An Interesting Twist on "Stall-Ball"

[Jumbo]

Tonight, K went to "stall-ball" relatively early -- with more than six minutes left in the game. But whether it worked (it pretty much did) is irrelevant. Instead, his intent was interesting.

Basically, K held open auditions for the high pick-and-roll, using the small lineup we've all figured might finish close games (Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler). We talk all the time about K using blowouts to work on various strategies, and tonight was a chance to figure out how best to run the high pick-and-roll late in the shot clock. So, tonight, various players got a chance. Scheyer got to run it with Singler on at least three straight possessions. Then it was Henderson's turn. Nelson ran it a couple of times. Paulus, for the most part, didn't -- I can only assume that a) he has the most experience doing so and b) he's probably not the most effective guy with the ball in his hands, so K was testing other options. And make no mistake -- K was clearly directing who would run this set each trip down the floor.

So, this was a great opportunity for K to learn about his team. And it was great for us, as fans, too. I liked what I saw out of the Scheyer/Singler pick-and-roll the most, because Scheyer saw the rest of the floor better than Nelson or Henderson. Gerald and DeMarcus were both a bit more effective getting into the paint, and Scheyer was a more effective outlet to spread the floor. But right now, game on the line, I think I want Scheyer running that screen with Singler with Nelson, Henderson and Paulus spreading the floor, ready to shoot, drive or crash the offensive boards.

[Lord Ash]

I noticed that too; K was REALLY directing things from the sidelines late, giving each guy a spot to go to and all that. Very interesting to see.

[dw0827]

What did you think of the spacing during that period? It seemed to me that three guys were bunched together in a corner (or quadrant) alot. I thought they were getting in each other's way. I assume the set was on purpose. Seemed like a different set than what I recall us using. Am I just not remembering correctly?

Anyway, its good to see him experimenting . . . because it's clear that it still needs work.

Oh, it was interesting to me that we pulled up for a few 3's instead of driving to the basket. Looked like that was purposeful, too.

Amazing that we could toy with a Big Ten team like that.

[Mike Corey]

Once we find the guy that does that the best, the "stall-ball" will be deadly, slowly suffocating opposing teams as we did yesterday becoming a staple of every Duke game.

Successful stall-ball is predicated on the fact that points can come with five seconds or less on the shot clock, every single time down the floor...and that requires an outstanding penetrator that can score and pass off the dribble.

We didn't have that a year ago. We have at least three guys that can do that now...and guys waiting on the wings (and on the blocks) ready to capitalize on the opportunities such penetration will inevitably create.

[loran16]

Couple things:

1. Stall ball generally bothers me when the lead is ~10 points or so. Because at that point you often hinder your chance to add to the lead and the other team can catch up in a few possessions. This means that while you are taking time off the clock, the other team can take its time on its offensive end if they can stop you defensively. It was one of the more frustrating things to see from K last year..to go into stallball with like 5 minutes left when we were only up 10. When you're up 20-23 on the other hand, stall-ball is a lot more effective, because even if you miss a bunch of shots, they have to rush to score on their end.

2. Wisconsin seemed to be thrown off guard by the change to stall-ball....in the first half, when Paulus/smith had the ball at half court, the wisconsin players stayed back close to the 3 pt line (so as to prevent us from driving i suspect). But when we switched to stall ball, they had to pressure our guards, and we seemed to easily be able to pass the ball or go around them.

In fact in the most amusing segment, one player (iirc it was scheyer but not sure) actually dribbled in a circle around his defender. Which was pretty hilarious.

3. I think Having either of our big men out there during stall ball is probably the wrong tactic, and thus i didnt see them out there much during the 2nd half late...Instead we saw Demarc, Singler, Paulus, Smith, Henderson, and Scheyer rotating around, and even went double point guard with around 3 minutes left. It was highly effective.

[jjasper0729]

Yes, that was Scheyer channelling Curly Neal.

It also led to a decline in the number of assists in the second half. i noticed as the first half went along and the second half was getting going that there was a small gap between baskets and assists.

After the move to the stall and the screen/roll, the assists got fewer as there were more drives through the defense. when Wisconsin didn't rotate over to help, the driver just went up with it. Scheyer did this a couple of times, as did Demarcus and Gerald to great effect.

[Troublemaker]

That one time Scheyer drove to the front of the rim and layed it in was good for him. He needs to be more confident driving and finishing because having multiple guards that can penetrate and make short shots will somewhat offset not having a true low-post threat. I mean, the reason we all want post scoring is because it's more consistent than outside shooting, it draws fouls, and it draws defenders away from outside shooters. Players that can consistently penetrate and finish can accomplish all those same things. Right now we have three players who are pretty good at it in Kyle, Markie and Gerald (Kyle and G can be outstanding at it next season as they continue to hone). Scheyer and Smith have the potential to be pretty good at it as well, so their development and getting comfortable in this area are things to watch for the rest of the season.

[Genedoc]

Tonight, K went to "stall-ball" relatively early -- with more than six minutes left in the game. But whether it worked (it pretty much did) is irrelevant. Instead, his intent was interesting.

