the ground . . . and against some teams, we probably can and will.

But Marquette had some really good guards and they may well have been able to keep up with us. I don't know how deep they went. Might not have been the best strategy.

My point is that we must always keep in mind that this is a competition against another team. And they are trying to win, too. And they have strengths and weaknesses. And our coaches develop strategies and tactics for each game that optimize our chances of winning . . . and sometimes that means run alot, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it means use alot of zone, sometimes it doesn't. And so on. What we do in one game against one opponent doesn't necessarily translate to what we might do against the next opponent.

So when we have all these issues regarding depth, or zone, or whatever, I'd urge patience. Let's see what the trends are over time . . .

I hate zone . . . but I hate losing even more. And if Coach K thinks zone is going to help us win, then exactly who the hell am I to suggest otherwise? I trust him and his ability to coach our guys.

Constantstrain 81
11-23-2007, 01:38 PM
I agree the one of the earlier posters - the fatigue experienced by JJ and others in the past is emotional fatigue. It comes from pressure and expectations - probably even more so with someone (like JJ) who has to work for shot and hit the shots from a distance and against defenses specifically devised for him. I'm principal of a high school and I watch our boys team beat an opponent on the road when they are not supposed to and turn around and lose badly to the same opponent at our place. The fatigue that I see in their eyes is from pressure and expectations and the whole "do I have to beat these guys again?" thing. Getting 4-5 extra minutes of rest won't cure that fatigue.

We could average 100 points a game - but we won't. 85 - 90 is more realistic for our team (I believe we are averaging 89 now). Averaging 85 means some high games (against lessor opponents) and some low games (against tougher or more deliberate opponents). We have scored well the last three games (two of them in the 70's against tough opponents). I felt that our offense performed well, without the benefit of a lot of turnovers and easy hoops, in both games.

I'm thinking about depth and minutes and I alway realize this (in my humble opinion): Rest when you are tired is one thing; rest when you are exhausted and hurting is another. The coaches have to manage that as well. Running hard in the first half and then sitting for a few minutes is good. The body is ready for it. Coming out in the second half when you are hurting and exhausted and sitting for a few minutes - the body doesn't always respond well to that. I'm sure that K thinks about that - he has been doing this for a long time.

dukestheheat
11-23-2007, 01:54 PM
CatfiveCane-

The point is, I think, that versus Marquette, Duke was in a fight and that's not the best time to try to develop the lesser-used players on the Duke bench.

K feels that we aren't as competitive stretching the whole bench in that type of game (Marquette, a fight) versus when it 'just doesn't matter!' (NCCU, a cakewalk).

I think many coaches probably see it just like that: the tight games warrant your best players, whether that's five or 10; the lesser games will provide chances to stretch the bench and allow players to play meaningful minutes.

The bottom line is this: for a Duke guy not to get into the game, something is going on behind the scenes that no one can see other than K, the coaches and the players can see, really. The FAN sees 'a depth problem or a problem with development of depth or the bench' whereas the COACH sees it as 'great opponent/need best players out there, NOW; lesser opponent, stretch the bench, get the guys minutes, and develop more players'.

So ultimately it's got to come down to the player, in practice, to turn heads and earn more playing time; clearly, Duke is a hyper-competitive environment and players know this well before they come here to play. If we're not seeing Marty (for example) on the floor as much as we like or as much as we feel he should be out there, then a lot of that has to come down on Marty in that versus the competition that we have on our team, he's not quite able to fight through that and garner more time based on his practice performance.

dth.

3rdgenDukie
11-23-2007, 03:10 PM
I'm not too sure why people have a hard time believing in the "wall". Almost every athlete says it true. They always warn rookies to "pace themselves". Heck every time I go back to running, my body starts to "break-down" after several weeks.

Anyway, you mention that maybe Singler needs his big-time minutes to be a great player. This may be true. yet this isn't about Singler. It's about DUKE. And from where I'm sitting, in order for Duke to win BIG... we will need out depth. We will have to mask are obvious defiencies with a fast pace offense and defense.

Didn't several of the players say we were going to average 100 ppg? Well in the past 3 we've probably average 80 or so. Sorry, but for this team, I'm not too sure that's going to equal success in March/April. So we're going to need a run and gun system. If Singler can play 40 minutes every game for an entire season with no drop-off.... GREAT! But I doubt he can.

