Depth and Bench Use

[VaDukie]

I had a fairly lengthy conversation with some friends on Duke basketball, and one of the topics we came to was depth. This may be an incredibly obvious observation to some of you, but we realized that in the last 10 years we've had 4 Duke classes of a single player. Maggette, Duhon, Ewing, and Deng were all the lone players in their classes. So its not like K wasn't playing some guys, but a lot of years we never had more than 7 or maybe 8 ACC caliber players.

Anyway, this may have been incredibly obvious to most of you but it seemed like a revelation to us. K looks like he's adjusted as we've recruited classes of 5 (although only 2 remain), 4, and now 3 with the possibility of adding Patterson. Next year may be more like 98 with no one playing more than 30 or so minutes a game.

[Classof06]

There were reasons for those one-person classes. Deng was the only one coming in his year because of the Redick/Randolph/Williams/Thompson/Melchionni/Dockery class the year before. Demarcus came in by himself also, though if K knew Thompson would leave like he did, that probably wouldn't have been the case. That being said, you're right that K has balanced the classes more evenly as of late.

Looking at the players we have, especially at the 1-3 with Paulus, Smith, Nelson, Pocius, Scheyer, Henderson, and maybe even King, I'd say just about all of these kids are good enough to get reasonable minutes. At the 4 you have Singler, McClure and Thomas which gives good enough depth at that position. At the 5 you have Zoubek and obviously the jury is still out on Patterson.

So, with the exception of the Center/Post position, Duke is deeper than it's been in a while. The fact that Patterson would really complete this squad is why we've all been on the edge of our seats since the season ended. Anyhow, we have 10 kids (excluding Patterson) who should or could potentially see minutes. I would love to see K open it up and play all (or at least more) of these kids, to speed up the tempo. With both a healthy Paulus and Nolan Smith able to share ballhandling duties, I think this can be done and it needs to be, as Duke's half-court struggles signaled the need for more transition baskets.

[DukeDevilDeb]

I'm sure this was just a slip of the keyboard, but DeMarcus didn't come in by himself. Dave McClure was also in his class. And wasn't that the year that Livingston didn't come? Early defections (both prior to and after matriculation) have contributed to this phenomenon as well.

[SilkyJ]

There was some discussion of this on the thread "two year outlook for Men's BB"'

Here were my thoughts, which relate specifically to K's recruiting strategy:


I am of the opinion (I'm sure I'm not the only one) that K is adjusting his philosophy a little b/c of early entries to the L. We were spoiled for a while as literally no one EVER left Duke early until the exodus of '99. I think K was assuming that he would get 3-4 years out of just about everyone, which would mean he would only have to "reload" every couple of years, and in between just recruit one or two kids:

97 Brand, Burgess, Battier, Avery
98 Maggette
99 Jwill, boozer, dun
00 Duhon
01 Ewing
02 JJ, Sheld, M thompson, Lee Melch, Dock
03 Deng, and Humphries who didn't make it
04 DMarc and Mcclure, and Livingston who didn't make it

Then when Humphries and livingston didn't make it and deng left after one year k realized this could easily turn into a pattern, and therefore a problem. So he changes his philosophy up and is just going to reload every year, or at least more often:

05 Greg, Josh, Marty, Jamal, Boateng
06 Scheyer, Gerald, Zoubek, Lance
07 Singler, King, Smith, hopefully PP

Anyway, I believe that this is the reason we haven't won since '01, and people are all over Coach K. You've got to imagine that if we had Deng playing with JJ and sheld for 2 more seasons we would have had a good shot.

The game has changed and Coach K is adjusting and we have to hope his new philosophy will work. And since we're talking about one of the greatest coaches of all time, I see no reason why you would bet against him.

[jimsumner]

Duhon didn't come in by himself. Andre Sweet also was in that class. He didn't stick around long but that's another discussion.

Kris Humphries was in the same class as Deng. Didn't show up but that's a different discussion.

So Maggette and Ewing were the only intentional one-player classes.

[Clipsfan]

And of those, Maggette makes complete sense, given that we had one of the best classes of all time the year before, combined with the fact that no one had ever left Duke early.

Ewing makes relative sense, as K knew that he had a phenomenal class in the wings for the following year, and that he was keeping JWill and Boozer.

[jimsumner]

Believe it or not, Duke had three one-player classes in five seasons; Bill Foster brought in Mike Gminski in 1977 and Vince Taylor in 1979 and K brought in Doug McNeely for his first team, 1980-81.

This did contribute to some serious depth and talent shortfalls early in K's tenure.

[Cameron]

Well, if we do sign Patterson, then I won't really care if we only sign one guy for next fall. As long as his name is Elliot Williams.

[Bob Green]

Well, if we do sign Patterson, then I won't really care if we only sign one guy for next fall. As long as his name is Elliot Williams.

If we only sign one player in the Class of 2008, I hope his name is Greg Monroe. Hopefully, we sign Greg Monroe, Elliot Williams, and Drew Gordon.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[Waynne]

We've got incredible depth at 2 and 3 (Nelson, Scheyer, Henderson. Pocius, Smith, and King), some at 4 (Singler, Thomas, and McClure), and not much at all at 1 (Paulus) or 5 (Zoubek). It's not as though we haven't tried to recruit players for the 4 and 5 positions, it's just that lately they haven't worked out (Sasha Kaun, Jon Brockman, Eric Boateng, Jamal Boykin, PP?).

I know Smith probably will spell Greg at the point when necessary, but Nolan didn't play PG in high school, so it is unrealistic to expect him to be an ACC-caliber PG, especially during his first year. Let's hope Greg stays healthy and has a banner year.

Unless Z-man makes a quantum leap between his frosh and sophmore years, which is possible but not likely, we will have to play small ball next season and will have serious rebounding and post defense issues. It's difficult to play aggressive perimeter defense without a big man down low to stop penetration. If we lack a post presence, we should have a good but not great year in 2007-08, similar to 2006-07. I know people like to dump on Josh, but he did play very good defense in the paint most of the time this year, and his skills there will be sorely missed. This means Greg Monroe is the key recruit for us this coming year.

[ACCBBallFan]

Duke Blue-White Game will be interesting.

There are those who say Coach K will play his best 5 in ACC season and that would be

Paulus (some say Smith but that is not gonna happen)
Scheyer
Nelson
Henderson
Singler

Or some say

Paulus (some say Smith but that is not gonna happen)
Nelson
Henderson
Lance
Singler

Either way, in the Blue-White game, the counter would be something like

Smith/ guarded man to man by Nelson/Henderson/Paulus
Scheyer/King guarded man to man by Paulus/ Nelson/Henderson
Pocius guarded man to man by Nelson/Henderson/Paulus
McClure/King guarded man to man by Lance/Singler
Zoubek/King guarded man to man by Lance/Singler

And I do not see the game being a blow-out, assuming this team was allowed to play zone in the Blue-White game.

In fact, just to be sporting, I will even throw in Patterson, and unless you were to choose the 5 that K would not

Smith
Singler
King
Patterson
Zoubek

There is a counter with any other combination of Duke players to prevent a blow-out.

For example even with

Paulus (some say Smith but that is not gonna happen)
Henderson/Scheyer
Nelson
Singler
Patterson

That just makes the second team defense better with Lance or Scheyer/Henderson.

Smith
Scheyer/Henderson (whichever is not on the starting 5)
Pocius/King
King/Lance
Zoubek/Lance

If you want to talk about how badly UNC or UCLA or whoever would destroy any of these lineups or Duke in total, start your own thread.

The point here is not only that Duke is deep but that there is not so large a difference in skill set to believe K will not use his bench this year, if performance in practice rather than urban myth is the criteria for PT.

K could also mix/max some combination of this second team used to playing zone and some of the better athletes on the first team to occasionally mix things up with a zone, very occasionally.

Or full court press with a lineup like

Smith
Henderson
Nelson
McClure
Lance

Or bombs away with a lineup like

Paulus
Scheyer
(Pick one of Smith, Pocius, Nelson, Henderson or go with Zoubek in center)
Singler
King

[prefan21]

Why exactly did you "throw in Patterson" ...?

[kydevil]

Let's please not mention Patterson in any Duke lineups, thanks.

[mgtr]

I believe that we will see a whole lot of experimentation early on. I do not think we can predict who will be the five best or even two or three best at this stage. I can even imagine Coach K bringing in a new five guys (platoon system) on occasion. There will be just too much talent to play a traditional lineup. It should be very interesting.
I expect to see more Henderson and McClure this fall. Hopefully, Thomas and Pocius will warrant more PT. Zoubek will get more, and all the new guys will be competing for PT, plus our tried and true players will be competitive. How can anybody not be excited????

[Lord Ash]

I have always been very, very excited when a new Duke year is coming.

I have to admit, for the very first time there is a little trepidation; it isn't because I expect the team to be poor, but rather because I am now terrified by how hard a difficult season is on me! The end of last season was personally tough, with the Maryland loss, UNC loss, first round ACC loss, and first round NCAA loss being a lot of basketball letdown to swallow all at once. This last season was a rough one, so I am cautious going into this next year and will be happily proven to be a worrywart when our guys blow up.

:D

[natedog4ever]

Well, the blue-white game is never played in a starters verus subs manner, but I understand the sentiment that we will have an array of good players. Maybe not so good for coach, since he has made it very clear in several books that he prfers it when 5 or 6 guys create "separation" between themselves and the rest of the team.

[Cameron]

Let's please not mention Patterson in any Duke lineups, thanks.


I second that.

Patterson doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Duke. As he clearly stated, he "just wasn't feeling the rest of the Duke team." Well, Patty, the feeling's mutual.

[CMS2478]

I don't see Coach K playing more than 7 or 8 no matter how good they are.....I don't mean that as a criticism, I'm just basing that on what he always does.

[Jumbo]

I don't see Coach K playing more than 7 or 8 no matter how good they are.....I don't mean that as a criticism, I'm just basing that on what he always does.

You've been saying this for, well, certainly as long as the board has been up. Can you explain what happened in 2002-03 or 1997-98, or 1996-97, for instance, then? Since, you know, he "always" plays no more than seven or eight guys.

[mgtr]

I am betting that Coach K plays a lot more than a 7 or 8 man rotation, at least for the first half of the season.

[rsvman]

I am betting that Coach K plays a lot more than a 7 or 8 man rotation, at least for the first half of the season.

He will play a deeper rotation as long as it takes him to figure out which guys should form the shallower rotation that he seems to favor as the season goes on. That's JMHO, YMMV, etc. :)

[Saratoga2]

I believe that we will see a whole lot of experimentation early on. I do not think we can predict who will be the five best or even two or three best at this stage. I can even imagine Coach K bringing in a new five guys (platoon system) on occasion. There will be just too much talent to play a traditional lineup. It should be very interesting.
I expect to see more Henderson and McClure this fall. Hopefully, Thomas and Pocius will warrant more PT. Zoubek will get more, and all the new guys will be competing for PT, plus our tried and true players will be competitive. How can anybody not be excited????

I expect the biggest improvements will be seen in the play of Zoubek, Thomas, Henderson and Scheyer. They are making the transition from the freshman year and that usually is where the largest performance improvement is made.

It will be great to see them line up again with a wonderful mix of guards, but a little concern for the big men.

[mgtr]

Regardless of who plays, it should be a very interesting year. I see no reason to have our chins dragging on the floor because McBob left and we failed to get PP. We will still have a very good team.

[CMS2478]

You've been saying this for, well, certainly as long as the board has been up. Can you explain what happened in 2002-03 or 1997-98, or 1996-97, for instance, then? Since, you know, he "always" plays no more than seven or eight guys.

Just basing it on "most" years. You gave 3 examples out of how many years??? Not trying to argue here.......I actually hope I'm wrong here, bc I would like to see them play a Suns style up and down game like many have mentioned. I'm not even saying I think 7 or 8 is a bad number of people to play but everyone gets all excited about how deep we will be and I don't see him playing anymore than 8 (signicant minutes). I am a big Coach K fan and as a coach myself I know that people don't understand everything that goes on in practice, behind close doors, etc. So I don't claim to know more than him bc he is there everyday.....I'm not. I just wonder what the point of having so many Mickie D type players if they all they do is serve a practice player role??? Once again I really hope I'm wrong here and I admit when I am wrong ( I predicted Patterson to Florida and was wrong there ) Not trying to start the whole "K doesn't use his bench" thing. I just hope that we use our depth this year to our advantage thats all. :D

[gus]

Just basing it on "most" years. You gave 3 examples out of how many years???

Jumbo only needed to give one example to counter your absolute statement. You didn't say "most" in your first assertion - you said "always". You're making a prediction with incomplete data: you're ignoring the times K has used a longer bench, and failing to compare/contrast next season's team with prior seasons.

me, I make no predictions- I just hope I'll be able to see a few games this time around.

[yancem]

Just basing it on "most" years. You gave 3 examples out of how many years??? Not trying to argue here.......I actually hope I'm wrong here, bc I would like to see them play a Suns style up and down game like many have mentioned. I'm not even saying I think 7 or 8 is a bad number of people to play but everyone gets all excited about how deep we will be and I don't see him playing anymore than 8 (signicant minutes). I am a big Coach K fan and as a coach myself I know that people don't understand everything that goes on in practice, behind close doors, etc. So I don't claim to know more than him bc he is there everyday.....I'm not. I just wonder what the point of having so many Mickie D type players if they all they do is serve a practice player role??? Once again I really hope I'm wrong here and I admit when I am wrong ( I predicted Patterson to Florida and was wrong there ) Not trying to start the whole "K doesn't use his bench" thing. I just hope that we use our depth this year to our advantage thats all. :D


Actually, Coach K regulary ran 9 in the 80's and early 90's. It wasn't until after the 95' season that he started shortening his bench. Using this website: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200

I went back and looked at minutes played and just about every year up until 95' each team had 9 players with 300+ minutes. Since 95' most teams only had 7-8 with 300+ minutes.

What I think is interesting about comparing the pre 95' teams to the post 95' teams is the tournament success vs the reguar season success. The Duke teams that have used a deeper bench seem to fair better in the tournament while the teams with the shorter bench seem to fair better in the regular season. The problem with that argument though is the the ACC was somewhat stronger in the 80's early 90's than they have been since 95' which made the regular season a little easier.

Anyway food for thought.

[CMS2478]

Jumbo only needed to give one example to counter your absolute statement. You didn't say "most" in your first assertion - you said "always". You're making a prediction with incomplete data: you're ignoring the times K has used a longer bench, and failing to compare/contrast next season's team with prior seasons.

me, I make no predictions- I just hope I'll be able to see a few games this time around.

When I said "what he always does" I meant the majority of the time. I should have clarified that and I apologize. I wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers, just my own observation and opinion. Sorry for any offense.

[CMS2478]

Actually, Coach K regulary ran 9 in the 80's and early 90's. It wasn't until after the 95' season that he started shortening his bench. Using this website: http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/?SPSID=22724&SPID=1845&DB_OEM_ID=4200

I went back and looked at minutes played and just about every year up until 95' each team had 9 players with 300+ minutes. Since 95' most teams only had 7-8 with 300+ minutes.

What I think is interesting about comparing the pre 95' teams to the post 95' teams is the tournament success vs the reguar season success. The Duke teams that have used a deeper bench seem to fair better in the tournament while the teams with the shorter bench seem to fair better in the regular season. The problem with that argument though is the the ACC was somewhat stronger in the 80's early 90's than they have been since 95' which made the regular season a little easier.