Basically, K held open auditions for the high pick-and-roll, using the small lineup we've all figured might finish close games (Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler). We talk all the time about K using blowouts to work on various strategies, and tonight was a chance to figure out how best to run the high pick-and-roll late in the shot clock. So, tonight, various players got a chance. Scheyer got to run it with Singler on at least three straight possessions. Then it was Henderson's turn. Nelson ran it a couple of times. Paulus, for the most part, didn't -- I can only assume that a) he has the most experience doing so and b) he's probably not the most effective guy with the ball in his hands, so K was testing other options. And make no mistake -- K was clearly directing who would run this set each trip down the floor.

So, this was a great opportunity for K to learn about his team. And it was great for us, as fans, too. I liked what I saw out of the Scheyer/Singler pick-and-roll the most, because Scheyer saw the rest of the floor better than Nelson or Henderson. Gerald and DeMarcus were both a bit more effective getting into the paint, and Scheyer was a more effective outlet to spread the floor. But right now, game on the line, I think I want Scheyer running that screen with Singler with Nelson, Henderson and Paulus spreading the floor, ready to shoot, drive or crash the offensive boards.

Concur. With Scheyer, he's gritty enough to turn the corner a little more effectively than Greg, and you cannot foul either he or Singler. Most importantly, and most dramatically different from last year, you CANNOT cheat off of the man setting the pick. Josh wouldn't shoot, so our screen and rolls were never very effective. This year, with Singler and King both perfectly capable of setting the pick and then either popping or diving, our pick is a whole bunch more effective. Both players can drain it, both can knock down free throws if you foul them, and both of them can get to the basket.

[devilsadvocate85]

I think if you watch the tape you will see that Duke tried to run the "pick and roll" by giving the ball to either Henderson, Scheyer or Paulus depending on which of the three was being guarded by what Coach K thought was Wisconsin's weakest perimeter defender (#45 maybe?). It looked to me like a case of trying to exploit matchups.

[construe]

I found these paragraphs from the Suns’ victory over the Pacers last night interesting. From the AP recap:

“Phoenix's quick shots gave the Pacers the chance to overcome a 12-point deficit in the second half. The up-tempo style the Suns have helped popularize in recent years worked against them in the second half. The Pacers entered the game ranked in the top 10 in the league in scoring, so they were equipped to make the comeback. ‘You go up 15, and the way you got up there is also the way they're going to get it back,’ Phoenix coach Mike D'Antoni said. ‘So you just have to kind of put your seat belt on and ride through it.’ “

D’Antoni appears to have the mentality that many on the boards here would like to adopt regarding end-of-game management: keep running & gunning, and hope you can "ride it out". As much as K seems to have picked some things up from D’Antoni, perhaps D’Antoni could learn a thing or two from K?

(Of course, it is interesting to note that Phoenix won this game playing “their way”, while Duke has so far won this season playing its way. So who knows which approach is better…)

[uncwdevil]

I found these paragraphs from the Suns’ victory over the Pacers last night interesting. From the AP recap:

“Phoenix's quick shots gave the Pacers the chance to overcome a 12-point deficit in the second half. The up-tempo style the Suns have helped popularize in recent years worked against them in the second half. The Pacers entered the game ranked in the top 10 in the league in scoring, so they were equipped to make the comeback. ‘You go up 15, and the way you got up there is also the way they're going to get it back,’ Phoenix coach Mike D'Antoni said. ‘So you just have to kind of put your seat belt on and ride through it.’ “

D’Antoni appears to have the mentality that many on the boards here would like to adopt regarding end-of-game management: keep running & gunning, and hope you can "ride it out". As much as K seems to have picked some things up from D’Antoni, perhaps D’Antoni could learn a thing or two from K?

(Of course, it is interesting to note that Phoenix won this game playing “their way”, while Duke has so far won this season playing its way. So who knows which approach is better…)

D'Antoni's way is probably more aesthetically pleasing, but I think the chances of blowing the game have to be a little higher. K's way is more painful to watch, but its probably the best thing for winning games.

I stand by K on this since he knows slightly more about basketball than I do, but I have to admit it is excruciating to watch sometimes. Hopefully, with more options for the two man game late in the shot clock, some of the pain will be eased this season.

[greybeard]

Er, I think we are missusing a term here, fellas. The "pick and roll" is first and foremost a two man game in which either the dribbler or the screener get to try to score the ball. Only if neither can get what they want do other options present.

What we have here is something different--the use of a very high screen to permit the dribbler an easier path to penetration, getting an edge on the defender without having to particularly work at it, and with the other side's big, or one of them, being occupied far away from the basket to guard a guy who can kill you from outside if you don't.

If you stay with the screener, he and you are essentially out of the play, which is exactly what K expects. You then have penetration by a guy who should be on balance, who is one of your best shooter/attacker/distributers in a 4 on 3 plus situation (he has beaten his man and as a famous coach once put it, if you beat a guy and know how to tighten the angle between him and you, he stays beaten) with a key inside defender nowhere to be found. A good scoring opporunity has to follow if the other three guys know how to read the ball handler and make decent decisions the ball handler can see coming.

Calling it the "pick and roll" is misleading and technically an incorrect use of the term. In my opinion, of course.

[CDu]

Er, I think we are missusing a term here, fellas. The "pick and roll" is first and foremost a two man game in which either the dribbler or the screener get to try to score the ball. Only if neither can get what they want do other options present.

What we have here is something different--the use of a very high screen to permit the dribbler an easier path to penetration, getting an edge on the defender without having to particularly work at it, and with the other side's big, or one of them, being occupied far away from the basket to guard a guy who can kill you from outside if you don't.