"The wall" just seems to be very arbitrary. I certainly find it difficult to believe that JJ Redick can drop 33 on NCSU playing in his third game in three days, and then be totally and utterly exhausted vs. Kansas 11 days later having played three more games. Just as mind-boggling is how he apparently was on the good side of 'the wall' two years ago, checking in with an unreal MVP performance culminating in a virtuoso game versus a brutal BC team, only to be rendered useless after a five day layoff two weeks later vs. LSU. Sorry, doesn't make a lick of sense. The correlation between JJ's struggles and talented, athletic defenders like Temple and Agar was far greater than between JJ and his recent on-court exertions.

I didn't say a thing about Singler needing big minutes to be great, not sure how you could read that into my post. Singler IS great, and will be regardless of his mpg. What I do strongly believe, is that there is most certainly a drawback to playing a lot of players over the course of the season. While you may 'develop' a bench - I think this is primarily the role of practice - it also reduces the amount of time key players are on the court together. UNC was totally disjointed at times last year because at any given time the five players on the floor weren't in sync. I'll wager the amount of time their key players were all on the court together was minimal, and it came back to bite them when folks were unsure what the offensive goal was down the stretch versus GTown. Our best teams were not particularly deep, but they did have a remarkable sense of teamwork/unity. IMO, this is far more important to success, and is largely the result of playing a lot of minutes together during the season.

3rdgenDukie
11-23-2007, 03:45 PM
3-5) This is the crux of the problem for many here. There is not only ONE way to win. It's obvious Coach K likes to put his faith in 6-7 players a year. That's fine except what happens when the are fatigued or in foul trouble (like in 2004 vs UConn). We are in trouble. And in FACT this seems to happen a lot for Duke. Coach k puts all his eggs in one basket. He never developed a bench and thus he doesn't put them in critical situations. Yet this doesn't have to be . Many other coaches really develop a deep bench where certain positions are interchangable. Wouldn't it be great if we have minimal drop-off when certain starters goto the bench? Yes it would. and yes it's possible. But you have to work at it all season long.

You clearly haven't been a Duke fan more than a couple of years. K puts his faith in as many people as warrant it. He has played 8-9 people regularly numerous times in his career, when it made sense. UConn is perhaps the worst examples of 'lack of depth' I can think of. We played 7 players a lot, and had an eighth, Nick Horvath, who was a fifth-year player with tons of experience. We lost because they fouled out three post players. I think it is absurd, not to mention likely useless, to try and plan for a once-in-history situation like that.

Many coaches want a deep bench, many don't care. Didn't seem to be an issue for FL in '06, 'Cuse in '03, us in '01, AZ in '97, etc. UNC went eight deep in '05, and beat an even shallower UI team who managed to win 37 games despite playing barely more than six players. Who can forget the 7-man George Mason team that rolled past UNC and the deepest UConn team anyone has ever seen - in OT no less. Rick Pitino went 10-12 deep with talented players for years, and won a single championship, often losing to teams who played far fewer players, but who displayed much greater teamwork, like UNC in '95. Depth is massively overrated.

RelativeWays
11-23-2007, 04:04 PM
I have to admit the UNC/NCSU Grad post did have a point. Are we really savoring this win? I think a lot of sports writers did not think we were good enough to outlast Marquette, yet we did. LGD! I've voiced concerns about bench play earlier in this thread, but lets not forget DUKE WON!!!!!!!

Bob Green
11-23-2007, 04:18 PM
I suspect that it's more important for a team to effectively manage the emotional ebb and flow of a season than it is to worry about an extra couple of minutes per game in playing time.

Jim, Thanks for posting this excellent point. I believe you have hit the nail on the head!

RepoMan
11-23-2007, 04:46 PM
Now THAT is a strawman if I've ever seen one. Not a single poster has said that they are more worried about the bench than optimistic about a great season. In fact, many have gone out of their way to say the opposite.

Try reading the posts early in this thread, amigo. More than one person complained that they could not enjoy the game because, essentially, Marty didn't play. You might want to figure out what "straw man" means before using it in a sentence.