Anyway food for thought.

I wasn't watching Duke basketball until the Grant Hill era so that kind of explains why I say what I say. Ever since I have been watching Duke basketball he has stuck to 6 or 7 getting the majority and maybe one or two more getting "spot minutes." Once again I don't think that is always a bad thing, I was just telling the people who are getting excited about us going 10 or 11 deep next year not to hold their breath. Again I hope I am wrong and play the up and down game and sub frequently, but stick to the best 7 or so in crunch time situations.

[yancem]

I wasn't watching Duke basketball the Grant Hill era so that kind of explains why I say what I say. Ever since I have been watching Duke basketball he has stuck to 6 or 7 getting the majority and maybe one or two more getting "spot minutes." Once again I don't think that is always a bad thing, I was just telling the people who are getting excited about us going 10 or 11 deep next year not to hold their breath. Again I hope I am wrong and play the up and down game and sub frequently, but stick to the best 7 or so in crunch time situations.

I agree that Coach K's tends to run a short bench; It sometimes frustrates me as well. I was just pointing out that running a short bench has been somewhat of a more recent trend. I am not sure what the reasoning for the change, maybe those with more ties to the staff/team could answer that.

[duketaylor]

Early defections and transfers have altered K's use of his players as well. When he's had deep talent he's used it. Last year Marty started seeing more time and looked better on D, so he may see more time this year, but I'm not sure exactly where as we're plenty deep in positions 1-3. Maybe he'll beef up and play the 5;)

[Wander]

Who are these people that think Smith is going to start over Paulus and can someone please smack them in the face?

[mgtr]

duketaylor - sort of the "incredible hulk"?
Wander - I agree completely. Greg is far better than he is accorded in this board. And from all I have seen, Coach K agrees.

[Bob Green]

Trying to predict the Blue - White lineups is complete guesswork but seeing as we are only having fun, here goes:

White: Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Singler, Thomas

Blue: Smith, Henderson, King, McClure, Zoubek

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[dukemomLA]

McRoberts never had the passion or drive to be a great college player -- and I suspect that will continue into the NBA. PP would have been an asset, but as he chose UK over Duke I know that his "talk" about academics was just that -- just talk. (Sorry, UK fans, but that's the truth).

We have a great team, with enormous potential. I truly hope that CoachK uses more players and more rotation than he's been comfortable in the past. Give EVERYONE their shot and their PT. It will serve us well.

[heyman25]

It will depend on performance issues. At beginning of season everyone will play. By January it will be 7 or 8 . I don't know that but that seems to be K's pattern. I would use everyone that makes a contribution when they are in the game. Paulus Nelson Henderson and Singler will get the most minutes. Scheyer Thomas and McClure and Smith should get PT. Marty we are still waiting for your best shot.Prove the naysayers wrong. The VCU play was good. Zoubek will play when matchups require it.And King will hopefully generate instant offense.Will be intesting to see what develops. I hope there are no off season injuries.:cool:

[hondoheel]

Well, the white team must be:

Singler
Paulus
Scheyer
King
Zoubek

otherwise known as "Phi Slamma Jamma part II." :D

[ACCBBallFan]

Trying to predict the Blue - White lineups is complete guesswork but seeing as we are only having fun, here goes:

White: Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Singler, Thomas

Blue: Smith, Henderson, King, McClure, Zoubek

Bob Green
Yokosuka, JapanBob, looks pretty even,

Pairing McClure with Zoubek would allow the White team to slack off of David and double Brian, but Smith and Henderson speed could cause problems for Paulus and Scheyer. So I expect Scheyer would guard King and Nelson would guard Henderson.

With a lineup of

Blue:Smith, Pocius, Henderson, King, Zoubek,

While King trying to guard Kyle might be problematic, the offense would be more effective as Pocius seems used to trying to get the ball into the post and slash by.

So perhaps they would try to match up

Thomas/Zoubek
Singler/Henderson
Nelson/Smith
Scheyer/King
Paulus/Pocius

and mix in McClure on either team.

[ACCBBallFan]

When Coach K was faced with a similar problem of how to spread PT across 10 or more highly talented NBA guys (in case of this post ACC guys), K went primarily to a platoon system.

Will he use platoon system this year? Should he?

In crunch time he still reverted to the Lebron’s and Carmelo’s and a few others on his team.

Hockey uses these principles all the time with defensemen pairings (should forwards be paired as tandems?) Hockey also uses concepts like scoring lines, defensive stoppers, penalty killers (similar to full court or ¾-court press) and power play team devoted mostly to scoring.

Not counting snide remarks about referees, there is no man advantage in basketball, but some would say having certain players like Taylor King (or take your pick among several stereotyped players, but I digress on hope the thread does not) on the floor is playing 4 vs. 5 on defense while capitalizing on the offensive fire power.

Playing subsets as a unit gives them an identity and common purpose who knows their role while they are on the floor, while at the same time allowing their teammate unit to rest, cheer them on, and just scout what works or does not work for the man they are matched up with when in the game.

Now just because 10 guys are paired 5 aside, does not mean that those 10 each play 20 minutes per game and the 11th guy never plays. The substitution could occur never, at each timeout, every 4, 5, or 10 (20 in the extreme which is ridiculous) minute interval, or in many other fashions.

In an A-team versus B team concept, starters could play 6, rest one, play 6, rest 1, play 6 each half to log 90% of the minutes or 36 per game which most would admit is not desirable. Perhaps a better way to do this would be to sub in the B team just before or just after the TV timeouts to give the starters a longer rest and to provide some in game coaching to the whole unit, kind of a mini halftime.

Another variation is to vary whether the players who come onto the floor after a timeout are the A-team or the B-team to make the other coach have to instruct his players on either scenario, which might include different looks such as full court press, ¾ court press, zone, man to man, 7 footer versus no 7 footer, 3 point specialist versus none to contend with, small ball, etc.

The same thing could be accomplished with only a one person or two guy substitution but then too many roles to explain versus having practiced your unit’s identity and purpose all week/season and merely having to execute.

So coach K (and Roy but very few other coaches have the luxury of 10 or more bona fide college players to mix and match 5 on-5 off) has lots of choices to stretch his TV timeouts into longer periods of rest, while concurrently forcing the opposing coach and players to not only play more tired, but also have more wrinkles to prepare for.

And of course the coach can pick and choose whether he just does this once every month to send a message to his team, or employs it most every game.

The identity and purpose of the A team would remain constant game to game but the B-team could vary its approach based on the opponent. In practice they may mirror the opponents starters to help their A team prepare or they may insert variations to expose opponent’s perceived weaknesses while at the same time allowing their A-team to rest and watch what works and does not work for and against that day’s opponent.

Let’s talk about the 11-th man. He is not necessarily the one is K’s dog house but that certainly is a possibility. Coach K could also use this as a motivational technique for guys to work their way from11th player to one of the units week to week based on attitude opponent, whatever. Also for guys to work their way from the B-team onto the A-team such as 2 of (Nelson, Henderson, Scheyer).

11th man could also be someone with a lot of flexibility to play multiple positions that could readily be inserted onto either the A-team or the B-team or both when a player is injured or sick, is in foul trouble, or is just having a bad game, without disrupting the continuity of the other unit..

It could be a guy like McClure who is a master of a lot of Duke’s principles having been on the team as long as anybody, or Lance for another big man , or Scheyer or Smith or Pocius for a wing player who could even play PG in a pinch.

It might even be a guy or two who against a certain opponent plays/alternates in the disruptive pest, a la Patrick Davidson on Chris Paul. Some of these same guys come to mind as guys who could harass a certain wing player or big guy on defense without losing one of Duke’s primary go to guys (maybe not Scheyer if he gets over his reluctance to pull the trigger, a problem King probably will not have, but Jon certainly has the endurance).

Just giving some points for discussion here and I will offer my favorite scenario in a separate post later.

---------------------

Edit - mods, thanks for moving. I had considered posting it here but thought platoon system yes/no was enough of a different topic to warrant its own thread, but it was my previous post replying to Bob Green that prompted the thought. So not a probelm leaving it here.

[Classof06]

Who are these people that think Smith is going to start over Paulus and can someone please smack them in the face?

If I had to bet, I'd say Paulus would probably start, but call me one who thinks Smith is undoubtedly going to give Paulus a run for his money, which of course will benefit the team as a whole. Bottom line is that whoever starts is going to be the person who gives us the best chance to win, whoever that may be. Your statement seems to contradict that.

It's funny, sometimes I really do feel like I'm the only one around here who has seen Nolan Smith play. Haha, this kid is going to shock so many Duke fans, it's gonna be great. I feel like people don't even see it coming...

[ACCBBallFan]

If I had to bet, I'd say Paulus would probably start, but call me one who thinks Smith is undoubtedly going to give Paulus a run for his money, which of course will benefit the team as a whole. Bottom line is that whoever starts is going to be the person who gives us the best chance to win, whoever that may be. Your statement seems to contradict that.

It's funny, sometimes I really do feel like I'm the only one around here who has seen Nolan Smith play. Haha, this kid is going to shock so many Duke fans, it's gonna be great. I feel like people don't even see it coming...Kind of the same discussion held a couple years ago whether Paulus would displace Dockery as a starter.

Unfortunately for Duke, (fortunately only for sake of Greg's PT and future development for last year, this year and the next), this became a moot point when Demarcus got hurt.

K clearly likes Greg's QB take charge demeanor, as well as Jon's court sense. Best Nolan can hope for is to compete with theose two for 1/3 of the PT, assuming Henderson, Pocius or King (probably not because of defense but he could guard a big with someone else guarding the SG) are not also competition for SG.

No doubt Nolan Smith has talent, or K would not have recruited him, but so do these other guys.

That said, Nolan currently based only on HS Accomplishments versus what we know about Greg and Jon from college play, seems to potentially be the best choice to occasionally replace Greg at PG wth only other competition being Scheyer, and

occasionally replace Nelson as main guy guarding the fastest guard, with Henderson likely being next best at that.

[Wander]

If I had to bet, I'd say Paulus would probably start, but call me one who thinks Smith is undoubtedly going to give Paulus a run for his money, which of course will benefit the team as a whole. Bottom line is that whoever starts is going to be the person who gives us the best chance to win, whoever that may be. Your statement seems to contradict that...


Sure, it's possible that Smith is better than expected and starts over Paulus. It's also possible that Jordan Davidson has a breakout year and starts over Paulus. It's also possible that Duke basketball doesn't make a single basket all season long. The point I'm making is that Paulus obviously had some really bad stretches last year but by the end of the season he was much better than most fans give him credit for. Smith would have to be much, much better than is expected of him (and Scheyer would have to improve as well) in order to prevent Paulus from starting. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to happen.

I do expect Smith to get significant playing time though, and I think just having that little bit of rest for Paulus is going to cut down his TOs. He's had to play an unusually large amount of minutes.

[lavell12]

unlike most years were the Blue Devils have two or three studs and no bench this team should have lots of depth. The only holes are inside but on the outside our wings are going to be special. This team shouuld be able to beat UNC based on the facts that UNC won't be deep with no freshmen class. I just love the depth with Singler, Henderson, Scheyer, Nelson, Smith, and Paulus on the outside this team will have several different lineups, I don't expect to see one lineup most of the time we have interchangeable parts which is rare for a K team.

[mgtr]

unlike most years were the Blue Devils have two or three studs and no bench this team should have lots of depth. The only holes are inside ...

Well, I guess I am reluctant to dismiss our post problem quite that easily. I am optimistic about this year, but am worried about how we will cover this hole. Fortunately, we have a truly outstanding coaching staff, headed by a genius. We will see in a few months what magic he can work.

[acciconoclast]

Though they won't be 12-13 deep like last year, Carolina (assuming Frasor is healthy again) will have at least 9 quality guys to throw out there. Deon Thompson just finished having an outstanding set of games for usabasketball under 19 team. But Duke should be able to match Carolina's depth this year.

[ACCBBallFan]

The depth is about even at 11, but UNC has the much more dominant center, and a much faster PG, though Lawson will be guarded by Nelson/Smith, not the slower offensive PG Paulus.

This year Paulus can guard either Ellington or Ginyard/Green whereas last year he could not guard Terry, just Ellington.

Tyler Hansbrough
Deon Thompson
Marcus Ginyard
Wayne Ellington
Tywon Lawson
Danny Green
Alex Stepheson
Bobby Frasor
Quentin Thomas
William Graves
Mike Copeland

[Saratoga2]

Though they won't be 12-13 deep like last year, Carolina (assuming Frasor is healthy again) will have at least 9 quality guys to throw out there. Deon Thompson just finished having an outstanding set of games for usabasketball under 19 team. But Duke should be able to match Carolina's depth this year.

We can only play 5 at a time and while we are strong at guard and small forward, I too am unwilling to dismiss the potential weaknesses at the 5 position and to some extent the 4. We really haven't got that tough inside presence that some other teams may have. Zoubek is as close as we come to an imposing big man but his improvement will have to be significant to make us a top 8 team. Singler is probably very good but he is not the power player others can throw at us.

I keep hoping that our recruiting process will get a player or players to restrengthen our interior. Shelden was that kind of player and McRoberts did reasonably well but what about this year?

[Bob Green]

The injury to Brian Zoubek is worrisome as it effects his conditioning and skill set development. However, I believe he still has the potential to be an effective post player this season. He has bulked up 20 pounds since last season so he will be able to hold his own pushing and shoving with Hansbrough and other ACC big men. In one of the YouTube videos of a pickup game, he displays a nice baby hook.

I have a question for any sports medicine or trainer who is reading. What type of conditioning program can Zoubek participate in with his current condition? Swimming? Stationary bike? Elliptical Crosstrainer? Weight training? I don't believe he is sitting around doing nothing.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[VaDukie]

The injury to Brian Zoubek is worrisome as it effects his conditioning and skill set development. However, I believe he still has the potential to be an effective post player this season. He has bulked up 20 pounds since last season so he will be able to hold his own pushing and shoving with Hansbrough and other ACC big men. In one of the YouTube videos of a pickup game, he displays a nice baby hook.

I have a question for any sports medicine or trainer who is reading. What type of conditioning program can Zoubek participate in with his current condition? Swimming? Stationary bike? Elliptical Crosstrainer? Weight training? I don't believe he is sitting around doing nothing.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

I have no medical experience whatsoever, but I beleive that when Boozer hurt his foot he started swimming to stay in shape. I hope Z is doing something - we need quality minutes from him next year.

[mcdukie]

I have the same concerns about the 5 position. My bigger concern that I don't think people are addressing is who is the star? Who is the guy who is going to go and get a guaranteed 17-20 ppg? How can we say Singler? He is going to be good but I haven't seen anything to say that he is definitely that guy. DeMarcus is a good role player as are Scheyer, Henderson and Paulus. You can say score by committee but lets face it, good teams have at least one go to guy I.E. JJ, Hansborough, etc.

[Classof06]

In my opinion, the only big question mark about our frontcourt is whether or not Zoubek can stay on the floor and out of foul trouble. Regardless of whether Zoubek starts or not, I don't think anyone should be expecting substantial offensive production from him, at this point at least. But if Brian can play 20 minutes a game, rebound and play solid defense, I think we'll be in good shape. Between Singler and Thomas, I'm confident we have the 4 spot covered in terms of minutes.