If you stay with the screener, he and you are essentially out of the play, which is exactly what K expects. You then have penetration by a guy who should be on balance, who is one of your best shooter/attacker/distributers in a 4 on 3 plus situation (he has beaten his man and as a famous coach once put it, if you beat a guy and know how to tighten the angle between him and you, he stays beaten) with a key inside defender nowhere to be found. A good scoring opporunity has to follow if the other three guys know how to read the ball handler and make decent decisions the ball handler can see coming.

Calling it the "pick and roll" is misleading and technically an incorrect use of the term. In my opinion, of course.

It's frequently called the pick and pop. It's a slight derivation of the pick and roll. Instead of rolling to the basket after setting the pick (which is the "roll" part), the screener just steps back, or "pops" out. Frequently, both defenders follow the ball, leaving the screener open for a jump shot.

It's a derivation born out of the gradual development of the outside shot for big men. In the old days, big guys didn't frequently shoot from the perimeter. Now, it's more and more common.

[yancem]

D'Antoni's way is probably more aesthetically pleasing, but I think the chances of blowing the game have to be a little higher. K's way is more painful to watch, but its probably the best thing for winning games.

I stand by K on this since he knows slightly more about basketball than I do, but I have to admit it is excruciating to watch sometimes. Hopefully, with more options for the two man game late in the shot clock, some of the pain will be eased this season.

I agree that the stall offense can be an effective way to seal a victory but what has always puzzled me was why stand near half court until the 10 second mark and then start the offense? I would prefer if they wold work the ball around more in the manner of the normal offense and simply be more picky with their shots. If a layup or a open short shop presents itself take it regardless of the clock, if it doesn't keep working the ball around.

One of the problems with holding the ball outside of shooting range is that it allows the defense to rest and only forces them to concentrate for a few seconds instead of the entire shot clock. If you pass the ball around or at least threaten to penetrate the defense has to continue working and will be more tired when they get the ball back.

[ice-9]

True, but if you pass it around you also risk getting the ball stolen or turning it over.

[greybeard]

It's frequently called the pick and pop. It's a slight derivation of the pick and roll. Instead of rolling to the basket after setting the pick (which is the "roll" part), the screener just steps back, or "pops" out. Frequently, both defenders follow the ball, leaving the screener open for a jump shot.

It's a derivation born out of the gradual development of the outside shot for big men. In the old days, big guys didn't frequently shoot from the perimeter. Now, it's more and more common.

The screen is set way too high (far away from the basket) for that, and if getting the screener the three is their purpose, they are woefully bad at it. Key to the high screen's being effective, however, is the need for the screener's defender to stay with his man, usually Singlar. If he doesn't, Singlar catches it moving into the three or gets the three after one dribble. So the big cannot help on the screen and is taken out of the defense. Nope, not the pick and pop either.

By the way, at the end of the Laker's game, the Laker's used a variation of this play (of Sun's origin) to free Kobey. Deep left side, only the screener came to the defender's right (Kobe's left). Kobe went easily off the screen for a two from about 18 feet.

In Duke's style now, I see a key element of their game as inside out initiation, with the initiator (pivot) often being the penetrator off a high screen. K had said before the season that they would get center play this year in ways that they had in the past; perhaps this is part of it. The other blast from the past is that Singlar low reminds me very much of the 6' 4" center K had early on who used to kill people in a similar fashion to the way Singlar has on occasion.

Very exciting, innovative year for the K man. Not bad for the talent under him either, not to mention the fans.

[CMS2478]

True, but if you pass it around you also risk getting the ball stolen or turning it over.

Nothing against Paulus, but he is not always capable of going by people or dribbling away from pressure. The defense is not going to always stand there and let you practice dribbling for 10 minutes. So by running stallball we run the same risk. I like the idea of being patient on offense and getting good shots. If you have built a double-digit lead, you must have been doing something right in the first place.....why change??? I am not a fan of stallball, but it has rarely cost us a game and I just pray it doesn't. Coach K is one of the best coaches ever and I am a lowly middle-school basketbally coach, so I trust him. But I don't teach my kids stallball the few times we tried it was a disaster!!!:eek:

[Jumbo]

The screen is set way too high (far away from the basket) for that, and if getting the screener the three is their purpose, they are woefully bad at it. Key to the high screen's being effective, however, is the need for the screener's defender to stay with his man, usually Singlar. If he doesn't, Singlar catches it moving into the three or gets the three after one dribble. So the big cannot help on the screen and is taken out of the defense. Nope, not the pick and pop either.

By the way, at the end of the Laker's game, the Laker's used a variation of this play (of Sun's origin) to free Kobey. Deep left side, only the screener came to the defender's right (Kobe's left). Kobe went easily off the screen for a two from about 18 feet.

In Duke's style now, I see a key element of their game as inside out initiation, with the initiator (pivot) often being the penetrator off a high screen. K had said before the season that they would get center play this year in ways that they had in the past; perhaps this is part of it. The other blast from the past is that Singlar low reminds me very much of the 6' 4" center K had early on who used to kill people in a similar fashion to the way Singlar has on occasion.

Very exciting, innovative year for the K man. Not bad for the talent under him either, not to mention the fans.

The term is just a question of semantics. "Ball screen," "high screen," "pick and roll" -- they're all the same. Bottom line is that such a screen always has two purposes -- to free a man or force a switch. Depending on who the screener is, the guy will dive or pop. Depending on the ball-handler, he'll turn the corner or pull-up. And, of course, the defense's strategy (trap the ball-handler, switch, go over the top, go under, hedge) will dictate how the offense reads the situation.