Lord Ash
11-23-2007, 05:00 PM
Hmm thanks mon ami, I am pretty sure I know what straw man means. You set up an argument to debate that no one had really made. Heck, you are strawmanning it right now; I didn't see a single post that said "I couldn't enjoy the game because Marty didn't play." You are fabricating an argument just to go against it, when that argument didn't exist in the first place.

You don't even seem to know what point you are trying to invent. You are going back in forth just in the post right above here, going from "People worry more about the bench than they anticipate having a great season" to "People said they couldn't enjoy the game last night because Marty didn't play," which are not, in the least, the same thing.

Lord Ash
11-23-2007, 05:18 PM
I did of course mean back AND forth.

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 09:25 PM
Gary,
If you're going to call me out, try another method than the passive aggressive "certain posters" routines, okay? It's ridiculous. Everyone knows who you're talk about. So let's just get down to it an argue like adults.
Also, a note to everyone who has responded since my post: Not one of you mentioned the 1997-98 example I provided. None. Zero. Zilch. It's still sitting out there, so either argue against it, or concede that I might actually know what I'm talking about.


One big difference here. Those of us who have suggested that a deeper bench would be beneficial in the long run have admitted that, while we don't want to lose solely as a means to develop depth (no one wants that, yet it also is brought up as a straw man consistently), we do understand that it's possible we might lose a game here or there in the process of being devoted to developing a deeper bench. And if that prepares us for the unexpected foul trouble of a Final Four game, or a late season injury, so that we can still compete at a high level, I'm all for it. That's the difference in these hypotheticals.

First of all, if there were a stat measuring the use of the term "straw man" per post, you'd be on top of the leaderboard. It's not a "straw man" to suggest that developing depth for the sake of doing so isn't worth risking a loss (which is what we've been saying). Additionally, the argument you've presented is unbelievably extreme. Isn't it possible develop depth without using everyone in every game? How did Lance Thomas improve so much this year despite playing a lot less last year? Depth can be developed in practice, in blowouts, or simply over time. Why is it wrong to suggest that a freshman like Taylor King might be a bit overmatched early in the year against certain opponents, but a couple of months from now, he might be in better shape to handle the same situation? Isn't that why the team practices?
And speaking of practice, I keep hearing about this "three games in three days" argument as an excuse for why K should have used more guys. But it works another way, too. Three games in three days means no practices between games. It means less than a day to cram and prepare for a new opponent, and not much time to work on weaknesses. So, for argument's sake, say Taylor King was consistently making a mistake. Say it was something that really concerned Coach K. Is it wise to throw him out there and reinforce the mistake, or does it make sense to hold him out until he can work on it in practice?



On another note, I'll quickly share something that has really bothered me over the last 5 years here at the DBR when this subject comes up. Back when JJ was a freshman and he kinda hit a wall in March, one or two folks gently mentioned that perhaps he was worn out. That was meant with the usual sarcasm, denial and condescension that some in this very thread have used for years. After JJ's second year, the same concerns were raised that perhaps depth would have helped a tad because it seemed like he and some of the other guys were tired at the end. Again we were received the same smart aleck, know-it-all comments from certain posters. Yet at the beginning of his junior year, JJ and some of the coaches admitted - SHOCK - that the guys were tired at the end of the previous year. Nevertheless the same pattern ran through the year here at the DBR. As JJ's senior year started and the same pattern was emerging, even after Coach K himself mentioning fatigue, we still had guys that just wouldn't admit they had perhaps been wrong in previous years when they out and out dismissed concerns about depth. And so the beat goes on.