It will become problematic if Zoubek cannot give us consistent minutes because that means we'll have to rely on the Singler/Thomas combo instead of simply using it as needed. That being said, though a productive Zoubek is best for everyone involved, I don't believe Duke is doomed at all if they have to rely on the Singler/Thomas combo. Though it'd be great to get good minutes out of a 7-1 Zoubek, a combo of Singler and Thomas should not be considered "small-ball"; Thomas is 6-8 and Singler is 6-9; in the college game that is certainly ample height for a 4/5 combo. The only reason Duke fans are calling it small-ball is because it's small compared to our 7-1 alternative. Even if he didn't break his foot, I think there's a decent possibility Zoubek doesn't start. And there are many college teams that would have no problem playing Singler at the 5, even if that's not his natural position. He's so versatile that it just doesn't matter much. That's my take at least...

[ACCBBallFan]

So many possibilities for Starter/Sub and it may vary based on opponent.

PG: Paulus/Smith

Wings: 2 of (Henderson/Scheyer/Nelson)/ other of those 3 plus Pocius

Forward: Singler/McClure

Center: Zoubek/ (Lance/Kingsnoggle)

[NovaScotian]

i like how you put king in the 5 as a pittsnoggle-type center, but im not entirely sure hell be capable - from what weve seen, he can seriously stroke it wih no conscience, but are we sure hes strong enough or a good enough rebounder to get serious minutes inside? i think hes just a fatter lee melchionni - loves to shoot, lots of energy, but no strong enough and TOO SLOW. what do you guys think we should be expecting from him

[Bob Green]

i like how you put king in the 5 as a pittsnoggle-type center, but im not entirely sure hell be capable - from what weve seen, he can seriously stroke it wih no conscience, but are we sure hes strong enough or a good enough rebounder to get serious minutes inside? i think hes just a fatter lee melchionni - loves to shoot, lots of energy, but no strong enough and TOO SLOW. what do you guys think we should be expecting from him

First, Taylor King is a much better shooter than Lee Melchioni. Second, at the high school/AAU level, King was a tenacious rebounder. Once he adjusts to the college game, he should be a productive player. IMO, T. King will be a quality option off the bench as a freshman/sophomore and potentially a star player as junior/senior. It is a mistake to underestimate him.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[mapei]

It will become problematic if Zoubek cannot give us consistent minutes because that means we'll have to rely on the Singler/Thomas combo instead of simply using it as needed. That being said, though a productive Zoubek is best for everyone involved, I don't believe Duke is doomed at all if they have to rely on the Singler/Thomas combo.

They are if Thomas is as foul-prone as he was last year.

[JasonEvans]

Is K actually using his bench more this year than in past years? Clearly the jury is still out and we will need to see some competitive games to better judge things, but I found some fairly decent evidence in the first two games. Here ya go:





First game of season
# of players # of players
Score with 30+ mins with 10+ mins
2007-08 121-56 0 10
2006-07 86-43 0 10
2005-06 64-47 3 7
2004-05 88-46 1 9
2003-04 67-56 4 7

Second game of season
# of players # of players
Score with 30+ mins with 10+ mins
2007-08 86-61 0 9
2006-07 72-48 3 7
2005-06 93-40 0 9
2004-05 74-61 4 6
2003-04 82-69 4 7

Duke is yet to have a game where anyone played 30+ minutes. In the previous 4 seasons at least 3 players had a 30 min game under their belt by game 2. Duke is averaging 9.5 players with 10+ minutes per game so far, easily more than in any previous season.

Again, we need to wait and see what happens in a close game or two, but it is worth noting that several times in the past K has played his starters heavy minutes and not really gone to his bench even when the game was a blow out.

--Jason "I sense something different this season... and will try to keep tracking it as the season moves along" Evans

[dukestheheat]

Jason,

I think he is. This will help us immensely in March/April of 2008. Word.

dth.

[ugadevil]

I say we play 5 people for 40 minutes per game all year and run the "slow down" offense all game.:eek:

[MChambers]

that we must stick exclusively with the man to man. :)

or should we play mostly zone?

[Troublemaker]

Let's get this out of the way. Once Duke plays its first competitive game of the season (I hope it happens in Maui in a tournament setting), Singler, Scheyer, and one other player who happens to be hot that day will get 30+ minutes. There is nothing wrong with this. Every coach does it. It's good strategy. Period. Nevertheless, I expect much caterwauling when it happens.

[ugadevil]

that we must stick exclusively with the man to man. :)

or should we play mostly zone?


hmmmm..good question. I think we'll go with a 2-2-1 press defense (Zoub will be a monster stopping the fast break) and when we steal it we'll slow it down.

[throatybeard]

I think we should play a box-and-1 on their best scorer, where Zoubek is the and-1.

ROFL @ Troublemaker re: "caterwauling."

[micah75]

If Marty had played 3 more minutes, we would have had 10 players in double digit minutes. How to increase those minutes? Hmmm. And when McClure returns, I want to see him get his 10+ minutes as well. Wouldn't that be neat to see 11 players get 10+ mpg? It's just a personal fetish of mine, just as some fans would love to see Duke score 120+ ppg. But crunching the numbers, I just don't see where the extra minutes are going to come from. You can't take em away from Zoob, he only played 11 minutes. Scheyer and Paulus earned every bit of their 27 and 26 minutes respectfully. I suppose you can 2 away from King and 3 from Smith, but that still leaves us short by 8 minutes. The only solution I see is to ease up some on the D, (play more zone, play some gimmick D like triangle and 2), let the opposing team match buckets with us, and hope for an inordinate amount of OT games, (and even some double OT.) That way, the bottom players in the rotation will get their minutes and as an added bonus, we'll get some much needed experience for any OT games that may arise come Tourney time.

[dkbaseball]

Let's get this out of the way. Once Duke plays its first competitive game of the season (I hope it happens in Maui in a tournament setting), Singler, Scheyer, and one other player who happens to be hot that day will get 30+ minutes. There is nothing wrong with this. Every coach does it. It's good strategy. Period. Nevertheless, I expect much caterwauling when it happens.

As a fairly reliable caterwauler about playing time (and the winner of last night's Marty griping race), I must, in full disclosure, point out that John Wooden has said that he started winning national championships once he stopped trying to play everybody and went to a seven man rotation.

I just want everybody to be happy, and in the case of Marty I think he has enough game that he should transfer if he isn't going to play here. He doesn't have good lateral quickness, but otherwise I'm not prepared to put a ceiling on his game.

Who am I, though, to argue with the master? Or with K, for that matter.

[Kewlswim]

...
I just want everybody to be happy, and in the case of Marty I think he has enough game that he should transfer if he isn't going to play here. He doesn't have good lateral quickness, but otherwise I'm not prepared to put a ceiling on his game. ....
.

Hi,

Isn't Marty a Junior? He has had plenty of time to decide what he wants out of life and basketball. It appears he likes his situation at Duke.

GO DUKE!

[SilverHammer]

We all seem to be pretty excited about the prospects for this year’s team and, in the best of all worlds, we would love to see this young team go down in history as one of Duke’s best. This year (and perhaps every year) there is a lot of discussion on the Board regarding playing time, depth and the use of our bench players. As part of this discussion I thought that it might be useful to compare this year’s team to the past great teams of the Coach K era to see how we stack up in terms of depth and distribution of playing time. We have certainly been fortunate to have many great teams in the K era, but for initial comparison purposes I thought that we ought to look at only the best -- the 6 teams that have reached the final game for the National Championship. So, this comparison would start with the 1986-86 team and then include 1991, 1992, 1994, 1999 and 2001. In order to establish a basis for comparison, I’ll look first at this year’s team.

So far, through 5 regular season games (with three of those games tournament games), we have 9 players who are averaging double-digit minutes per contest (based on the stats provided at goduke.com): Nelson at 28 minutes, Singler at 27, Paulus at 26.6, Scheyer at 26, Henderson at 22.8, Thomas at 22.4, Smith at 14.4, Zoubek at 13.6, and King at 11. Pocius is at 5.8. McClure and Davidson’s minutes have been negligible so far, although that will likely change as Dave recovers from his injury.

Let’s look next at K’s first great team – 1986. That team had 7 players who averaged double-digit minutes per contest: Dawkins at 33.1, Amaker at 30.23, Alarie at 29.83, Henderson at 27.9, Ferry at 22.8, Bilas at 20.4 and King at 16.8.

Next is 1991. That team had 9 players who averaged double digit minutes: Hurley at 34.7, Laettner at 30.2, McCaffrey at 24.8, G. Hill at 24.6, T. Hill at 23.3, Davis at 23.1, Koubek at 15.8, Lang at 11.8 and Palmer at 10.7.

In 1992 there were 7 players who averaged double digit minutes: Hurley at 33.7, Laettner at 32.3, Davis at 30.9, T.Hill at 30.6, G. Hill at 30.3, Lang at 22.5 and Parks at 12.8.

In 1994, there were 7 players who averaged double digit minutes: G. Hill at 35.7, Collins at 31, Parks at 30.5, Lang at 30.1, Capel at 26.4, Clark at 21.1 and Meek at 13.9.

In 1999, there were 8 players who averaged double digit minutes: Langdon at 31, Avery at 31, Brand at 29.3, Carrawell at 28.6, Battier at 23.8, Maggette at 17.7, Burgess at 15.6 and James at 14.7.

Finally, in 2000-01, there were 7 players who averaged double digit minutes: Battier at 34.9, Williams at 31.8, Dunleavy at 29.2, James at 27.8, Duhon at 27.8, Boozer at 25.6 and Sanders at 10.7.

So, what does this mean in terms of this season? Given that we have only played five games so far, it is too early to really tell. Still, we can see that only one other team out of the previous top 6 K teams had 9 players average double digit minutes – the 1991 National championship team. Only one of the remaining 5 teams had 8 double digit players and the other 4 teams had 7. So, up to this point , we are spreading our minutes among more players than any team but 1991.

Another way to look at this would be to compare the number of minutes attributable to our most key players in each of the years. So far this year, our player with the greatest number of minutes is DeMarcus Nelson, who is averaging 28 mpg. He is followed by Singler at 27, Paulus at 26.6 and Scheyer at 26. Now, look at past years. In 1986, Dawkins was at 33.1 mpg and Amaker was at 30.225. In 1991, Hurley was at 34.7 mpg and Laettner at 30.2. In 1992, Hurley was 33.7 mpg, Laettner at 32.3, Davis at 30.9, T. Hill at 30.6 and G. Hill at 30.3 mpg . In 1994 Grant Hill was 35.7 mpg, Collins at 31, Parks at 30.5 and Lang at 30.1. In 1999 Langdon and Avery were at 31 mpg. Finally, in 2001, Battier was at 34.9 mpg with Williams at 31.8. So, this means that our lead player this year (Nelson) is averaging from 3 to 7.7 minutes less per game than the lead player in any of our previous championship game years, and the overall distribution of lead player minutes is more favorable than in any of those years.

I recognize that positions may already be fairly hardened on this topic, but I thought that some comparative numbers might help shape our discussions on this topic as the year unfolds. From a preliminary view, however, judging by the standard of our most successful past teams, I would argue that Coach K is doing an effective job of using our depth.

[rickshack]

Thank you

[jzp5079]

just from initially reading your post without looking too far into it, I have two concerns.

1) Can you really count the first 2-3 games? If you take away those first 3 games what do the numbers look like? You can count them but it defiantly inflates the minutes of the latter.

2) Just a theory here. Playing players now is a lot more important then it used to be in my opinion. When Henderson and Singler leave early (not saying they will for sure but there is a certain probability), if the player behind them is getting 5-10 minutes a game, are they really going to be expected to perform as seasoned sophomores or juniors when they barely saw time against quality opponents?

[dukemomLA]

We have enough Prime Time players to equal two teams or more. Let's give all lots of PT!! Sub one team for another, or individual players at will, BUT give all their due.

I need to see the team refreshed come March/April. We have enough top players to make this happen.

IMHO, there is no BENCH -- just folk who are ready to start or sub, and sub and sub. The late Maui game distressed me, as many players who warranted/needed more PT didn't get it.

Let's hope that the same-o, same-o, 6-7 man rotation becomes the norm for this year. GO DEVILS. I truly believe that a final-four or more is within the possibilities for this team.

As if not, I STILL LOVE watching them play. Great times for all us DUKE lovers.

[dukemomLA]

I meant to say, 'becomes NOT the norm' for this year. I want to see at least 9 (if not more) players get sufficient PT. Each game, every game, over and over again. Let's weave the 'bench' as well as the pick'n'roll.

[Jumbo]

We have enough Prime Time players to equal two teams or more. Let's give all lots of PT!! Sub one team for another, or individual players at will, BUT give all their due.

I need to see the team refreshed come March/April. We have enough top players to make this happen.

IMHO, there is no BENCH -- just folk who are ready to start or sub, and sub and sub. The late Maui game distressed me, as many players who warranted/needed more PT didn't get it.

Let's hope that the same-o, same-o, 6-7 man rotation becomes the norm for this year. GO DEVILS. I truly believe that a final-four or more is within the possibilities for this team.

As if not, I STILL LOVE watching them play. Great times for all us DUKE lovers.

I have two questions:
1) How?
and
2) Why?

[SilverHammer]

just from initially reading your post without looking too far into it, I have two concerns.

1) Can you really count the first 2-3 games? If you take away those first 3 games what do the numbers look like? You can count them but it defiantly inflates the minutes of the latter.

2) Just a theory here. Playing players now is a lot more important then it used to be in my opinion. When Henderson and Singler leave early (not saying they will for sure but there is a certain probability), if the player behind them is getting 5-10 minutes a game, are they really going to be expected to perform as seasoned sophomores or juniors when they barely saw time against quality opponents?

I don't know about the first 2-3 games -- the NCCU game was a politeness extended to a friendly neighbor and functioned in many ways as exhibition games functioned in the past, so the numbers may not be appropriate for inclusion. I could make the argument that New Mexico State and Princeton were no different than regular season games in past years. NMSU was not expected to be a patsy based on the previous year's performance and Princeton is its traditional wild card self. Certainly they were not as strong as they were in some previous years, but to some degree that was the luck of the draw for this year. I suspect that if you went back and looked through the schedules of the six teams used as comparators, there were games like that in all of those schedules and those numbers are embedded in the averages. Right now our sample size is low (5 games), so we really do not yet have valid numbers. My post was intended more to get us to look at what we would consider to be past successes and see what was the norm -- to establish a metric for evaluating our use of depth this season. The majority of those teams had 7 players in double digit minutes with a couple of lead players logging very heavy minutes. I personally think that as the season goes on, as our young players prove themselves, as Dave McClure gets healthy, this team may well have a broader base than those that. However, even if it doesn't, would we consider 7 players in double digit minutes to be sufficient? It has worked well enough to get us the the National Championship game in the past.

In a way, this leads to your second point -- looking at how depth and experience play out in the modern game as players leave early. That actually is a big question and is a somewhat different slant on the topic of depth and bench use. My sense is that as much as K wants to build a sustainable high-level program year-to-year, he wants even more to win the National Championship for the year at hand. Once he has his kids in the program, he blends that year's team in a way that he thinks allows it the best chance to be in the hunt for the title. Minutes go the players he believes will give us the best chance for that. Your point about developing a broader base of players to be ready to step in once/if someone leaves early seems to apply more in the context of year-to-year program building. While early departures are often uncertain, he clearly plans for that possibility in his recruiting. I don't think, however, that he would suboptimize the current year to protect against the possibility that someone may leave before the next year. He will address that if and when the time comes.