Duke uses this screen in conjunction with great spacing. The theory is that the court is so spread that someone has to be open if the defense helps. Still players have to make plays for that to happen.

[greybeard]

The term is just a question of semantics. "Ball screen," "high screen," "pick and roll" -- they're all the same. Bottom line is that such a screen always has two purposes -- to free a man or force a switch. Depending on who the screener is, the guy will dive or pop. Depending on the ball-handler, he'll turn the corner or pull-up. And, of course, the defense's strategy (trap the ball-handler, switch, go over the top, go under, hedge) will dictate how the offense reads the situation.

Duke uses this screen in conjunction with great spacing. The theory is that the court is so spread that someone has to be open if the defense helps. Still players have to make plays for that to happen.

The theory at play here is plain and simply to create space for the dribbler. No one is switching 40 feet from the basket, not with a big to a little, no one, especially if the screener is Singlar.

These terms are not fungible. The high screen developed by D'A is an innovation, or at least a tactic that he has brought to prominence. As I pointed out last year, JTIII has long used it too.

All those permutations you mentioned are completely and solely implicated when the two-man game is used. The two-man game dominated most pro offenses in the post early 1970's era of basketball, with a few exceptions, the Triangle, the King's Princeton, and then the Suns whatever. Its incessant use terribly dumbed the game down and made it boring. These other styles invigorate and entertain.

Saying the moon looks like swiss cheese is an acceptible statement. Saying that it is swiss cheese is an incorrect one.

[Jumbo]

The theory at play here is plain and simply to create space for the dribbler. No one is switching 40 feet from the basket, not with a big to a little, no one, especially if the screener is Singlar.

The screen isn't happening 40 feet from the basket. Also, just a pet peeve, but please try to spell Duke's players' names correctly. It's Singler.


These terms are not fungible. The high screen developed by D'A is an innovation, or at least a tactic that he has brought to prominence. As I pointed out last year, JTIII has long used it too.

It's not an innovation, but his success with it has led to copycats across the league. As I've pointed out on numerous occasions, the Princeton Offense eschews screens on the ball -- I'm not sure why you keep bringing up JT III as an innovator in tihs regard. That said, I can't think of a team that doesn't utilize a high ball-screen with the shot clock running down. It's the class quick-hitter.


All those permutations you mentioned are completely and solely implicated when the two-man game is used. The two-man game dominated most pro offenses in the post early 1970's era of basketball, with a few exceptions, the Triangle, the King's Princeton, and then the Suns whatever. Its incessant use terribly dumbed the game down and made it boring. These other styles invigorate and entertain.

That is completely, 100%, not true. You can run a ball-screen anywhere on the court and not have it turn into a two-man game. Stuff can be happening elsewhere on the floor to draw help, free a shooter, whatever -- screens, cuts, spacing, you name it.

[jjasper0729]

iirc, the utah jazz ran the pick and roll to the utmost success when stockton and malone were ont he team. they didn't seem to have a boring offense. what stagnated the nba was the isolation game that started in the mid-90s (in my opinion). there are people that will tell you that it was jordan himself that killed the nba with his isolation game in the triangle offense. i don't watch much of the nba, if at all so i'm not the best person to comment (but i like to comment anyway, sue me).

[ojaidave]

I agree that the stall offense can be an effective way to seal a victory but what has always puzzled me was why stand near half court until the 10 second mark and then start the offense? I would prefer if they wold work the ball around more in the manner of the normal offense and simply be more picky with their shots. If a layup or a open short shop presents itself take it regardless of the clock, if it doesn't keep working the ball around.

One of the problems with holding the ball outside of shooting range is that it allows the defense to rest and only forces them to concentrate for a few seconds instead of the entire shot clock. If you pass the ball around or at least threaten to penetrate the defense has to continue working and will be more tired when they get the ball back.

I think there is a mental aspect to this. By holding the ball and allowing the clock to drain, the other team has time to "feel" time slipping away. You're down by 12, there are 2 minutes left on the clock and you can just feel the game slipping away. Unless you're the guy guarding the ball handler, you don't really have anything to do - so you think about the clock and think about how you have to score quickly when you do get the ball. When your team does get the ball back, you might not execute as well because the whole notion of dwindling time is messing with your mind.

I don't mind stall ball. It generally means we're going to win.

Dave

[mus074]

...especially if the screener is Singlar.

...

Saying the moon looks like swiss cheese is an acceptible statement. Saying that it is swiss cheese is an incorrect one.

I would like to commend Jumbo on his marked change and restraint in postings this year. Last year, misspellings might have launched him into a semi-personal attack on the individual with whom he disagreed. Kudos as well to our friends at DBR for empowering and engaging Jumbo in the bulletin board process and for investing him in its civility and discourse.

Maybe we should put Putin in charge of UN election monitoring or Ahmadinejad in charge of nuclear inspections? (Sorry guys, to point out typos and for unfavorable comparisons. Please don't let me detract from a much improved DBR experience this year -- an improved team performance doesn't hurt either.)

[greybeard]

I would like to commend Jumbo on his marked change and restraint in postings this year. Last year, misspellings might have launched him into a semi-personal attack on the individual with whom he disagreed. Kudos as well to our friends at DBR for empowering and engaging Jumbo in the bulletin board process and for investing him in its civility and discourse.