Someone else did a great job countering your argument with JJ's ACC Tourney results. But I'll add something else to it -- if you want to say Coach K should have used more guys, name them. Half the problem in recent years has been a devoid of scholarship players. This year, Duke is the stronger in this area than it has been for years. The last time Duke had close to this many useful bodies was, conveniently, J.J.'s frosh year (2002-03), which you referenced above. Well, that year nine players averaged double-digit minutes. J.J. averaged 30.7 minutes, which is basically 3/4 of a game. For a guy who supposedly hit a wall, he had an odd way of showing it in the three games leading up to the loss to Kansas: 30 points in 34 minutes vs. NCSU, 16 points in 36 minutes (4-8 shooting, 8-9 FT) vs. Colorado State and 26 points in 33 minutes (9-13 shooting, including 5-7 from downtown) vs. Central Michigan. Yet everyone only seems to remember his 2-for-16 game against Kansas.
The following year, Duke consistently went eight deep. Dockery was Duke's only scholarship guard off the bench, though. And the only scholarship player who wasn't a part of the rotation in the Final Four was Lee Melchionni. Should Lee have received some of J.J.'s minutes? Was that your solution?
As a junior, Duke had even less available depth. Duke had eight recruited players and numerous injuries/illnesses meant that Reggie Love had to play significant minutes. Who was supposed to give J.J. more rest?
And then we come to J.J.'s senior year, when Duke was 32-4. Duke lost Ewing from the year before, but his minutes basically went to Paulus. So, the question is this: Should Pocius have taken some of J.J.'s minutes? Is that what you would have wanted? And while everyone remembers J.J.'s shooting performance against LSU, what about the fact that Dockery, Paulus, Nelson and Melchionni went a combined 3-of-19 from the field in that game? Were they all tired too? Was that a symptom of depth? Duke's problem that game was that no one could hit a jump shot, plain and simple. (And, FWIW, I would have thrown Pocius in for a couple of minutes that night when no one was hitting, just to see if he could have knocked one of those wide-open jumpers down.)



Look, I see the truth in what Bob has said. A lot of this is perception. Some see the glass half empty and some see it half full. But the problem is certain posters write as if they are the cat's meow and demigods that simply can NOT be wrong. Ever. And they dismiss the concerns of others as trolling (utterly stupid in this case) or just the delusions of the mad. And they do this in spite of the fact they were proven dead wrong in years past, by the statements of the head coach himself. But will you ever once hear some of these guys admit they were even a little wrong? Never. Not gonna happen. That would be to admit that not only are they not perfect, but some of us they so love to disparage were right. God forbid.

Woe is you. Also, wrong are you. I'll stop talking like Yoda now, and mention that I consistently admit when I am wrong. In fact, I had to do so quite recently, when I spent much of the summer explaining that Scheyer would start over Henderson, only to see Henderson grab his spot. Not only did I admit I was wrong on the board, I sent a PM to someone doing the same. But I guess I just live to disparage you, right?



But I can't believe my point about simply wanting to see if Marty or Taylor could hit some open shots when the regulars weren't on early is that far afield. Surely that point at least merits more than condescending dismissal. It's not an outrageous thing.

It did merit more than "condescending dismissal." It warranted real responses, which you got. And I'll give you another. I don't the regulars weren't "on early." Duke played two subs at guard already, so I don't see where Marty would have found minutes. Three's simply no way that I would have wanted two of Scheyer, Nelson or Henderson out of the game at any time. None of those guys played heavy minutes. None looked tired. And King got to play, it was just a lousy matchup for him. I agree that it is preferable to find a way to avoid using Singler for 37 minutes. I'm also confident that a) King will improve b) McClure will get healthy or c) both will happen. And that will allow Singler to get a bit more of a break.

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 09:28 PM
Does anyone want to entertain the idea of having a stickied "Depth" thread at the top of the board that can be a catch-all for these repetitive postgame depth discussions that seemingly cause strife among the members of this community? Note: it would be the "strife" part, not the "repetitive" part that might make this a good idea. We repeat things all the time but only a few subjects cause strife. So why not a dedicated thread for that topic? That way, those that want to talk about it can, and those that don't can just ignore (technically, you can ignore them anyway when they're merged into the main thread, but I have a feeling this would help the strife). I'm just throwing this suggestion out there. It could be horrible (likely) or good.

Also, I'm not suggesting more work for the moderators. How it would work would be community members take it upon themselves to put depth discussions there, and if depth discussion occurs elsewhere, members can just remind each other "Please see depth thread" or something.

Not sure. I'll bring it up to the other mods. It certainly would be nice for to be able to write one monster post refuting several myths about K not using depth.

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 09:30 PM
Hmm thanks mon ami, I am pretty sure I know what straw man means. You set up an argument to debate that no one had really made. Heck, you are strawmanning it right now; I didn't see a single post that said "I couldn't enjoy the game because Marty didn't play." You are fabricating an argument just to go against it, when that argument didn't exist in the first place.