Some of the other posters here (not necessarily in this thread) have taken a different tack on the issue of managing depth, focusing on what happens within the year at hand -- i.e., if we shorten our bench, will we wear our players before crunch time? That is a good question. As a young team with diffuse and young internal leadership (Josh, Greg and DeMarcus as tri-captains), we did wear down last year. Will that happen this year with a strong single senior captain and a broader nucleus of experienced players? Who knows? We have had a lot of success historically with 7 man double digit rotations. Of course, the only way to really know is to follow this young and rapidly developing team and see. We can run the numbers again after a few more games and see whether our double digit levels stay up. I just thought that it was important to recognize that historically the norm on our most successful teams is for us to use only 7 double digit players. We have had one year with 8 and one year with 9. It will be interesting to see where this team fits.

[greybeard]

Seems to me that this is a thread that runs through sports. It starts incredibly early in kid's lives. Coaches in little league twist all they can to do only what they must in regards to giving everyone a chance, with their aim on winning as the primary "free will" objective. It moves on through club and high school teams. At the high school level, who do you respect more, the guy with the loaded team who gives playing time to all the guys who can get it done, or the guy with a similar team but gives all the time to the best of the best and wins more games? Interesting question with no easy answer.

Some of what I'm hearing here is that a number of posters perceive Duke as having a number of players who are of superior quality and whom they'd like to see given a chance to play in front of the crowds, on TV, and not just in practice. Playing in practice against terrific competition when the starters (regular rotation players included) are respectful and inclusive should not be undervalued and I don't think it is at Duke. Has to be terrific.

On the other hand, would the bench guys being discussed cherish the chance to contribute meaningfully in games, and how much is that worth in the context of Duke basketball? To me, these issues are core ones and I applaud those who confront them. I'd me more than surprised if K doesn't as he approaches each and every game.

[Carlos]

I think it's misleading to use the first few games of any season as indicative of the season as a whole. The MO for Krzyzewski is to play more people in the early season and shorten the bench as the year progresses. I don't think that makes him unique in coaching circles either. So when you're comparing a full season to 5 games, even though the first 5 games of that other season may have been equivalent to the current season, it doesn't provide an accurate reflection.

For example, look at last year:
Player....................First 5 Games.........Season
Scheyer.................32 mpg..................33.7
Nelson...................31.8 mpg................31.9
McRoberts..............31.4 mpg................35.3
Paulus...................25 mpg...................32.4
Thomas..................20.8 mpg................14.9
McClure..................16.4 mpg................21.7
Henderson...............15.4 mpg................19.3
Zoubek....................11.6 mpg...............7.3
Pocius.....................8.8 mpg.................7.1

If you looked at that team after 5 games you would say that they had 8 guys in double figures and one more nearly there. But for the full year it was a different picture.

The other thing to think about when talking about depth is that the goal here isn't to get X number of minutes for Y number of players. It's just not something that lends itself to that type of analysis because what is best for one team may be to have 9 guys getting double figure minutes but for another team it may mean going with the iron 6 or 7. Would the 2001 team have been a better squad if we could have squeezed another minute and a half of PT in there for Matt Christensen so we could have had 8 guys in double figure minutes? Clearly not. But would last year's Duke team have finished with 4 straight losses if Zoubek and Pocius had seen more court time over the season? I don't think that's one you can answer by comparing the team to the 2001 squad.

Finally, I think the concerns about bench use are somewhat reactionary thus far. We've essentially played 2 or 4 real games thus far, depending upon what you think of New Mexico State and E. Kentucky (the other two games being Marquette and Illinois). Over those 4 games nobody is playing more than 31 minutes. If you narrow it to just Marquette and Illinois you're still looking at nobody over 33 minutes.

I think people looked at the way Duke was stumbling around the court at the end of the Marquette game and had LSU flashbacks. While I believe that Duke could have used a little contribution from Pocius or King in that game I don't think it's appropriate to use that as in indication for the rest of the season.

[JasonEvans]

To me, what matters is not that 8 or 9 or 10 guys get double-digit minutes. What matters is that your top 3 or 4 guys not be playing 34+ minutes per game every single game. You want players who are not winded at the end of a game and not worn-down at the end of the season. It is far more important to me that we have few players over 33 minutes per game than it is that we have lots of players over 10 minutes per game.

While it may simplistically seem like the answer to my concern is playing more players double-digit minutes, that is simply not the case. I think you can accomplish the "not winded" goal by playing only 7 guys double-digit minutes. I am not saying that should be our goal but it can certainly be done. 200 minutes divided by 7 players comes to less than 30 minutes per player. If you have a couple bench guys who deserve starter kinda minutes (and in Scheyer we clearly have at least one of these) then I think your depth problems are just fine.

Now, I will admit that part two of the depth debate has to do with developing the guys who are not getting double-digit minutes. What happens if injury or something else (hello to David Hall, Olandis Poole and Ted Hillary) comes along which suddenly puts your established players out of commission and demands that untested players take on a bigger role? I can certainly see why this would be a concern. However, I think it is such a rarity and so hard to predict that I cannot see it being a major concern of a coaching staff trying to win as many games as possible and make as deep a run as possible into the NCAA Tourney. We have seen many occasions where untested players have risen to the challenge when called upon and other examples where guys who had ample experience were asked to do more but could not do it. I just don't see getting the end of the bench some "big game experience" as a priority for Duke.

Well, I've rambled enough and I am sure some folks will tear my thoughts apart. Enjoy!!

--Jason "no one on this team is averaging more than 28 mpg right now-- and that is a real departure from what we have seen in recent years... even with only 6 games under our belt" Evans

[SilkyJ]

just from initially reading your post without looking too far into it, I have two concerns.

1) Can you really count the first 2-3 games? If you take away those first 3 games what do the numbers look like? You can count them but it defiantly inflates the minutes of the latter.


Definitely agree, and carlos provided a good quantitative example of why. Silver Hammer is comparing entire season averages to first 6 game averages, and things can/often do change drastically once we get into ACC play.

I was going to write something else which is that I really just want to keep our guys fresh and healthy, whatever that takes...but jason beat me to it. We are going to need to be extra-fresh this year come march since we are running so much. Keeping Singler's minutes down will be the most important aspect of this since he is a freshman and hasn't gone through the grind yet...unfortunately he may be our most important player on the floor during a lot of close games this year, which will keep his minutes up. I think he played 37 mins against marquette?


To me, what matters is not that 8 or 9 or 10 guys get double-digit minutes. What matters is that your top 3 or 4 guys not be playing 34+ minutes per game every single game. You want players who are not winded at the end of a game and not worn-down at the end of the season. It is far more important to me that we have few players over 33 minutes per game than it is that we have lots of players over 10 minutes per game.

--Jason "no one on this team is averaging more than 28 mpg right now-- and that is a real departure from what we have seen in recent years... even with only 6 games under our belt" Evans

[MarkD83]

In analyzing depth in the first 6 games (or any set of games) you have to consider the circumstances of the games and the future ramifications. Coach K and the team wanted and needed a tournament championship to help the mental development of the team. So the bench gets short and fans get concerned.

The concern being that the team will be tired during the NCAA tournament and won't advance as far as we would like. However, at the end of the year the wins against Illinois and Marquette should get us a higher seed in the NCAA tournament which would mean easier 1st and 2nd round games. The higher seeding and easier games is a much more tangible way to insure that we go far in the NCAA rather than trying to rest some of our best players for 2-3 minutes.

That being said I have watched enough Duke bball to know that I should enjoy the moment. If only 5 players play and we win enjoy it. If 15 players play and we win enjoy that also.

[Dukefanatic]

I think it's misleading to use the first few games of any season as indicative of the season as a whole. The MO for Krzyzewski is to play more people in the early season and shorten the bench as the year progresses. I don't think that makes him unique in coaching circles either. So when you're comparing a full season to 5 games, even though the first 5 games of that other season may have been equivalent to the current season, it doesn't provide an accurate reflection.

For example, look at last year:
Player....................First 5 Games.........Season
Scheyer.................32 mpg..................33.7
Nelson...................31.8 mpg................31.9
McRoberts..............31.4 mpg................35.3
Paulus...................25 mpg...................32.4
Thomas..................20.8 mpg................14.9
McClure..................16.4 mpg................21.7
Henderson...............15.4 mpg................19.3
Zoubek....................11.6 mpg...............7.3
Pocius.....................8.8 mpg.................7.1

If you looked at that team after 5 games you would say that they had 8 guys in double figures and one more nearly there. But for the full year it was a different picture.

The other thing to think about when talking about depth is that the goal here isn't to get X number of minutes for Y number of players. It's just not something that lends itself to that type of analysis because what is best for one team may be to have 9 guys getting double figure minutes but for another team it may mean going with the iron 6 or 7. Would the 2001 team have been a better squad if we could have squeezed another minute and a half of PT in there for Matt Christensen so we could have had 8 guys in double figure minutes? Clearly not. But would last year's Duke team have finished with 4 straight losses if Zoubek and Pocius had seen more court time over the season? I don't think that's one you can answer by comparing the team to the 2001 squad.

Finally, I think the concerns about bench use are somewhat reactionary thus far. We've essentially played 2 or 4 real games thus far, depending upon what you think of New Mexico State and E. Kentucky (the other two games being Marquette and Illinois). Over those 4 games nobody is playing more than 31 minutes. If you narrow it to just Marquette and Illinois you're still looking at nobody over 33 minutes.

I think people looked at the way Duke was stumbling around the court at the end of the Marquette game and had LSU flashbacks. While I believe that Duke could have used a little contribution from Pocius or King in that game I don't think it's appropriate to use that as in indication for the rest of the season.

Pocius would have made a HUGE difference - too bad Mike doesn't know he has a kid with more heart than anyone knows and more committment than ANY player on the team!

[SilkyJ]

Pocius would have made a HUGE difference - too bad Mike doesn't know he has a kid with more heart than anyone knows and more committment than ANY player on the team!

while your enthusiasm is great, those superlatives are a bit over the top. Demarcus is one the most committed, hardest working players to every come through duke, imho.

[edensquad]

At the 17:27 mark in the EKU game, Mike Gminski noted that "keeping players on the floor under 30 minutes per game will pay big dividends for Duke" as the season wears on.

To those that think an extra 5-6 minutes/game for a 20 yr. old makes no difference re: wear and tear, evidently Gminski believes that, over the course of a long season.... it does.

[Cameron]

I'm sorry but Marty was given his chance out and Maui and he played, well, not very good. I know this board does not like to see to much negativity towards our players--and I fully agree with this. There is no point in doing that--but to put it simply, we have at least nine guys who are better than him and who deserve more playing time.

I too love Marty's heart, don't get me wrong. I was just watching the NC State ACC Tourney game earlier today and it made me realize just how much talent Marty really does have. Too had he just can't seem to put it all together. It just seems as if he doesn't have that extra "it," you know, that extra level that makes a player great. I don't know, it's hard to explain. But he just doesn't seem to have it.

[jma4life]

I'm not as sure as I used to be of how important game experience is for these guys. I used to firmly believe that giving certain players 5- 10 mpg could be invaluable to their development.

But last year, Pocius was able to come in and play fantastic basketball against NC State in game 1 of the ACC tourney and then against VCU in the tourney with very little in game experience that year.

Now obviously this is just one player and certain players need the experience more than others but for some guys, the development thing is not necessarily true.

[mgtr]

I think that Coach K makes these young lads earn their minutes. And some (Taylor King) respond very well to the incentive. Against EKU Singler pooped out, and King was able to pick up the slack (and then some!). I don't think he can come out and hit all those threes every night, but even if you take them away, he still played a heck of a game. If he brings that every night, then we have two bench players (Scheyer and King) who are interchangeable with the starters. Smith should move into this category as the season progresses, and there is a shot for Zoubek to do so as well (in a more limited role). Finally, McClure will definitely get his minutes as he works back into game shape (he looked OK in very limited minutes against EKU). So, not counting Pocius or Davidson, we should end up with our current five starters (which could change) plus four more solid bench players (Scheyer, King, Smith, and McClure) plus Zoubek (we don't exactly what he will become, but better than now). In other words, a team core of 9-10 players who are, in a limited way, interchangeable, plus 1 or 2 role players.
I don't see where there is a problem with that kind of depth. Will the players get even amounts of PT? Heavens no! Will non-starters step up from time-to-time to show that they can do what King did, at least in their own way? Almost certainly. I expect that Scheyer will do it on offense pretty soon.
Is Coach K smart enough to figure all this out? In a heartbeat! And the more guys step up to the plate in game situations (a la Taylor King), the more K will be able to count on them at crunch time.

[Dukefanatic]

I'm sorry but Marty was given his chance out and Maui and he played, well, not very good. I know this board does not like to see to much negativity towards our players--and I fully agree with this. There is no point in doing that--but to put it simply, we have at least nine guys who are better than him and who deserve more playing time.

I too love Marty's heart, don't get me wrong. I was just watching the NC State ACC Tourney game earlier today and it made me realize just how much talent Marty really does have. Too had he just can't seem to put it all together. It just seems as if he doesn't have that extra "it," you know, that extra level that makes a player great. I don't know, it's hard to explain. But he just doesn't seem to have it.

Marty does have "it". When you don't get to play because of politics, it's pretty hard to be consistent when you do get to play one or two minutes depending on how K is feeling that day. He has great practices, gives 100%, is a fantastic student and is the most cheered for player when he hits the court. I don't think the problem is Marty, I think it's the coaching.

[SilkyJ]

Will non-starters step up from time-to-time to show that they can do what King did, at least in their own way? Almost certainly. I expect that Scheyer will do it on offense pretty soon.


I would argue that scheyer already has. he already had a 22pt game and he is by far one of our most consistent players. Scheyer has got to be a leading contender for 6th man in the ACC already (do they have that award?)

[mgtr]

I would argue that scheyer already has. he already had a 22pt game and he is by far one of our most consistent players. Scheyer has got to be a leading contender for 6th man in the ACC already (do they have that award?)

I guess that you are right. So, I will amend my statement -- Scheyer will do it again (and probably again and again).

[arnie]

"Marty does have "it". When you don't get to play because of politics, it's pretty hard to be consistent when you do get to play one or two minutes depending on how K is feeling that day. He has great practices, gives 100%, is a fantastic student and is the most cheered for player when he hits the court. I don't think the problem is Marty, I think it's the coaching."

Is Marty a democrat?

[Johnboy]

Marty does have "it". When you don't get to play because of politics, it's pretty hard to be consistent when you do get to play one or two minutes depending on how K is feeling that day. He has great practices, gives 100%, is a fantastic student and is the most cheered for player when he hits the court. I don't think the problem is Marty, I think it's the coaching.

How do you know any of this? On what do you base your statements above? Politics?

[RepoMan]

Marty does have "it". When you don't get to play because of politics, it's pretty hard to be consistent when you do get to play one or two minutes depending on how K is feeling that day. He has great practices, gives 100%, is a fantastic student and is the most cheered for player when he hits the court. I don't think the problem is Marty, I think it's the coaching.


Welcome back to the Board, Ms. Pocius!