Maybe we should put Putin in charge of UN election monitoring or Ahmadinejad in charge of nuclear inspections? (Sorry guys, to point out typos and for unfavorable comparisons. Please don't let me detract from a much improved DBR experience this year -- an improved team performance doesn't hurt either.)

This has something to do with basketball? The topic at hand? The topic at hand is whether the high screen employed by Duke has anything remotely to do with a screen and roll, or pick and pop, or any other name one can come up with for classic two-man ball. My position is that there is no connection; Jumbo's is that there is; in fact, he finds all such tactics to be of one piece.

And, your perspective on that would be? Hey, I didn't know that good manners were to be applauded, rather than expected, but if so, bravo from me too for Jumbo's self-restraint.

[mus074]

Thank you both for educating me on this issue. It appears at first blush to be one of semantics or nomenclature, as you don't seem to disagree too extensively about the substantive components of the various permutations of this umbrella of offensive attack. It helps a great deal in enjoying the games to recognize what your sharpened basketball minds have elucidated for me.

As for my diversion from the topic of discussion, I apologize. Thread distraction and hijacking is a rare occurrence on these boards.

[greybeard]

Thank you both for educating me on this issue. It appears at first blush to be one of semantics or nomenclature, as you don't seem to disagree too extensively about the substantive components of the various permutations of this umbrella of offensive attack. It helps a great deal in enjoying the games to recognize what your sharpened basketball minds have elucidated for me.

As for my diversion from the topic of discussion, I apologize. Thread distraction and hijacking is a rare occurrence on these boards.

When it comes to wine, for me, it's red or white. Not so with basketball.

I can appreciate that it is enough for some that their basketball be Duke blue. Absolutely.

And, oh, no apology needed. Someone to tell me how to get spell check to appear on my screen when I pull up this site would, however, be greatly appreciated. No, not by me. Me, I've had to live with this spelling deficiency all my adult life (never cared about it before that). No, this if for everyone else here, to whom I do genuinely apologize.

[mus074]

I like red and white, as well, but generally more toward the fuller bodied reds. Never got into the pinots, and feel the novice for it.

As for hoops, my top 5 favorite teams are Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke and Duke.

[mus074]

And, oh, no apology needed. Someone to tell me how to get spell check to appear on my screen when I pull up this site would, however, be greatly appreciated.

We're clearly getting off topic now, but I love Firefox, which has a nice spellcheck extension that underlines in red the words my first few tries mangle. :)

[greybeard]

I like red and white, as well, but generally more toward the fuller bodied reds. Never got into the pinots, and feel the novice for it.

As for hoops, my top 5 favorite teams are Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke and Duke.

Good choice in teams. You're on your own with wines, by me, at least. With regard to them, I rely on the kindness of strangers, and, of course, friends.

[Zeb]

This has something to do with basketball? The topic at hand? The topic at hand is whether the high screen employed by Duke has anything remotely to do with a screen and roll, or pick and pop, or any other name one can come up with for classic two-man ball. My position is that there is no connection; Jumbo's is that there is; in fact, he finds all such tactics to be of one piece.

Since greybeard obviously values on topic posts, I know I am missing something. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the Braveheart stuff has to do with setting a pick?

[mus074]

Since greybeard obviously values on topic posts, I know I am missing something. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the Braveheart stuff has to do with setting a pick?

well said, well spoken

[Jarhead]

My spell checker comes with Firefox, as far as I can tell. I don't know how to set it up. It seems to have always been there. Search google for Firefox spell checker, and you will get a pretty good list of potential solutions, if you have Firefox, that is. If you don't, why not? Sorry for getting off the subject.

[greybeard]

Since greybeard obviously values on topic posts, I know I am missing something. Can anyone enlighten me as to what the Braveheart stuff has to do with setting a pick?

Allow me to clarify, gentlemen. This post was misplaced, inadvertently I can assure you. It was meant to be placed after the still last post on the thread, "Next Step."

In that context, one might better understand that it speaks to the value of the leader of this team, both last year and this. That, in my opinion, would be Mr. Paulus, whom the last poster on that thread noted had made no statistical progress.

I, some might recall, have been an admirer of Mr. Paulus' since I began posting. I saw him as extraordinarily courageous for playing last year nearly incapacitated by an injury that most DBR participants refused to even acknowledge. It made him look silly a fair amount of the time, but he was the team's leader, K wanted him on the floor, he did what he could, and bore the embarassment without blaming others (compare McRoberts).

I still see Mr. Paulus as the Braveheart of this team; I think that the armies that the K men face are almost all stuck in the paradigm I set forth in my parable.

Paulus is to bear the force of attacking defenses, hold his ground and mostly get the ball into the hands of others to create. It is a thankless job in which, when great defenders putting great pressure on him make great plays, he is left standing naked. He is not to attack except when the pressure is put elsewhere. That is the way I see it, and that takes courage.

My nickname for Mr. Paulus seems apt. In my book, at least, he can be called Braveheart.

[CDu]

Allow me to clarify, gentlemen. This post was misplaced, inadvertently I can assure you. It was meant to be placed after the still last post on the thread, "Next Step."

In that context, one might better understand that it speaks to the value of the leader of this team, both last year and this. That, in my opinion, would be Mr. Paulus, whom the last poster on that thread noted had made no statistical progress.