You don't even seem to know what point you are trying to invent. You are going back in forth just in the post right above here, going from "People worry more about the bench than they anticipate having a great season" to "People said they couldn't enjoy the game last night because Marty didn't play," which are not, in the least, the same thing.

"As one poster said, our lack of using the bench took away from my enjoyment of this game." -Udaman (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=65101&postcount=43)

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 09:37 PM
1) You have to develop depth. It just doesn't magically appear. Coaches and players gain confidence because they have been used in prior situations.

Or they lose confidence because they play poorly when forced into situations before they are ready. I've cited an example involving a college freshman may times here. Playing time can help guys, but it can also retard growth.


2) Exactly. That's why you have to develop depth. Put them in real game situations.

There are other ways to "deveop depth." Like, say, in practice, where you can stop the action, correct a mistake, and move on.


This is the crux of the problem for many here. There is not only ONE way to win. It's obvious Coach K likes to put his faith in 6-7 players a year. That's fine except what happens when the are fatigued or in foul trouble (like in 2004 vs UConn). We are in trouble. And in FACT this seems to happen a lot for Duke. Coach k puts all his eggs in one basket. He never developed a bench and thus he doesn't put them in critical situations.

As someone already pointed out, Duke was eight-deep all year long in 2003-04. And, as someone else said, you're lacking any historical context. 2002-03, 1997-98, 1996-97 = all very deep teams from the last decade. I can go back beyond that, if you'd like.


Yet this doesn't have to be . Many other coaches really develop a deep bench where certain positions are interchangable. Wouldn't it be great if we have minimal drop-off when certain starters goto the bench? Yes it would. and yes it's possible. But you have to work at it all season long.

You mean like being able to sub Jon Scheyer in for DeMarcus Nelson and Gerald Henderson? Nolan Smith for Greg Paulus? Brian Zoubek for Lance Thomas? Seems like Coach K already has some spots that are fairly interchangeable; all Duke needs now is a reliable backup for Singler (or, he can just give Scheyer more minutes and go small). Maybe that's something that will -- gasp -- develop over the course of the year...

Bob Green
11-23-2007, 09:53 PM
What I find sad is that the two trains of thought:

1. Coach K doesn't develop his bench
2. Coach K doesn't develop big men

are urban legends created in Chapel Hill, or more accurately, in the minds of Carolina fans, but Duke fans, typically but not exclusively, younger Duke fans buy into this nonsense and are guilty of perpetuating the myth.

Urban legend # 1 is easily dismissed by reviewing the years 88-91 and 98-99. Coach K utilizes a deep bench when he has talent available on the bench. Urban legend # 2 is easily dismissed by looking at the careers of Brand, Boozer, and S. Williams.

All the way over here in Japan, I have to put up with Carolina fans and their constant whining about Duke and Coach K, the refs, Dickie V, etc...I have one good friend and co-worker who is very knowledgeable about college basketball (for a Carolina fan), but he never tires of harping about Duke and the urban legends listed above are his favorite topics.

_Gary
11-23-2007, 10:25 PM
Sigh... Jumbo, I don't have the will or the energy to respond to your latest rant tonight. Don't know if I'll do it at all. It's just not worth it with you. Honest. I'm sure you, or one of your folk, will come back and tell me I'm not responding because I can't. God knows that isn't the case. But one thing kills me. Your accusation that I use straw men arguments all the time. That's nothing short of a lie. Yep. I said it. A LIE. I discuss in good faith, and do my best not to create straw men. Can't say the same for everybody else though. For instance, there's no part of my argument that was extreme. That didn't even make any sense for you to say it. Everything I've said has been very measured and I've complimented the team over and over. I've said I don't believe we will only run 7. I said we'd run 8. I've never said I want a loss just to develop a bench. I've simply said that I wouldn't be as upset about an individual loss during the season as some apparently would be if it was because we had played Marty a couple of minutes. That's all I've said. I'm not advocating some radical, strange line-up change, but the way you write it you'd think I'm pushing for Marty to start. Geesh, you accuse me of extremes, but it's really you who write in extremes if you think you can build up a straw man just to topple it down. But whatever. I'm not even sure you understand what the term means if you are accusing me of being at the top of the list. Ughhhh....