[mgtr]

"Marty does have "it". When you don't get to play because of politics, it's pretty hard to be consistent when you do get to play one or two minutes depending on how K is feeling that day. He has great practices, gives 100%, is a fantastic student and is the most cheered for player when he hits the court. I don't think the problem is Marty, I think it's the coaching."


It is a well known fact that Coach K is prejudiced against Lithuanians and other "foreigner-types." The only way that Marty got picked by Duke is that his parents contributed big bucks to Duke.

OK, the above is crazy. But it makes just as much sense as firealleva's quote.

In my opinion, Coach K wants to win every game, and will play the players who are going to make that happen. If he could put in the mascot (and if the mascot could hit 3's) he would do it.
Any other explanation is just plain nuts.

[JasonEvans]

I think it is worth noting that the "it" that Marty does not have is defense. The kid is a player on offensive but if you watch him on the defensive end of the floor he is a mess. Duke plays a very sophisticated form of D and having one player get lost can cause major problems. From what I have seen watching games (and I know one person who specifically watched Marty on D who agrees 1005 with this), Marty simply does not grasp the way to play Duke defense and that is what is holding him back.

It is a pity as I am sure he is working hard and, from what I hear, he is a great teammate to the other guys and does not complain about his lack of playing time. I hope he begins to get "it" and becomes a more important player for us. But, for now he is just too much of a liability at the D end of the floor to get many meaningful minutes.

--Jason "I would also add that unsubstantiated allegations about why K is or is not playing players is not well-regarded on this board" Evans

[edensquad]

Follow this logic: 1) In 2006, you are last in the ACC in scoring.
2) Ya got a guy on yer bench who is potentially explosive offensively (and who averaged serious double figure ppg in International play).
3) Said player doesn't quite "get" sophisticated defensive scheme.
4) Rather than simplify defensive scheme, said player rides pine.
5) In 2006, you are last in the ACC in scoring.

In my biz, we call that, "Well, I'll show me."

Just sayin.'

[killerleft]

See "Chip Engelland" sp?. If you can't play D for Coach, you just can't play much. Marty has improved, though.

[loran16]

We've been going deeper since King started lighting it up....Now we are going at least 8 deep in games, and often 9 deep:

Starting: Demarc, Paulus, Henderson, Singler, Lance
Bench: Scheyer, Smith, King and on occasion Zoubek.

Amusingly Scheyer leads us in Minutes per game.

Anyhow, the point is we're essentially now 9 deep even in a big game like Wisconsin, so it seems K is just feeling out the team right now and will go deeper now that he sees his bench as a greater asset.

Also amusingly, in his analysis of the Duke-Wisconsin game, Jay bilas said we can go 10-12 deep. Sorry Jay, but to go 12 deep we'd need to include Jordan Davidson (Including Marty, Mcclure, theres only the 2 walkons)

[JasonEvans]

Amusingly, in his analysis of the Duke-Wisconsin game, Jay bilas said we can go 10-12 deep. Sorry Jay, but to go 12 deep we'd need to include Jordan Davidson (Including Marty, Mcclure, theres only the 2 walkons)

Jay was thinking of Wojo. I think he still has some elligibility left ;)

--Jason "I love playing a ton of bench in the first half the way K has been doing-- really wears down the opposition" Evans

[snowdenscold]

OK, the above is crazy. But it makes just as much sense as firealleva's quote.


Actually it was DukeFanatic's quote. Firealleva was just quoting him without using the html tags.

[Carlos]

Follow this logic: 1) In 2006, you are last in the ACC in scoring.
2) Ya got a guy on yer bench who is potentially explosive offensively (and who averaged serious double figure ppg in International play).
3) Said player doesn't quite "get" sophisticated defensive scheme.
4) Rather than simplify defensive scheme, said player rides pine.
5) In 2006, you are last in the ACC in scoring.

In my biz, we call that, "Well, I'll show me."

Just sayin.'

So essentially what you're saying is that the team should be adapted to suit the skills of one particular player. Who gets to be that lucky player?

[edensquad]

Hmmmmm, JJ and the offense???

(not sayin' MP is JJ, btw).... but, schemes have been altered to suit a player or players before if K thinks it's best for the team. Hey, I am not particularly a Marty champion; it does rankle a bit to maintain that there is this rigid "sophisticated Duke defense" that cannot be altered enough to get a guy on the floor who seems gifted offensively....in a year (2006) when we had so much trouble putting it in the basket. Not a prob this year, though.... what an exciting team this bunch is!!!

Bygones; 20/20 hindsight, stats and speculation are the stuff fans are made of, lol.:D

[cs11]

With zoubek and mcclure getting insignificant minutes and nolan smith playing less than 1/4 of the game, is this year going to be another seven man rotation. everyone keeps talking aboput how much our depth this year improves our team, but they dont get better if they dont play.

[bdh21]

In games against very good teams, when the margin is 1 possession deep in the second half? Yes, a seven man rotation is appropriate.

[3rdgenDukie]

Actually, my guess is that the 20 or so hours/week they spend going up against extremely good players in practice does in fact mean they are getting better at the game of basketball. Big difference between having depth and using it. For instance in 2001, Casey Sanders and Reggie Love barely played, but were able to step in when Los went down. While I wouldn't mind seeing more minutes out of the bench - from Nolan especially - from what I've seen, every player on our team is capable of stepping in and contributing if needed. Frankly, an eight man rotation is ideal to me. Any more players in the mix and you start to sacrifice continuity, which is especially critical with our switching/hedging m-to-m defense and motion offense. And McClure will certainly get more minutes as he works his way back to health - K loves him.

[Highlander]

So far I have been able to find exactly one game where Smith has had less than 10 minutes a game, and in that one he had nine. He's averaging around 15 a game, so I'm not sure where you're "he plays less than 1/4 of the game" is coming from, unless you based that analysis on only one game. Duke has 8 players who average over 10 minutes a game average, and that's even if you take out the cupcakes we played in our first two games.

As for the players outside of those 8, you have Zoubeck, Pocius, and McClure. Pocius is hurt and hasn't dressed for the past two games. McClure has been hurt and was not 100% as recently as Maui. I don't know where he is now, but it's unfair to knock his lack of minutes when he's injured. You don't see UNC fans complaining about the lack of minutes Lawson got vs. BYU for example.

For Zoubeck to get more minutes per game, he needs to earn them. Just like Taylor King has done after not playing in Maui. I am interested in your take, though. How did Taylor King get so good after not playing in the Maui championship? According to you, game experience is the only way to improve. How was he able to come in and light up Wisconsin if he didn't get any PT the week before?

[rthomas]

Take a guess: How many posts have there been on DBR over the last three years on this very topic?

Next let's discuss the slowdown game.

[duketaylor]

K loves to play stallball when nursing late leads; it destroys Duke's momentum and lets opposing teams back in the game. There;)

[shadowfax336]

why Steve Johnson hasn't gotten a single minute yet this year as a walk on?

[cspan37421]

No, but walk-ons rarely get minutes, period. The margin usually has to be >30 for them to see time, and even then, it has to be a situation where K doesn't feel that further-down-the-bench scholarship players need to be in to get real-game experience. So an early game or two of ours could have seen them but I don't think K was ready to dole out such goodies so early.

[wisteria]

well, walk-on players rarely get minutes. They mainly contribute to the team in the practice. Although I do think it will be nice that, the next time K decides to put on a walk-on, Steve can get a couple minutes and we get to chant his name loudly just as we do for Jordan.

[LetItBD08]

Are you filling a void left by the Marty news today?

[wisteria]

Are you filling a void left by the Marty news today?

haha :D

[NovaScotian]

i think its bullcrap - jordan davidson gets in the game all the time and stevie j didnt even get a single minute in either of the exhibition games OR the central game

[shadowfax336]

well I think there's probably a reason of some type... Since we've had several blowouts, (I mean we won the one exhibition game by what, 67?) and Steve was actually receiving a scholarship for the second half of last year (the one left open by Boykin) He got into lots of games last year (for better or worse, he was the reason there was no ball to block when Henderson's arm connected with Hansbrough's face. It just seems weird that he hasn't played at all.

[Karl Beem]

Now people are complaining about the walkons not getting minutes!?!:eek:

[mgtr]

Hey, when are the managers going to get some minutes?

[Section 8]

I can't understand why the cheerleaders don't get any minutes...

[Devilsfan]

It is what it is!

[FerryFor50]

I figure I'm new to these boards, so I might as well start up a hot discussion. :)

Honestly, someone may have already broached this topic, but here goes...

I've been a Duke fan since I was in kindergarten. For years and years, Coach K, to me, could do no wrong. I even have an autographed 1989 Duke Final Four T-shirt signed by him framed on my wall.

That said, in recent years, outside of his brilliant adjustment this year on offense, I can't say I've been too pleased with some of Coach K's decisions. My main beef is with how he spreads out his minutes.

Year in and year out, Coach K recruits numerous 4 and 5 star recruits, McDonald's All-Americans, etc... but every year, it's the same story. He spreads out his minutes amongst 8 or 9 guys early in the year, and the team dominates. Then, as we hit the ACC stretch, the bench gets shorter and shorter... to the point where we see a 6 man rotation. That has become the Duke norm for years, and it always comes back to bite us come tourny time. A 6 man rotation was fine when you had Jay Williams, Shane Battier, Elton Brand, etc... but not with these teams. There is no dominant Duke player, just a wide array of very similar high motor, skilled shooters. I am confident that many of the players who don't get 10+ minutes for Duke could start elsewhere, and some of them transfer (Chris Burgess, Eric Boateng) and actually play (though in Boateng's case, good riddance).

What I don't get is why players like Taylor King, Nolan Smith, Brian Zoubek (not to mention Marty Pocius last season), don't play a regular 15 minutes a game. What happens is, when key guys start to tire or foul out, you get inexperienced players in crucial late season situations. Why not play these guys in key games and have them earn their stripes?

I can't argue too much with Coach K's regular season track record, but I do notice this alarming trend. I remember in Duke's '91-'92 title years, Marty Clark, Greg Koubek and Bill McCaffrey playing crucial roles in the NCAA tourny run.

Thoughts?

[billybreen]

Thoughts? We're 22-2 and leading the ACC in a season where we were expected to be competitive but middle of the pack in conference. No, Coach K deserves no criticism.

[FerryFor50]

Thoughts? We're 22-2 and leading the ACC in a season where we were expected to be competitive but middle of the pack in conference. No, Coach K deserves no criticism.

Does it really matter what happens in the regular season when we've gone nowhere in the NCAAs the past several years?

[ugadevil]

I figure I'm new to these boards, so I might as well start up a hot discussion. :)
Honestly, someone may have already broached this topic, but here goes...


Welcome to boards. There is a search feature that is really helpful for looking up previous discussions. I'd recommend looking up this topic in the search and reading the numerous threads that talk about K's strategy and use of the bench.

[FerryFor50]

Welcome to boards. There is a search feature that is really helpful for looking up previous discussions. I'd recommend looking up this topic in the search and reading the numerous threads that talk about K's strategy and use of the bench.

Duly noted. I probably should learn how to use that feature... :)

[4decadedukie]

I understand and appreciate your sincere criticism; however, I would respectfully suggest that Coach K has evaluated this issue -- and countless others -- continuously during the last decades. His coaching philosophy changes at times on some matters, while remaining constant on others. Throughout this protracted period, the Duke Program has accrued peerless -- and, yes, I mean that precise word -- accomplishments. I am willing to believe that a proven, great coach whose record extends since the mid-80s, and who has successfully dealt with changes in team composition and in the collegiate hoops environment probably has a solid idea of where to head and why.

[EarlJam]

I'm not touchting the criticism question. As mentioned, Duke is 22-2 and leading the ACC. One of Coach K's finest coaching seasons ever in my book.

But I do have a question, or would like some opinions (sorry if this has been discussed already).

Last night, Coach K seemed relatively laid back - almost like he didn't mind if the team struggled. It was uncharacteristic of him, but I didn't see it as a negative. It's almost like he felt this team needed a lesson in "struggles" or in a bit of humility.

I noticed it; my brother then called and mentioned it; then the announcer made a brief mention about the different demeanor in Coach K.

Anyone else have a take on this?

-EarlJam

[FerryFor50]

I understand and appreciate your sincere criticism; however, I would respectfully suggest that Coach K has evaluated this issue -- and countless others -- continuously during the last decades. His coaching philosophy changes at times on some matters, while remaining constant on others. Throughout this protracted period, the Duke Program has accrued peerless -- and, yes, I mean that precise word -- accomplishments. I am willing to believe that a proven, great coach whose record extends since the mid-80s, and who has successfully dealt with changes in team composition and in the collegiate hoops environment probably has a solid idea of where to head and why.

Well, I'm not arguing with his regular season successes. Those speak for themselves.

My concern is for the tourny runs and seeing teams like VCU hand us our lunch. Blech.

[ugadevil]

But I do have a question, or would like some opinions (sorry if this has been discussed already).

Last night, Coach K seemed relatively laid back - almost like he didn't mind if the team struggled. It was uncharacteristic of him, but I didn't see it as a negative. It's almost like he felt this team needed a lesson in "struggles" or in a bit of humility.

I noticed it; my brother then called and mentioned it; then the announcer made a brief mention about the different demeanor in Coach K.

Anyone else have a take on this?

-EarlJam

I felt the same way Earl. For the majority of the game, it almost looked like K was under the weather. He did not spend a lot of time standing up, and there were times when he just smiled after some of the officiating and stupid turnovers we had. It just seemed like a very bizarre demeanor on the bench.

Anyone know if that short meeting he had with Gaudio near the end of the game was to discuss getting the players off the court before the students stormed the court?

[Troublemaker]

1. You're not "starting up" a discussion. You're re-hashing a very, very old one.
2. Duke played an 8-man rotation last night and has gone deep this season overall. Check the boxscore(s). What a weird complaint.
3. Your memory that Duke received important contributions from bench players during the '91/'92 title runs is correct. Your memory that Duke went significantly deeper back then is not, especially not relative to this season. Check the boxscores. http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/schedule.php?season=1990-91
http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/schedule.php?season=1991-92
4. What is the one thing that was true about the relationship between college basketball and the NBA back then that isn't true now? How has that change affected Duke's depth in recent years? What adjustment has been made (hint: has to do with recruiting)?

[oso diablo]

Anyone know if that short meeting he had with Gaudio near the end of the game was to discuss getting the players off the court before the students stormed the court?
from the cheap seats, it looked like they were discussing another clock error. Time kept running during dead ball situations there toward the end of the game, and Coach K pointed it out to the ref. I'm not sure why the ref thought he had to pull both coaches together, maybe that's the protocol when you're going to the monitor.

p.s. only deities, if anyone, are beyond criticism

[Troublemaker]

Does it really matter what happens in the regular season when we've gone nowhere in the NCAAs the past several years?

Final Four in 2004 (and a few breaks away from a championship), Championship in 2001.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm not touchting the criticism question. As mentioned, Duke is 22-2 and leading the ACC. One of Coach K's finest coaching seasons ever in my book.

But I do have a question, or would like some opinions (sorry if this has been discussed already).

Last night, Coach K seemed relatively laid back - almost like he didn't mind if the team struggled. It was uncharacteristic of him, but I didn't see it as a negative. It's almost like he felt this team needed a lesson in "struggles" or in a bit of humility.

I noticed it; my brother then called and mentioned it; then the announcer made a brief mention about the different demeanor in Coach K.