I, some might recall, have been an admirer of Mr. Paulus' since I began posting. I saw him as extraordinarily courageous for playing last year nearly incapacitated by an injury that most DBR participants refused to even acknowledge. It made him look silly a fair amount of the time, but he was the team's leader, K wanted him on the floor, he did what he could, and bore the embarassment without blaming others (compare McRoberts).

I still see Mr. Paulus as the Braveheart of this team; I think that the armies that the K men face are almost all stuck in the paradigm I set forth in my parable.

Paulus is to bear the force of attacking defenses, hold his ground and mostly get the ball into the hands of others to create. It is a thankless job in which, when great defenders putting great pressure on him make great plays, he is left standing naked. He is not to attack except when the pressure is put elsewhere. That is the way I see it, and that takes courage.

My nickname for Mr. Paulus seems apt. In my book, at least, he can be called Braveheart.

I think you vastly overrate Paulus. I hate being in the position to badmouth a Duke player, but man, I find this to just be silliness.

[greybeard]

I think you vastly overrate Paulus. I hate being in the position to badmouth a Duke player, but man, I find this to just be silliness.

We have always had a healthy disagreement about the point guard position and certainly Paulus' value or lack of it.

What part of the paradigm do you think is off?

I didn't say word one about his being a "great" point guard, so our usual disagreement about Paulus' abilities are not now in play.

Coach K does start the guy, right? You can't believe that it is because he sees no other options.

So, what's up CDu, what role do you think K sees for him, and why's he giving him 27 min per game? This is a not a trick or antagonistic question. My guess is that you see this as a misstake on K's part; that right?

[CDu]

We have always had a healthy disagreement about the point guard position and certainly Paulus' value or lack of it.

What part of the paradigm do you think is off?

I didn't say word one about his being a "great" point guard, so our usual disagreement about Paulus' abilities are not now in play.

Coach K does start the guy, right? You can't believe that it is because he sees no other options.

So, what's up CDu, what role do you think K sees for him, and why's he giving him 27 min per game? This is a not a trick or antagonistic question. My guess is that you see this as a misstake on K's part; that right?

You couldn't be more off-target of what I was talking about. I'll humor your last question, even though it is completely off-topic. I actually think Paulus is our best option at point guard. That doesn't make him a great point guard. I've never been in the camp to suggest that we start someone else - even last year. My beef was with how he was rated as a PG compared to other starting PG. But as you seemed to grasp at the start of your post, this had nothing to do with that debate.

The quality of Paulus' play is not what I was talking about at all. And my post had absolutely NOTHING to do with Coach K or whether or not Paulus should be a starter. I'm really not sure where you were going with that.

My previous post had to do with your rambling on and on professing your admiration for his courage and leadership, even calling him Braveheart. I just think this is ridiculous hyperbole. I think you overstate his injury limitations from last year. He was not "nearly incapacitated." Was he 100%? Almost certainly not. But the fact is that he WAS able to run and jump and cut, and thus he was not remotely "nearly incapacited." Thus the gushing praise of his courage seemed to me to be a case of laying it on a bit too thick.

That's my opinion. I hope I'm not coming across as badmouthing Paulus. That's certainly not my intent. You can have your opinion about him. I just disagree with it. That's all.

[Jumbo]

I would like to commend Jumbo on his marked change and restraint in postings this year. Last year, misspellings might have launched him into a semi-personal attack on the individual with whom he disagreed. Kudos as well to our friends at DBR for empowering and engaging Jumbo in the bulletin board process and for investing him in its civility and discourse.

Maybe we should put Putin in charge of UN election monitoring or Ahmadinejad in charge of nuclear inspections? (Sorry guys, to point out typos and for unfavorable comparisons. Please don't let me detract from a much improved DBR experience this year -- an improved team performance doesn't hurt either.)

Thanks for the (backhanded?) compliment?

[greybeard]

You couldn't be more off-target of what I was talking about. I'll humor your last question, even though it is completely off-topic. I actually think Paulus is our best option at point guard. That doesn't make him a great point guard. I've never been in the camp to suggest that we start someone else - even last year. My beef was with how he was rated as a PG compared to other starting PG. But as you seemed to grasp at the start of your post, this had nothing to do with that debate.

The quality of Paulus' play is not what I was talking about at all. And my post had absolutely NOTHING to do with Coach K or whether or not Paulus should be a starter. I'm really not sure where you were going with that.

My previous post had to do with your rambling on and on professing your admiration for his courage and leadership, even calling him Braveheart. I just think this is ridiculous hyperbole. I think you overstate his injury limitations from last year. He was not "nearly incapacitated." Was he 100%? Almost certainly not. But the fact is that he WAS able to run and jump and cut, and thus he was not remotely "nearly incapacited." Thus the gushing praise of his courage seemed to me to be a case of laying it on a bit too thick.

That's my opinion. I hope I'm not coming across as badmouthing Paulus. That's certainly not my intent. You can have your opinion about him. I just disagree with it. That's all.

I really didn't understand your point. It did turn out that Paulus had played the entire season with a broken foot that needed surgery. Maybe you are right. I had a broken foot once; probably just projection on my part. Probably didn't effect his ability to deal with intensive pressure one bit. Heck, I bet when he was forced by pressure to plant and turn on that foot, and made some weak tepid pass to nobody, it had nothing to do with shooting pain. Man, where did I get such silly notions. Ridiculous? You sure about that CDU? You sure about that!