Tell you what, Jumbo. I'll make you really happy and just take a hiatus. That way you can find someone else to have an attitude with. But for the record I'm a basketball fan for over 30 years, and a Duke fan for over 20 now. My concern (not complaining or griping) about any area of the team I love and respect doesn't come from being a bandwagon fanboy. It comes from wanting to see this team win championships because I truly believe Duke basketball has the best coach in the business and turns out fine human beings. I hope they win it all every year, including this one.

Go Duke!

Gary

CDu
11-23-2007, 11:00 PM
"As one poster said, our lack of using the bench took away from my enjoyment of this game." -Udaman (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=65101&postcount=43)

Enjoying the game less is not the same thing as being unable to enjoy the game.

Not having beer when bowling takes away from my enjoyment of bowling. It doesn't mean I am unable to enjoy bowling without beer.

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 11:00 PM
or one of your folk
What is that supposed to mean?


But one thing kills me. Your accusation that I use straw men arguments all the time.

That's not what I said. I said you use the term "straw men" constantly (at least that's what I think I said, and certainly what I meant). You accuse people of using "straw men" at a remarkably high rate. That was my point.


Tell you what, Jumbo. I'll make you really happy and just take a hiatus.

Why would that make me happy?


That way you can find someone else to have an attitude with.

I responded to your words not to you. Stop personalizing things. Please.

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 11:03 PM
Enjoying the game less is not the same thing as being unable to enjoy the game.

Not having beer when bowling takes away from my enjoyment of bowling. It doesn't mean I am unable to enjoy bowling without beer.

Obviously. That's why in my original (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=65307&postcount=103)post, I wrote, "It represented such a turnaround from last year, such a major step, and such a harbinger of even better things to come that dwelling on worries about bench use (and actually admitting that it made the game less enjoyable for you) reveals more about you than it does K."

CDu
11-23-2007, 11:06 PM
Obviously. That's why in my original (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=65307&postcount=103)post, I wrote, "It represented such a turnaround from last year, such a major step, and such a harbinger of even better things to come that dwelling on worries about bench use (and actually admitting that it made the game less enjoyable for you) reveals more about you than it does K."

I think we're discussing different issues, then. I thought you were referencing the debate in which one poster stated that people didn't enjoy the game because Marty wasn't in (taking it further than what you said). If that's not what you were referring to, then feel free to disregard my post as it then doesn't pertain to you.

_Gary
11-23-2007, 11:18 PM
That's not what I said. I said you use the term "straw men" constantly (at least that's what I think I said, and certainly what I meant). You accuse people of using "straw men" at a remarkably high rate. That was my point.

Ok, before I leave for my hiatus I should at least clear this one up since you took time to clarify what you meant. I misunderstood you here. I apologize. I have recently talked about the use of straw men frequently. I thought you were accusing me of engaging in straw man tactics above and beyond everyone else.

Alright, on to my hiatus. See you sometime down the road.

Gary

Jumbo
11-23-2007, 11:21 PM
Ok, before I leave for my hiatus I should at least clear this one up since you took time to clarify what you meant. I misunderstood you here. I apologize. I have recently talked about the use of straw men frequently. I thought you were accusing me of engaging in straw man tactics above and beyond everyone else.

Alright, on to my hiatus. See you sometime down the road.

Gary

I don't understand why you're taking a hiatus. This is a message board. We debate stuff. No one is targeting you.

If you feel like you need some time away for whatever reason, far be it for me to stop you, but I'd hate for you to head off into the sunset on account of me.

Lord Ash
11-24-2007, 12:13 PM
Enjoying the game less is not the same thing as being unable to enjoy the game.

Not having beer when bowling takes away from my enjoyment of bowling. It doesn't mean I am unable to enjoy bowling without beer.

+1 The post earlier from the one poster made the rather extreme statement that people were more worried about depth than enjoying the win. I disagreed and said no one said that; a few people said that such worries did take away from their enjoyment a bit, but that is most definately NOT the same thing as "more worried about depth" than "enjoying the game." It is like if I had a hundred dollars and you took away two. Did you take away money? Sure. Did you take away so much money that I have none left? Nope.