Anyone else have a take on this?

-EarlJam

I noticed that, too. I think he wanted to see what the team could figure out for itself, especially since we had a two-game lead in the conference race and we are getting towards the time of year where a loss ends your season.

Kind of like taking the training wheels off. The kid's got to fall a few times before (s)he rides.

[Duvall]

I am confident that many of the players who don't get 10+ minutes for Duke could start elsewhere, and some of them transfer (Chris Burgess, Eric Boateng) and actually play (though in Boateng's case, good riddance).

What I don't get is why players like Taylor King, Nolan Smith, Brian Zoubek (not to mention Marty Pocius last season), don't play a regular 15 minutes a game.


Nolan Smith doesn't play 15 minutes per game because he plays 15.8 minutes per game. He was averaging more in ACC play before he injured his knee; hopefully last night's game was a sign that he's recovered from that.

Brian Zoubek doesn't play 15 minutes a game because he's recovering from a broken foot. It doesn't help that his mobility is limited when he's healthy, let alone when he's injured.

Taylor King doesn't play 15 minutes a game because he is only able to contribute against major competition in certain favorable situations. I don't see how anyone who has watched the last six weeks of games can dispute this. I guess everyone digs the long ball.

Even so, Duke has eight players averaging 10 minutes per game (okay, 9.9) in ACC play, with two more playing spot minutes. If anything, I'd like to see K tighten up the rotation a bit more.

[FerryFor50]

1. You're not "starting up" a discussion. You're re-hashing a very, very old one.
2. Duke played an 8-man rotation last night and has gone deep this season overall. Check the boxscore(s). What a weird complaint.
3. Your memory that Duke received important contributions from bench players during the '91/'92 title runs is correct. Your memory that Duke went significantly deeper back then is not, especially not relative to this season. Check the boxscores. http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/schedule.php?season=1990-91
http://goduke.statsgeek.com/basketball-m/seasons/schedule.php?season=1991-92
4. What is the one thing that was true about the relationship between college basketball and the NBA back then that isn't true now? How has that change affected Duke's depth in recent years? What adjustment has been made (hint: has to do with recruiting)?

1. I apologize if I'm re-hashing. I'm new to these forums, so the discussion is new to me. :)
2. The bench got minutes last night due to foul trouble. What happened in the Maryland win? Nolan Smith played about 6 minutes. Taylor King played 2 minutes. McClure played 7. As the season has gone on, the bench has shortened.
3. Good point about the Duke teams' depth back then. I had forgotten they shortened the bench back then, too.
4. Point taken. I just feel like Duke has more depth each year then they're given credit for. Hard to have depth when you don't play people.

[Troublemaker]

I'm not touchting the criticism question. As mentioned, Duke is 22-2 and leading the ACC. One of Coach K's finest coaching seasons ever in my book.

But I do have a question, or would like some opinions (sorry if this has been discussed already).

Last night, Coach K seemed relatively laid back - almost like he didn't mind if the team struggled. It was uncharacteristic of him, but I didn't see it as a negative. It's almost like he felt this team needed a lesson in "struggles" or in a bit of humility.

I noticed it; my brother then called and mentioned it; then the announcer made a brief mention about the different demeanor in Coach K.

Anyone else have a take on this?

-EarlJam

I agree, and your thoughts were confirmed by Duke's radio broadcast night. Matthew Laurance mentioned that Coach K held back from calling timeouts during periods when Duke struggled because he wanted the team to experience the consequences of effing around at the beginning of games (as we've had a tendency to do recently).

[FerryFor50]

Nolan Smith doesn't play 15 minutes per game because he plays 15.8 minutes per game. He was averaging more in ACC play before he injured his knee; hopefully last night's game was a sign that he's recovered from that.

Brian Zoubek doesn't play 15 minutes a game because he's recovering from a broken foot. It doesn't help that his mobility is limited when he's healthy, let alone when he's injured.

Taylor King doesn't play 15 minutes a game because he is only able to contribute against major competition in certain favorable situations. I don't see how anyone who has watched the last six weeks of games can dispute this. I guess everyone digs the long ball.

Even so, Duke has eight players averaging 10 minutes per game (okay, 9.9) in ACC play, with two more playing spot minutes. If anything, I'd like to see K tighten up the rotation a bit more.

Nolan Smith was playing more before, but lately hasn't played much.

Zoubek, I understand the injury aspect. But before that, he wasn't exactly playing for long stretches.

King needs to play regardless of the situation. He's not going to learn shot selection when he feels like he's getting pulled in a minute anyway.

I'm just glad people are actually discussing this. :)

[Troublemaker]

1. I apologize if I'm re-hashing. I'm new to these forums, so the discussion is new to me. :)
2. The bench got minutes last night due to foul trouble. What happened in the Maryland win? Nolan Smith played about 6 minutes. Taylor King played 2 minutes. McClure played 7. As the season has gone on, the bench has shortened.
3. Good point about the Duke teams' depth back then. I had forgotten they shortened the bench back then, too.
4. Point taken. I just feel like Duke has more depth each year then they're given credit for. Hard to have depth when you don't play people.

The Maryland rotation was an anomaly for this season, no? Also, almost all coaches shorten their rotation for the competitive games; Duke is not unique. Check the boxscores for Kansas, UCLA, and most other contenders this season and you'll see the pattern. Finally, your idea of what constitutes depth (Zoubek and King 15 min/gm???) is wrong, imo.

I gotta run, so use the search function.

[Devilsfan]

No! Coach K is the man. He has created a role model D-1 winning program at a top ten academic institution, not an easy feat. Hope he stays 'till he's one hundred.

[FerryFor50]

The Maryland rotation was an anomaly for this season, no? Also, almost all coaches shorten their rotation for the competitive games; Duke is not unique. Check the boxscores for Kansas, UCLA, and most other contenders this season and you'll see the pattern. Finally, your idea of what constitutes depth (Zoubek and King 15 min/gm???) is wrong, imo.

I gotta run, so use the search function.

Anomaly? No, the same type of rotation was also used for:

Boston College
UNC
NCSU

It's been a growing trend (or shrinking, in terms of the bench) as the season wears on...

[watzone]

Anomaly? No, the same type of rotation was also used for:

Boston College
UNC
NCSU

It's been a growing trend (or shrinking, in terms of the bench) as the season wears on...

Give it up! Duke won those three games and nobody complained.

[FerryFor50]

Give it up! Duke won those three games and nobody complained.

I did!

I've been preaching this for 4 years now... just never thought to come to a Duke BBall forum to do it. :p

[watzone]

I did!

I've been preaching this for 4 years now... just never thought to come to a Duke BBall forum to do it. :p

So you complained after these wins? The UNC win? Your fun may not last much longer.

[FerryFor50]

So you complained after these wins? The UNC win? Your fun may not last much longer.


I was happy they won, but I was saying "they need to play the bench more."

[The Gordog]

Thoughts? We're 22-2 and leading the ACC in a season where we were expected to be competitive but middle of the pack in conference. No, Coach K deserves no criticism.
Not to be too nit-picky, but I don't think anybody picked us to be anything other than 2nd in the conference, with the exception of homers who picked us first and UNC grads who may have picked us somewhere else.

[The1Bluedevil]

During the UCLA/UNC game Marques Johnson said the most overrated saying in basketball is having a bench. He knows more then any of us.

[tbyers11]

Thoughts? We're 22-2 and leading the ACC in a season where we were expected to be competitive but middle of the pack in conference. No, Coach K deserves no criticism.


Not to be too nit-picky, but I don't think anybody picked us to be anything other than 2nd in the conference, with the exception of homers who picked us first and UNC grads who may have picked us somewhere else.

I agree that saying that Duke was picked as middle of the pack is exaggerating things a bit, but a lot of media picked us third and we just edged NC State for second in the preseason poll (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/102107aab.html).

Of course, we all know that biased UNC grads make up the majority of the media in the heart of ACC country, so you still may be correct ;)

[FerryFor50]

I agree that saying that Duke was picked as middle of the pack is exaggerating things a bit, but a lot of media picked us third and we just edged NC State for second in the preseason poll (http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/102107aab.html).

Of course, we all know that biased UNC grads make the majority of the media in the heart of ACC country, so you still may be correct ;)

God, that's the truth.

I get so sick of the UNC love fest from the media. For all the venom for Dick Vitale, there sure isn't as much for Stuart Scott or Hubert Davis. At least Jay Bilas is impartial.

[Zeke]

It's about that time of year when Duke teams begin to run out of gas. I am a bit surprised if that is the case this year as they have been playing more guys in the rotation till lately; but I must admit that against WF they were a step (or two) late - which resulted in a lot of fouls and their shooting was not fluid - anything beyond 10ft was probably missed (including foul shots).
What's even more disconcerting is that they have been that way for a couple of games now but have been able to reach down and suck it up to come out with a win.
I hope this is a one game aberration but I'm fearful.
What say you all.

[Constantstrain 81]

Last night, I think, was a case of mental tiredness. I actually expected it to come in the 2nd Maryland game - instead we played that one very well.

It is February, you have accomplished much, you are getting accolades and rankings, your fans (students and otherwise) are talking routinely about number one seeds, etc. etc. Then, you walk into a packed and wild arena with a hungry young team and you feel - "Huh? I have to prove myself again?" And the answer is, of course, yes. Every night. Every game.

Still, the bench will bring different pluses and minuses to each game and each situation. Zoubek and King will see 1st half minutes most games. The feel is different, the pressure is different and the rest is more beneficial to the top six players. The second half time is one for tough players playing tired. The extra minutes rest in the first half helps (and if the 7-8-9-10 players can contribute and stay out there longer, so much the better). Second half - that's gut check time. That is when the rotation shrinks and that is when it should shrink.

At this time of the season, knowing what K knows from practices and game performances - you have to produce if you want major minutes. I love Zoubek and King - but they have to produce to stay out there. Both have major issues with positioning, footwork, decision-making, and conditioning. However, both of them can fix those issues and both have tremendous upsides. We may not see that tremendous upside this season.

[omar]

So proud of our team. Orchids to Coach K and staff for energizing the offense, bringing in new talent and using the bench more frequently than in years past. Perhaps some of the readership might respond to my lingering concern why Taylor King does not get more playing time? McClure does great defense but is limited on offense. Henderson, a super player, is hampered by his wrist. Again, great D but limited O. Jon...has lost his shooting eye of late and is getting stuffed under the boards. King is a bigger body, shows good D and has shown the capability of a scorer's touch. For me, when he is sitting at the far end of the bench, it's not a good sign. When we have a seven minute dry spell, why not insert a possible difference maker?

[Duvall]

When we have a seven minute dry spell, why not insert a possible difference maker?

Because he hasn't made a positive difference in nearly a month.

[OldPhiKap]

I haven't looked at the box scores, but my guess would be that Lance is getting more minutes on the inside and Kyle is getting more minutes as well. I don't have a problem with K leaving Lance in -- he is starting to play very well, and if King is in then you have the crowd yettling "why doesn't Lance get minutes?". Kyle is key to breaking the press and the stall ball at the end of the game, and it is hard to argue that he should not play the minutes he has.

King is a valuable part of this team and will have a great career at Duke. That said, he is only a freshman. There seems little need to yalp about his minutes at this point, and I do not have any indication that HE is making an issue of it. I assume he understands that winning a championship is good for everyone, and that his role will evolve and grow over the next four years. Patience is a virtue.

[pfrduke]

Anomaly? No, the same type of rotation was also used for:

Boston College
UNC
NCSU

It's been a growing trend (or shrinking, in terms of the bench) as the season wears on...

Against BC, no one played more than 34 minutes, and the 4 players outside our top 6 averaged 7 minutes a person. Against NC St., only Nelson played more than 33 minutes, and the 3 players outside our top 6 (Zoubek was still hurt) averaged 9.33 minutes a person. Against UNC, only Singler played more than 33 minutes, and the 3 players outside our top 6 averaged 7.33 minutes a person. Against Wake, no one played more than 31 minutes, and the 4 players outside our top 6 averaged 9 minutes a person.

Depth doesn't mean that if we have a 10-man rotation, all 10 should play 20 minutes a game. There are only 200 minutes to go around. Ideally, against good opponents (which is pretty much every team in the ACC), Nelson and Singler play 33-35, Scheyer and Henderson play 28-30, and Paulus and Thomas play about 25. That's roughly 170-175 minutes, leaving 25-30 for Smith, McClure, King, and Zoubek, no fewer than 10-15 of which should go to Smith. So if you're advocating more minutes for King or Zoubek, they have to come at someone's expense - they can't just come out of nowhere.

Depth means being able to rely on people if we need them. We know we can use Zoubek, King, and McClure in excess of 10 minutes a game if we need to. They'll be ready, and they can perform reasonably well. But they are not better options than the top 7 players in our rotation, and I don't believe in sticking them in the game for extended periods of time just for the sake of doing so.

Oh, and the increased use of the bench in earlier games is solely a function of opponent quality, not whether it's an early or late season game. For example, against Davidson, the players outside our top 6 averaged 8 minutes per person. Against Marquette, it was 7 minutes per person. Against Virginia, it was 19 minutes per person. Against Miami, it was 14.67 minutes per person (by the way, this was just two weeks ago).

[FerryFor50]

Against BC, no one played more than 34 minutes, and the 4 players outside our top 6 averaged 7 minutes a person. Against NC St., only Nelson played more than 33 minutes, and the 3 players outside our top 6 (Zoubek was still hurt) averaged 9.33 minutes a person. Against UNC, only Singler played more than 33 minutes, and the 3 players outside our top 6 averaged 7.33 minutes a person. Against Wake, no one played more than 31 minutes, and the 4 players outside our top 6 averaged 9 minutes a person.

Depth doesn't mean that if we have a 10-man rotation, all 10 should play 20 minutes a game. There are only 200 minutes to go around. Ideally, against good opponents (which is pretty much every team in the ACC), Nelson and Singler play 33-35, Scheyer and Henderson play 28-30, and Paulus and Thomas play about 25. That's roughly 170-175 minutes, leaving 25-30 for Smith, McClure, King, and Zoubek, no fewer than 10-15 of which should go to Smith. So if you're advocating more minutes for King or Zoubek, they have to come at someone's expense - they can't just come out of nowhere.

Depth means being able to rely on people if we need them. We know we can use Zoubek, King, and McClure in excess of 10 minutes a game if we need to. They'll be ready, and they can perform reasonably well. But they are not better options than the top 7 players in our rotation, and I don't believe in sticking them in the game for extended periods of time just for the sake of doing so.

Oh, and the increased use of the bench in earlier games is solely a function of opponent quality, not whether it's an early or late season game. For example, against Davidson, the players outside our top 6 averaged 8 minutes per person. Against Marquette, it was 7 minutes per person. Against Virginia, it was 19 minutes per person. Against Miami, it was 14.67 minutes per person (by the way, this was just two weeks ago).

Yes, and that's my point exactly. We only play our guys when we play lesser teams. Who learns anything that way?

I don't want 20 min per person... I want 10-15 minutes for King, Z, and 20-25 min for Scheyer, Smith and Thomas.

[pfrduke]

Yes, and that's my point exactly. We only play our guys when we play lesser teams. Who learns anything that way?

I don't want 20 min per person... I want 10-15 minutes for King, Z, and 20-25 min for Scheyer, Smith and Thomas.