You do think that the point guard is a more important position than I do, and you have never regarded Paulus as competent to that task. That is my recollection.

I thought that we both agreed last year that Paulus did not belong out there--me, because I thought he was seriously injured (I said so a million times from the beginning of the season through the end) and you because you thought that he was performing poorly and that Scheyer and Henderson and Nelson could share the point duties and make for a stronger squad. You telling me now that I got that wrong? Come on, I don't remember so good anymore, CDU, but this I remember.

Now, your statement that you think that Paulus is the best point guard that K could put out there this year surprises me. I do not believe that even K believes that. Not in the way that you conceive it, anyway. I do not think Paulus is out there to play the position that Hurley, JWill, or Amakar (well maybe him, but only when Dawkins was running with him) played. That, in my opinion, is not his position on this season's ball club.

If you disagree with that, that is fine. You definitely know ball. You also have very firm and on-the-record opinions of what a point guard should possess (Lawsen, right), and have made it clear that you do not believe that Paulus fits the bill.

My opinion, if K wanted to play with a conventional concept of a point guard on the floor he'd be using Scheyer and Smith collectively at the 1 for more minutes than Paulus.

People asked why Smith backed the ball up the court against Marquette. I think it's because that is what K wants. He wants him to withstand the force of the defense, absorb it, and get the thing into the hands of others to create. Paulus does that better.

Using Scheyer or Nelson or Henderson to pull such duty would be a waste. Absorbing the force of the defensive pressure (picture the Marquette game here fellas) and delivering the ball to the wing creators is not easy work. Nor is it glamorous, especially as compared to the guys he is going up against who get to do so much more. Sacrificing your game for the good of the team in such a context constitutes leadership. It speaks to courage much more than diving for a million loose balls on the floor.

I think that K knows that and so do his teammates. Frankly, I don't know why I referenced Braveheart. I can't stand what's his name, for reasons that should be obvious.

[greybeard]

And, the one thing that is a bit scratchy here CDU is what your take is on this year's offense and whether you think my parabole presents an apt picture of K's strategy and how it fits in the current landscape that comprises most of Duke's opponents.

That was the point of my parabole, and I do think that Paulus plays the lead and courageous role in it. I get that I am prone to hyperbole. Now we know two things: I can't spell and puff a bit when making a point. You got a take on basketball or are you teaching English like the other guy?

[mgtr]

While I don't always agree with greybeard (or anyone, for that matter), I am in 100% agreement with him about Paulus. He is the most criticized, most underrated player on the team. I look for great things for him in the next two years if he continues to remain healthy. His length of the court pass (to Singler?) has to go into the Duke BB archives. Great. He sees the court very well, and generally makes good decisions. After playing injured last year, I think he is still a bit gunshy about making the big play, but is working on it.

[MChambers]

I don't think most of the folks posting here have given Paulus sufficient credit for playing last year. We'll probably never know how much the injury affected his game, but I'm willing to bet you are right.

[CDu]

I really didn't understand your point. It did turn out that Paulus had played the entire season with a broken foot that needed surgery. Maybe you are right. I had a broken foot once; probably just projection on my part. Probably didn't effect his ability to deal with intensive pressure one bit. Heck, I bet when he was forced by pressure to plant and turn on that foot, and made some weak tepid pass to nobody, it had nothing to do with shooting pain. Man, where did I get such silly notions. Ridiculous? You sure about that CDU? You sure about that!

You do think that the point guard is a more important position than I do, and you have never regarded Paulus as competent to that task. That is my recollection.

I thought that we both agreed last year that Paulus did not belong out there--me, because I thought he was seriously injured (I said so a million times from the beginning of the season through the end) and you because you thought that he was performing poorly and that Scheyer and Henderson and Nelson could share the point duties and make for a stronger squad. You telling me now that I got that wrong? Come on, I don't remember so good anymore, CDU, but this I remember.

Now, your statement that you think that Paulus is the best point guard that K could put out there this year surprises me. I do not believe that even K believes that. Not in the way that you conceive it, anyway. I do not think Paulus is out there to play the position that Hurley, JWill, or Amakar (well maybe him, but only when Dawkins was running with him) played. That, in my opinion, is not his position on this season's ball club.

If you disagree with that, that is fine. You definitely know ball. You also have very firm and on-the-record opinions of what a point guard should possess (Lawsen, right), and have made it clear that you do not believe that Paulus fits the bill.

My opinion, if K wanted to play with a conventional concept of a point guard on the floor he'd be using Scheyer and Smith collectively at the 1 for more minutes than Paulus.

People asked why Smith backed the ball up the court against Marquette. I think it's because that is what K wants. He wants him to withstand the force of the defense, absorb it, and get the thing into the hands of others to create. Paulus does that better.

Using Scheyer or Nelson or Henderson to pull such duty would be a waste. Absorbing the force of the defensive pressure (picture the Marquette game here fellas) and delivering the ball to the wing creators is not easy work. Nor is it glamorous, especially as compared to the guys he is going up against who get to do so much more. Sacrificing your game for the good of the team in such a context constitutes leadership. It speaks to courage much more than diving for a million loose balls on the floor.

I think that K knows that and so do his teammates. Frankly, I don't know why I referenced Braveheart. I can't stand what's his name, for reasons that should be obvious.