Okay, I am going to put this depth thing to rest;

Some posters enjoyed the game immensely, loved seeing the development (especially in guys like Brian and Lance) and the togetherness and especially how we gutted it out at the end for a REAL solid win. They felt like the rotation was fine, for this game, because of the match-ups and what was at stake, and think that the rotation will vary during the year depending on a number of factors, some of which we are not even privy to.

Some posters enjoyed the game immensely, loved seeing the development (especially in guys like Brian and Lance) and the togetherness and especially how we gutted it out at the end for a REAL solid win. A tiny percentage of their thoughts were spent on hoping that the rotation in this single game was more about this single game and would indeed vary during the year depending on a number of factors, some of which we are not even privy to.

I think that sums it up; I don't think ANYONE really had worries to the extent that some posters think they are reading; maybe a combo of people not posting as deeply about what they liked because they felt like it was covered, along with the tone-deaf nature of the internet and the tendency a lot of people have to dwell on problems with maybe more vigor than they watch for positives made it FEEL like more attention was being paid to the sub patterns than the other aspects of the game, but I don't think such was the case.

So... next game! (Or other thoughts on this one!) :D

greybeard
11-24-2007, 12:59 PM
Marquette is a very good club and was out to cut Duke to ribbons. They played great, and their guards put tremendous pressure on Duke to perform at an extremely high level on both ends. Duke was equal to the task and put Marquette under the same type pressure.

No way do I second guess K with regard to substitutions in this one. I thought that the bench players made great contributions when called upon. None screwed up, which given the pressure and pace that they were walking into is saying something. Great early win for a relatively green team.

throatybeard
11-24-2007, 01:05 PM
Erin Andrews: This sweet sixteen loss must be a tough end to a great season. What did SEC school have tonight that you guys didn't?

Jon Scheyer: To tell you the truth, Erin, Coach's decision not to use Marty in Hawaii has really worn me out. I can't tell you how much that extra 2 minutes of rest four months ago would have helped me.

Saratoga2
11-24-2007, 01:42 PM
Marquette is a very good club and was out to cut Duke to ribbons. They played great, and their guards put tremendous pressure on Duke to perform at an extremely high level on both ends. Duke was equal to the task and put Marquette under the same type pressure.

No way do I second guess K with regard to substitutions in this one. I thought that the bench players made great contributions when called upon. None screwed up, which given the pressure and pace that they were walking into is saying something. Great early win for a relatively green team.

So many of the posts resemble the bickering that went one here through the years. I have learned to tune those posts out totally. Thanks for posting something positive about the game and the coaching.

dukie8
11-24-2007, 04:32 PM
the wins in maui were great and hopefully they will be stepping stones to more development over the next 4 months. i felt like last year's team peaked in december (probably the gtown game) and regressed over the next 3 months to the point that the wheels were coming off against vcu.

one thing that nobody has mentioned and i think is worth noting is paulus's play in the last minute. now i realize that the marquette guards are particularly good and quick and guys that paulus doesn't match up well with. he certainly played much better than i expected and much better than he would have last year. however, he picked up his dribble TWICE in the last minute and it felt like deja vu. the second time he basically coughed it up and it was mere luck that the ball bounced to one of our guys and not the other team. had it bounced to marquette, the outcome very likely could have been different. for a junior experienced pg, his play in crunch time looked a lot like it always has. i know we won the game, but we aren't going to win a lot of close games if he continues that kind of play at the end of the game.

mgtr
11-24-2007, 09:24 PM
I was very happy with the outcome in Maui. I believe our players learned a bunch, and were able to suck it up at the end to pull out a win against a very, very tough Marquette team. Made me proud to be a Duke fan.
Now, for those glass-half-empty folks, I recommend you start a movement to have Coach K removed on the basis that he doesn't develop his bench, cannot develop big men, and doesn't play Marty enough.
Rots of ruck!

heath_harshman4
11-24-2007, 09:46 PM
In the first game against princeton Duke played great. But you could tell there was a defninite drop off when the bench players came in, its somewhat expected, but I think, and apparently so does Coach K, that there was too much of a drop off and that maybe his bench guys aren't YET good enough or as good as he thought. They mentioned that in the broadcast in the Illinois game that he was unhappy with his bench play. Which is probably why they didnt see much time in the last 2 games and especially in the Marquette game. Thoughts?

VS. EKU SUNDAY 10:00 PST.