First, that's not true - we play our guys between 7-9 minutes per person when we play tough teams. Even excluding Smith, we play our 8, 9, and 10 guys about 5 minutes per person against our best opponents. There's a reason that King, Zoubek, and McClure are our 8, 9, and 10 guys - while they're good players, they are not as good as the top 7. Remember, you're not just advocating more minutes for Zoubek and King - you're also advocating fewer minutes for our top 7.

Second, your ideal leaves 110 minutes for Singler, Paulus, Henderson, and Nelson - 27.5 minutes per game. That's too few against the top competition.

I really don't understand how, this year of all years, people still say we have no depth and don't use our bench. Nelson is the ONLY player averaging more than 30 minutes, and he's at just 31. We don't have anyone in the top 12 of minutes played in conference play. And a full 9 players average 10 minutes per game. Note the word "average" - it means in some games, they'll play fewer than 10, and in some games, they'll play more. Personally, I'd rather the bottom of our rotation player fewer minutes against UNC, and more minutes against NCCU. But maybe that's just me.

[_Gary]

I really don't understand how, this year of all years, people still say we have no depth and don't use our bench. Nelson is the ONLY player averaging more than 30 minutes, and he's at just 31. We don't have anyone in the top 12 of minutes played in conference play. And a full 9 players average 10 minutes per game. Note the word "average" - it means in some games, they'll play fewer than 10, and in some games, they'll play more. Personally, I'd rather the bottom of our rotation player fewer minutes against UNC, and more minutes against NCCU. But maybe that's just me.

I'm not jumping into the whole "bench" thing this time around because I do think we are in much better shape than we have been for some time, player option wise. We've got 10 guys that can play, and that's better than we've had in a long, long time. Having said that, I don't like it when we start talking about "average minutes" because, as you said, it takes into account some things that don't matter as much in February. And it doesn't take into account some other things that are important as we head toward March.

For instance, I think we should be focusing only on the ACC schedule if we are going to talk about what players have "averaged", minutes wise, if the discussion is to be in good faith. No one says we don't play the bench in November or December. The general concern is that as the season wears on we might tend to tighten things up. So let's not average the entire season in if we are talking about a potential shortening of the bench at this time of year. What happened before the conference season began doesn't really apply to this particular discussion, IMHO. I'd also suggest we look at second half playing time versus first half playing time if we are to have an honest, good faith discussion. If we generally play 9 or 10 in the first half, but drop off to only 6 and a half or 7 in the second half, that's a point that has to be considered in the discussion. Also, if substitutions are ONLY being made because of foul difficulty late in games, that kinda skews things as well and needs to be considered.

Again, for the record, I don't plan on getting into this again. I think we are in pretty good shape, with my only real concern being little, nagging injuries (mainly the one to Gerald at this point). I just thought those points were important if we were discussing depth and bench use in general. Just my two cents.


Gary

[Troublemaker]

Yes, and that's my point exactly. We only play our guys when we play lesser teams. Who learns anything that way?

I don't want 20 min per person... I want 10-15 minutes for King, Z, and 20-25 min for Scheyer, Smith and Thomas.

Sigh. We've been over this a billion times word for word. I know you're new or whatever but I find myself already repeating things to you. Virtually NOBODY does what you're talking about. Almost EVERYONE, including other contenders, shorten their rotation for the tough games. It's silly to not play your best players the most minutes in your toughest games. It's also arrogant to assume that you know anything about how much King and Zoubek should play without any knowledge whatsoever about their performance in practice, conditioning level (e.g. Zoubek's post-injury status), skill level etc etc. Being a fan of a team means you have 0.000000001% of the knowledge required to decide that "King and Zoubek should get 15 minutes a game."

You ask who learns anything by not being in the game? EVERY player does. Every player OBVIOUSLY does. On this very team, Lance Thomas was the guy everyone wanted to see more minutes last year. But he wasn't ready then. Instead, he slowly developed by participating in practice and other non-game activities, which completely dwarf the 80 minutes of gametime a week, and is a much better player this season and now plays a lot of minutes. Dave McClure received exactly 0 minutes of gametime in the 2006 season and yet was somehow a valuable contributor on last season's team. Again, considering the amount of gametime per week vs the amount of non-gametime per week, it's preposterous to suggest that you can't learn anything except in those teeny tiny 80 minutes of gametime every week. Why do teams even practice?

[pfrduke]

For instance, I think we should be focusing only on the ACC schedule if we are going to talk about what players have "averaged", minutes wise, if the discussion is to be in good faith. No one says we don't play the bench in November or December. The general concern is that as the season wears on we might tend to tighten things up. So let's not average the entire season in if we are talking about a potential shortening of the bench at this time of year. What happened before the conference season began doesn't really apply to this particular discussion, IMHO. I'd also suggest we look at second half playing time versus first half playing time if we are to have an honest, good faith discussion. If we generally play 9 or 10 in the first half, but drop off to only 6 and a half or 7 in the second half, that's a point that has to be considered in the discussion. Also, if substitutions are ONLY being made because of foul difficulty late in games, that kinda skews things as well and needs to be considered.

<sigh>. Fine, let's talk conference play. King is averaging 8.3 minutes per game. McClure is averaging 9.9. Smith is averaging 15.5. Yes, Zoubek has only played a total of 10 minutes in three games since he returned - of course, he is recovering from a broken foot. Also, none of our players is among the 12 heaviest used in conference (I can't remember exactly where Nelson comes in - I think it's in the neighborhood of 15th in minutes played in ACC games only).

As to your "first half minutes v. second half minutes" argument, I'm not sure I see the point. Game experience is game experience. One of the reasons you use your bench more liberally in the first half is so your best players are fresh in the second. We've done that exceedingly well this year. How many games has Duke looked stronger, faster, and fresher than its opponents in the last 10 minutes? 20? 21? 22? That's because we used the bench well in the first half (and even the early part of the second half). Are you suggesting that, in a two-possession game on the road with under 4 minutes to play, we ought to take out Singler and put in Zoubek (or take out Henderson and put in King), just so he can get a feel for that kind of game environment? Really?

Duke has consistently used its bench this season in a manner that puts the team in the best position to win - both within individual games and over the course of the season. There really are no two ways about that.

[_Gary]

<sigh>...

Are you suggesting that, in a two-possession game on the road with under 4 minutes to play, we ought to take out Singler and put in Zoubek (or take out Henderson and put in King), just so he can get a feel for that kind of game environment? Really?

First off, no need for the condescending "sigh". No reason at all.

Secondly, you know good and well I'm not suggesting any such thing, so please don't argue straw men with me. Over the course of visiting the DBR for 10 years now this one thing has remained consistent - people use straw men way too much. Either we discuss in good faith or we don't. And with all this, I still said that I wasn't really concerned with depth this year like I was in past years. So I don't get the "attitude" at all.

As for the first half vs. second half point, I'm just saying that it's a point that could, and probably should, be considered if we are even going to discuss this issue in good faith. If you disagree with that, fine. To each his own.

Peace.


Gary

[FerryFor50]

Sigh. We've been over this a billion times word for word. I know you're new or whatever but I find myself already repeating things to you. Virtually NOBODY does what you're talking about. Almost EVERYONE, including other contenders, shorten their rotation for the tough games. It's silly to not play your best players the most minutes in your toughest games. It's also arrogant to assume that you know anything about how much King and Zoubek should play without any knowledge whatsoever about their performance in practice, conditioning level (e.g. Zoubek's post-injury status), skill level etc etc. Being a fan of a team means you have 0.000000001% of the knowledge required to decide that "King and Zoubek should get 15 minutes a game."

You ask who learns anything by not being in the game? EVERY player does. Every player OBVIOUSLY does. On this very team, Lance Thomas was the guy everyone wanted to see more minutes last year. But he wasn't ready then. Instead, he slowly developed by participating in practice and other non-game activities, which completely dwarf the 80 minutes of gametime a week, and is a much better player this season and now plays a lot of minutes. Dave McClure received exactly 0 minutes of gametime in the 2006 season and yet was somehow a valuable contributor on last season's team. Again, considering the amount of gametime per week vs the amount of non-gametime per week, it's preposterous to suggest that you can't learn anything except in those teeny tiny 80 minutes of gametime every week. Why do teams even practice?

Isn't equally arrogant to assume that you know that King and Zoubek don't belong in the games?

You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly haven't been repeating anything to me. Maybe you've made the same argument elsewhere, but not with me.

My take on King and Zoubek getting minutes is for three reasons:
1) They get valuable in-game, crunchtime experience - needed for a deep tourny run
2) Players learn more in-game than on the bench
3) The other 6 to 8 guys don't get worn out. Duke plays a very frenetic pace, which takes a toll on bodies, regardless of conditioning.

I wouldn't mind if K shortened his bench in tourny games, but in the regular season, I think he just handcuffs himself when he benches his players in key games.

[FerryFor50]

<sigh>. Fine, let's talk conference play. King is averaging 8.3 minutes per game. McClure is averaging 9.9. Smith is averaging 15.5. Yes, Zoubek has only played a total of 10 minutes in three games since he returned - of course, he is recovering from a broken foot. Also, none of our players is among the 12 heaviest used in conference (I can't remember exactly where Nelson comes in - I think it's in the neighborhood of 15th in minutes played in ACC games only).

As to your "first half minutes v. second half minutes" argument, I'm not sure I see the point. Game experience is game experience. One of the reasons you use your bench more liberally in the first half is so your best players are fresh in the second. We've done that exceedingly well this year. How many games has Duke looked stronger, faster, and fresher than its opponents in the last 10 minutes? 20? 21? 22? That's because we used the bench well in the first half (and even the early part of the second half). Are you suggesting that, in a two-possession game on the road with under 4 minutes to play, we ought to take out Singler and put in Zoubek (or take out Henderson and put in King), just so he can get a feel for that kind of game environment? Really?

Duke has consistently used its bench this season in a manner that puts the team in the best position to win - both within individual games and over the course of the season. There really are no two ways about that.


No one is suggesting that's what anyone does.

What we're saying is, put them in early in big games, see if they get into any rhythm. 1 or two minutes at a time does nothing for them. Then when the time comes where they NEED to come in on a two possession game, you don't crap your pants and say "great, here comes x player."

[OldPhiKap]

What we're saying is, put them in early in big games, see if they get into any rhythm. 1 or two minutes at a time does nothing for them. Then when the time comes where they NEED to come in on a two possession game, you don't crap your pants and say "great, here comes x player."

I can't think of a player on our team that gives me that feeling.

I think those urging more bench rotation had a valid point in the years when (it seemed to me) JJ was out of gas for the last month of the season. But I just don't see it here. If we had two guys in the top 10 of ACC minutes, for example, I would agree with you. But it seems to me that K has used the bench more this year than in several years, and that his use is consistant with how he did it in the late 80's and early 90's. Pretty good years in my book.

[pfrduke]

As for the first half vs. second half point, I'm just saying that it's a point that could, and probably should, be considered if we are even going to discuss this issue in good faith.

Why?

At the risk of creating more straw men, I'd like to understand why you believe this is essential to a good faith discussion of depth.

Is it experience related? (i.e. - second half minutes are "different" than first half minutes, so our back of the rotation guys should get those minutes too) If that's the case, are all second half minutes qualitatively different? Only those with under 10 minutes to play? Under 5 minutes to play? Only when it's a close game, regardless of time on the clock?
Is it rest related? (i.e., Nelson playing 15 minutes in half 1 and 20 in half 2 is substantially different than playing 17 in half 1 and 18 in half 2) If this is the case, why isn't a 7-man rotation adequate to address this (100 minutes for 7 players are more than enough to go around)? Why does King or Zoubek need to be the guy giving one of our starters rest?
Should we be "mirroring" our substitution patterns in the first and second halves? Or should it at least be patterned to provide the same number of minutes to each player in each half? If not, what's the "right" number of second half minutes, with respect to first half minutes?

[FerryFor50]

I can't think of a player on our team that gives me that feeling.

I think those urging more bench rotation had a valid point in the years when (it seemed to me) JJ was out of gas for the last month of the season. But I just don't see it here. If we had two guys in the top 10 of ACC minutes, for example, I would agree with you. But it seems to me that K has used the bench more this year than in several years, and that his use is consistant with how he did it in the late 80's and early 90's. Pretty good years in my book.

Fair enough. Could just be residual from the JJ years. :)

[pfrduke]

Then when the time comes where they NEED to come in on a two possession game, you don't crap your pants and say "great, here comes x player."


I can't think of a player on our team that gives me that feeling.

I agree completely. King, McClure, and Zoubek are good players, and I'm comfortable if they're playing at the end in a close game. But they're not, at this point, as good as the guys in our top 7, and unless three of those 7 can't be on the court for some reason, I don't see a reason for any of them to be in during a close & late situation (with one exception - if we have one possession to play and need a three, I'd want King on the court - and I think Coach K would as well).

[Troublemaker]

Isn't equally arrogant to assume that you know that King and Zoubek don't belong in the games?

No, because the coaches have all the necessary information, the information that you don't have, and they've decided that King and Zoubek don't merit 15 minutes a game at this point.



You don't have to agree with me, but you certainly haven't been repeating anything to me. Maybe you've made the same argument elsewhere, but not with me.

I certainly have repeated to you that pretty much everyone shortens their rotation for their toughest games, which you continue to ignore. Look up UCLA, Kansas, UNC, etc etc box scores and compare their rotation in blowouts vs their rotation in competitive games.



My take on King and Zoubek getting minutes is for three reasons:
1) They get valuable in-game, crunchtime experience - needed for a deep tourny run
2) Players learn more in-game than on the bench
3) The other 6 to 8 guys don't get worn out. Duke plays a very frenetic pace, which takes a toll on bodies, regardless of conditioning.


Okay, now tell me what is Zoubek's current VO2 max? What was it pre-injury? (BTW, answer this: you do realize Zoubek was a starter right before his injury, right?). How does his foot feel when he scrimmages for 5 minutes? 20 minutes? What is King's VO2 max? What are his weight goals and conditioning goals? Has he met them? Which defensive concepts is he having a tough time dealing with? Offensive concepts? How many points per possession does his team give up on average in scrimmage? Etc etc etc etc

You don't have enough information.

[OldPhiKap]

Fair enough. Could just be residual from the JJ years. :)

d'accord.

[FerryFor50]

No, because the coaches have all the necessary information, the information that you don't have, and they've decided that King and Zoubek don't merit 15 minutes a game at this point.



I certainly have repeated to you that pretty much everyone shortens their rotation for their toughest games, which you continue to ignore. Look up UCLA, Kansas, UNC, etc etc box scores and compare their rotation in blowouts vs their rotation in competitive games.



Okay, now tell me what is Zoubek's current VO2 max? What was it pre-injury? (BTW, answer this: you do realize Zoubek was a starter right before his injury, right?). How does his foot feel when he scrimmages for 5 minutes? 20 minutes? What is King's VO2 max? What are his weight goals and conditioning goals? Has he met them? Which defensive concepts is he having a tough time dealing with? Offensive concepts? How many points per possession does his team give up on average in scrimmage? Etc etc etc etc

You don't have enough information.

No, I don't have enough information.

But I do have plenty of opinions. :D

But there really isn't a need to get heated about it or snippy. If the discussion bothers you this much, maybe you should just abstain from it.

[Troublemaker]

No, I don't have enough information.

But I do have plenty of opinions. :D

But there really isn't a need to get heated about it or snippy. If the discussion bothers you this much, maybe you should just abstain from it.

Sometimes I abstain and let someone else handle things. But sometimes I participate because the payoff is this post of yours in which you "come around." I do try to avoid repetitive discussion because it is annoying.

[FerryFor50]

Sometimes I abstain and let someone else handle things. But sometimes I participate because the payoff is this post of yours in which you "come around." I do try to avoid repetitive discussion because it is annoying.

I've come around to knowing I don't have enough information, but I never claimed to have any information.

I just see the team play and I formulate opinions. My beef with playing time isn't even with Z or King as much as it is with Smith. I think he's an underutilized weapon.

By the way, I looked up some teams to see if anyone else does what I say should be done:

UCLA - 7 players with 15+ min and 20 games, 1 with 20 games and 5 min
Kansas - 8 players with 15+ min and 20 games (most with 20-25), 2 players with 5+ min and 20 games
Memphis - 7 players with 15+ min and 20 games, 2 with 10+ min
Arizona - 8 players with 15+ min and 20 games

There are teams that go 8-9 deep for meaningful minutes and succeed.

[Johnboy]

Yes, and that's my point exactly. We only play our guys when we play lesser teams. Who learns anything that way?


I would suggest that throwing a player into the fray who is not ready is not always a learning experience. Players who are overmatched can become tentative and can lose confidence in ways that are difficult to overcome. We have plenty of good players on this team. Those who are not ready for major minutes will learn more in practice, in a more controlled environment, without the possibility of embarrassing themselves in front of a national TV audience and a crowd of thousands of spectators. Jumbo has written some excellent posts about this in the past.

Whether this is the case with anyone in particular (King or Zoubek), I have no idea. We all want all our players to be successful, but how to get them there is hard for us to say.

[FerryFor50]

I would suggest that throwing a player into the fray who is not ready is not always a learning experience. Players who are overmatched can become tentative and can lose confidence in ways that are difficult to overcome. We have plenty of good players on this team. Those who are not ready for major minutes will learn more in practice, in a more controlled environment, without the possibility of embarrassing themselves in front of a national TV audience and a crowd of thousands of spectators. Jumbo has written some excellent posts about this in the past.

Whether this is the case with anyone in particular (King or Zoubek), I have no idea. We all want all our players to be successful, but how to get them there is hard for us to say.

That's a good point, not one I had considered.

But what happens when they are forced into these situations, like when a player fouls out or gets hurt? Doesn't the anxiety level rise? And what if the situation is in the NCAA tourny?

I'd rather have it happen sooner than later. When you dictate who goes in when, you can control the situation.

[Duvall]

By the way, I looked up some teams to see if anyone else does what I say should be done:

UCLA - 7 players with 15+ min and 20 games, 1 with 20 games and 5 min
Kansas - 8 players with 15+ min and 20 games (most with 20-25), 2 players with 5+ min and 20 games
Memphis - 7 players with 15+ min and 20 games, 2 with 10+ min
Arizona - 8 players with 15+ min and 20 games

There are teams that go 8-9 deep for meaningful minutes and succeed.

Yes, and by that standard Duke would be such a team, with 7 players with 15+ mpg and 2 players with 10+ mpg.

[FerryFor50]

Yes, and by that standard Duke would be such a team, with 7 players with 15+ mpg and 2 players with 10+ mpg.

They certainly would.

Which is why I started softening my stance. ;)

But I still think they don't use Nolan Smith enough. Plus, my beef is with the bench shortening as the season goes on. Most of the minutes played by reserves came in games two weeks ago.

[Troublemaker]

I've come around to knowing I don't have enough information, but I never claimed to have any information. I just see the team play and I formulate opinions.

Are you basically saying we shouldn't take your opinions seriously then because having information to substantiate your opinions isn't a prerequisite for you? Are you taking a throw-stuff-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach to posting?


My beef with playing time isn't even with Z or King as much as it is with Smith. I think he's an underutilized weapon.

Again, how has Nolan's hyper-extended knee affected his play? How many more weeks/days is he projected to feel pain in the knee? Does it hurt most when he cuts, when he shoots, what? Again, you don't have enough information.

[FerryFor50]

Are you basically saying we shouldn't take your opinions seriously then because having information to substantiate your opinions isn't a prerequisite for you? Are you taking a throw-stuff-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach to posting?



Again, how has Nolan's hyper-extended knee affected his play? How many more weeks/days is he projected to feel pain in the knee? Does it hurt most when he cuts, when he shoots, what? Again, you don't have enough information.

No. I have as much information as just about anyone else posting here, so my opinions, while not buoyed by insider information, are still as educated as possible. It's not like Coach K is asking me to come watch practices and give him coaching advice.

By your rationale, if only people with that kind of information were allowed to give opinions here, then this would be a very, very quiet forum.

[Zeke]

Why is it that Paulus would make lots of mistakes in years 1 and 2 and still be playing when Z or TK make a foul, a missed pass, or a turnover and be out as fast as a gnat blink. TK was a great shooter till he started riding the pine and now he is missing most shots. Z didn't get to be a DU recruit by being clumsy and not being able to play the post; but for both these players playing time is crucial.
Now we are into the guts of the season with a 7-8 man rotation again and guess what - same Ole' same Ole' - a step or 2 late and no legs in 3's and FT.
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is a sign of mental illness, but that's what is happening - even more so with a up tempo game, pressing defense, and a continually cutting offense with kick outs. I'm afraid we've seen the best of our Duke team.
I REALLY HOPE I'M WRONG

[Troublemaker]

No. I have as much information as just about anyone else posting here, so my opinions, while not buoyed by insider information, are still as educated as possible. It's not like Coach K is asking me to come watch practices and give him coaching advice.

By your rationale, if only people with that kind of information were allowed to give opinions here, then this would be a very, very quiet forum.

It depends on what the opinion is about. For example, you're qualified to give an opinion about who played well, who played poorly, etc etc after you've finished watching a 40-minute game on TV. In fact, the bulk of the posts on this forum occur in the pre-game / post-game threads.

You're, however, unqualified (not enough information) to criticize the coaching staff about playing time distribution because it requires knowledge of matters waaay beyond the 40-minute games that you see on TV.

Also, no response to my Nolan Smith questions? Afterall, he's your real concern.

[FerryFor50]

It depends on what the opinion is about. For example, you're qualified to give an opinion about who played well, who played poorly, etc etc after you've finished watching a 40-minute game on TV. In fact, the bulk of the posts on this forum occur in the pre-game / post-game threads.

You're, however, unqualified (not enough information) to criticize the coaching staff about playing time distribution because it requires knowledge beyond the 40-minute games that you see on TV.

Also, no response to my Nolan Smith questions? Afterall, he's your real concern.

Where was your Nolan Smith question? I must have missed it through the rest of your negativity.

[Troublemaker]

Where was your Nolan Smith question? I must have missed it through the rest of your negativity.

Scroll up. You'll see it.

Two questions:
1. What negativity?
2. No response to my point that some opinions are qualified and some are unqualified?

[ugadevil]

I must have missed it through the rest of your negativity.

I'm not sure where you're getting this negativity vibe from Troublemaker. He's stating things that are pretty common knowledge. However, he's actually taken the time to entertain this topic and give a response, which is more than what most people have/will. Honestly, if you think people are getting negative or cranky about it, it's because it simply has been discussed over and over and over again. I understand that you're new to the board and that this topic is new to you, but it's just tough for people who see a new person bring up the same argument every week. It's ok, stick around long enough and you'll find a topic that we constantly discuss that annoys you too.:rolleyes:

[FerryFor50]

Scroll up. You'll see it.

Two questions:
1. What negativity?
2. No response to my point that some opinions are qualified and some are unqualified?

You're being condescending and projecting your own tiredness with the debate on me.

Like I said, if it's old and worn out for you, then abstain.

Some opinions are qualified, some are not. It doesn't mean, in a public forum about Duke basketball, that an unqualified opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not like I'm recommending a US invasion into Iraq because of my unqualified opinion that they have weapons of mass destruction.

And honestly, a lot of times, people with all the information can't see the forest for the trees. Maybe they're overlooking something. Maybe it's a photo they've looked at too close for too long. Either way, it doesn't matter. Coach K isn't going to look at my posts and respond to them either way. He's certainly not going to change his style up either. So, in essence, my opinion on the issue matters only to me and those interested in discussing it in a civil manner, with both parties exhibiting respect for opinions both in accordance with and against their own.

Unless you have a qualification I don't have, being that you have inside information, or work on the Duke coaching staff, or are a Duke player... then you really can't judge me for not having the same information you don't have access to. I acknowledge that I don't have the information I need to make a QUALIFIED opinion, but it won't stop me from making an outside observation.

As for Nolan's injury, I don't feel it necessary to comment on it, because I've already conceded that I don't have inside information. You only asked the question to further prove something I'd already admitted to, which falls under the "repetitive argument" arena that you despise so much.

Like I said, if you have access to information that the rest of us do not, then more power to you. If you're working from the same information that the rest of us are, then maybe you should consider that when debating an issue.

[FerryFor50]

I'm not sure where you're getting this negativity vibe from Troublemaker. He's stating things that are pretty common knowledge. However, he's actually taken the time to entertain this topic and give a response, which is more than what most people have/will. Honestly, if you think people are getting negative or cranky about it, it's because it simply has been discussed over and over and over again. I understand that you're new to the board and that this topic is new to you, but it's just tough for people who see a new person bring up the same argument every week. It's ok, stick around long enough and you'll find a topic that we constantly discuss that annoys you too.:rolleyes:

I'm sure there will be topics that annoy me. But I'm not one to condescend to someone that's new just because it's old news to me. Already, I've seen 4 or 5 new threads started that repeated information. I didn't comment on them. Why?

I may be new to Duke forums, but I'm not new to forums.

The negativity is in the tone and condescension. I've already acknowledged Troublemaker's valid and non-condescending points, but tried to ignore the negative points because it's just not worth the time or effort. But he's persisted, so I responded.

The RIGHT way to approach someone who has beat a dead horse is the way you have - with sincere respect and civility. You haven't come at me with "well, you're not a Duke coach, so you don't get to have an opinion."

[pfrduke]

I've come around to knowing I don't have enough information, but I never claimed to have any information.

I just see the team play and I formulate opinions. My beef with playing time isn't even with Z or King as much as it is with Smith. I think he's an underutilized weapon.

By the way, I looked up some teams to see if anyone else does what I say should be done:

UCLA - 7 players with 15+ min and 20 games, 1 with 20 games and 5 min
Kansas - 8 players with 15+ min and 20 games (most with 20-25), 2 players with 5+ min and 20 games
Memphis - 7 players with 15+ min and 20 games, 2 with 10+ min
Arizona - 8 players with 15+ min and 20 games

There are teams that go 8-9 deep for meaningful minutes and succeed.

Arizona's numbers are seriously skewed by some injuries. They do not go very deep - Budinger, Bayless, and McClellan play a ton of minutes every game (I think each averages 35+ in conference play), and Nic Wise was averaging over 30 mpg until he got hurt. Actually, look at Daniel Dillon's usage - he played 30 mpg when Bayless was out, and fewer than 5 mpg in conference play when Wise and Bayless were both healthy.

Also, with regard to your comment on Smith - just focusing on February games, he's played over 13 mpg. That included the 6 minutes against Maryland, when his action may well have been limited by the hyper-extended knee. I think (though I'm not positive) that the Maryland game was the only contest in which he did not play at least 10 minutes all season. On the year, he's averaged right around 16 minutes, and that number has not trended downward much if at all in conference play (actually, if you exclude the Maryland game, he's played more minutes per game in conference than in non-conference). I agree that Smith is a valuable piece to the team, and I think his level of usage has been about right. Remember, most of the time he's on the court, Paulus is not, which means our best 3-point shooter is in a place where he can't make any shots.

[Troublemaker]

You're being condescending and projecting your own tiredness with the debate on me. Like I said, if it's old and worn out for you, then abstain.

I'm questioning whether the debate even has to exist, which I admit, can sound condescending. As for abstaining, I sometimes do but (obviously) not today. Maybe it's because you are new and I want to indulge you in conversation.



Some opinions are qualified, some are not. It doesn't mean, in a public forum about Duke basketball, that an unqualified opinion shouldn't be taken seriously.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I will not take your unqualified opinion about Duke's playing time distribution seriously, and I expect many people won't either.


And honestly, a lot of times, people with all the information can't see the forest for the trees. Maybe they're overlooking something. Maybe it's a photo they've looked at too close for too long.

I don't see that as a viable analogy. I see it as Coach K has a copy of the photo, and you have an empty hand.


Either way, it doesn't matter. Coach K isn't going to look at my posts and respond to them either way. He's certainly not going to change his style up either. So, in essence, my opinion on the issue matters only to me and those interested in discussing it in a civil manner, with both parties exhibiting respect for opinions both in accordance with and against their own.

That is correct. I guess I am asking why is the issue even up for discussion when nobody knows anything.



Unless you have a qualification I don't have, being that you have inside information, or work on the Duke coaching staff, or are a Duke player... then you really can't judge me for not having the same information you don't have access to.

There's a difference. You are unqualified to criticize the coaching staff about playing time distribution. I, however, am qualified to point out the limits of knowledge gained from watching games on TV. Because I watch the games, too, and I have no idea the status of Nolan's knee, Zoubek's foot, how King is performing in practice, etc etc. So I know you don't either. See the difference?


I acknowledge that I don't have the information I need to make a QUALIFIED opinion, but it won't stop me from making an outside observation.


You don't have to stop (and I can't ask you to stop). But I think we have arrived at a stopping point in this discussion. The stopping point is as follows: You think your unqualified opinions should be taken seriously. I think they shouldn't be. So we will agree to disagree because there is nothing to say beyond that, am I right?



As for Nolan's injury, I don't feel it necessary to comment on it, because I've already conceded that I don't have inside information. You only asked the question to further prove something I'd already admitted to, which falls under the "repetitive argument" arena that you despise so much. Like I said, if you have access to information that the rest of us do not, then more power to you. If you're working from the same information that the rest of us are, then maybe you should consider that when debating an issue.

See above regarding how I'm qualified. Also, the reason I want you to acknowledge that you don't know anything about Nolan's injury status is because in a previous post, you had criticized Nolan's playing time and said that was your primary concern. I mean, the two things (injury and playing time) may be connected, right?

[Troublemaker]

I'm sure there will be topics that annoy me. But I'm not one to condescend to someone that's new just because it's old news to me. Already, I've seen 4 or 5 new threads started that repeated information. I didn't comment on them. Why?

I may be new to Duke forums, but I'm not new to forums.

The negativity is in the tone and condescension. I've already acknowledged Troublemaker's valid and non-condescending points, but tried to ignore the negative points because it's just not worth the time or effort. But he's persisted, so I responded.

The RIGHT way to approach someone who has beat a dead horse is the way you have - with sincere respect and civility. You haven't come at me with "well, you're not a Duke coach, so you don't get to have an opinion."

I don't believe I've made any negative points, whatever that means. As for persisting, it takes two to tango. All my responses are only in reply to yours.

Finally, I don't think you've accurately summarized my position. It's more like "You're not a Duke coach, so you don't have the information to criticize playing time distribution. Stick to areas that a fan is qualified to opine about, of which there are many."