1. My stance has always been that Paulus is not an elite college point guard. I do think the position is very important and a key to being an elite team. I'm quite sure that I've never suggested the team has a better option at point guard. My point last year was that the team is limited BECAUSE they don't have a better option.
2. We aren't going to get anywhere discussing Paulus' injury. It's pointless to continue to debate it.
3. I agree that Paulus isn't out there to play like Hurley, Williams, etc. That doesn't mean he's not our best option at PG. It just means he isn't capable of doing what they could do (and few could). The fact is, we don't have any other point guards on the team (Smith played SG in high school). I completely disagree that Scheyer or Smith would be better options to play the "conventional point guard role."
4. I don't think Coach K wants his PG to back the ball up court. I think that's a function of Smith's lack of experience at PG.
5. I never said Lawson was the prototypical point guard. Just that Lawson has the explosiveness/athleticism at PG that Paulus doesn't.
6. Courage is not the right word for "sacrificing himself up for the good of the team." Moreover, that's not what he's doing. He's playing the point guard position. The point guard's job is to set up the offense and set up others for baskets. It's not courage, it's the requirement of the position.

[CDu]

And, the one thing that is a bit scratchy here CDU is what your take is on this year's offense and whether you think my parabole presents an apt picture of K's strategy and how it fits in the current landscape that comprises most of Duke's opponents.

That was the point of my parabole, and I do think that Paulus plays the lead and courageous role in it. I get that I am prone to hyperbole. Now we know two things: I can't spell and puff a bit when making a point. You got a take on basketball or are you teaching English like the other guy?

I simply think you're overstating the courageousness of Paulus' role. That was what I disagreed with in your first post. I think he's simply playing the point guard role: bring the ball up court, set up the offense. He's a point guard. That's his job. I don't think it's courageous to play the point guard position when you are supposed to be a point guard.

And I don't think I've ever critiqued your grammar. I'm certainly not here to teach ANYONE English, as I don't even know what a parabole is. I just feel like you have a tendency to sometimes apply much greater significance to something than it probably deserves.

[CDu]

While I don't always agree with greybeard (or anyone, for that matter), I am in 100% agreement with him about Paulus. He is the most criticized, most underrated player on the team. I look for great things for him in the next two years if he continues to remain healthy. His length of the court pass (to Singler?) has to go into the Duke BB archives. Great. He sees the court very well, and generally makes good decisions. After playing injured last year, I think he is still a bit gunshy about making the big play, but is working on it.

I hope you're right. I don't see it that way, but I sure hope you're right. We don't have any better options at PG this year, and we aren't going to have a better option next year either. So I definitely hope Paulus can figure out how to make his high school prowess translate to the college game.

[Jumbo]

People asked why Smith backed the ball up the court against Marquette. I think it's because that is what K wants. He wants him to withstand the force of the defense, absorb it, and get the thing into the hands of others to create. Paulus does that better.

What do you mean by that? Could you explain it in a different way?

[greybeard]

CDU, thanks for the clarification.

Jumbo, my thought is that K sees the point guard position for this year differently than most. Rather than being the initiator of the offense, the job principally is to absorb the defensive pressure that most defensive schemes are designed to place on the PG position, maintain poise, and get it to one of the initiators, which in the main will be either of the two wings. Paulus then becomes an option off of the flow that comes after the offense is initiated, in one of a number of ways, but often off of penetration by Henderson, Scheyer, or Nelson. I have not seen enough of King to know whether to include him in that group.

When the pressure is not focused on him, he has leeway to create as an initiator but that is not his primary role. And, he can start the offense by a penetrating pass, but that also is not option 1. Screen and role with one of the two bigs coming towards the top of the circle is also an option, but that I again think is reserved for when the exterior defense is not set to stop the point but rather is focused on tight guarding of the wings.

Absorbing the pressure that defenses are designed to throw at the point, especially when, as I believe, the point has constraints against taking the ball and trying to hurt the pressure by beating it to create for himself first and then others, is extremely difficult. I think it is that that Paulus is better at than Smith.

Smith I believe would follow what he's done until now; you pressure him and he will try to bury him. All scorers relish having a defender come after them. Smith can score the ball. K does not want the point to initiate according to the defense's dictates. You put the reigns on a young colt and ask him to change a mindset that plays to his intelligence as developed thus far and the point of moderation is often missed.

This is the same essential point I made about the play of Nelson and Henderson. I see both as posssessing keen vision (smarts) that matches their athleticism (I hate that term). The things that they saw most possible in the game last year they were restrained from doing by the occupy-the-clock imperative K employed. This year they have no such constraints. I see each able to beat defenders every bit their equal athletically, and often an inch or two bigger. I think it is because they are smarter (there is no movement absent the mind, none).

For the point guard position, the reign is still tight. How to ease up on the pedal without going to slow, how to recognize appropriate opportunities when the most appropriate ones you see are denied to you, etc, takes time to develop a feel, a vision, a wisdom for. Smith is not where Paulus is yet with those things.

That can't be clearer, but it was a sincere try.

[Jumbo]

Greybeard,
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "absorbing the pressure." That's why I'm still confused.

[greybeard]

Greybeard,
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "absorbing the pressure." That's why I'm still confused.

Classic point, say Hurley, Paul, Lawsen, you pressure them to get them to give up the ball or turn it over, they make you pay if they can. Look to blow past, create penetration and score or drop off for an inside play by a big. At the least, penetrate the pressure and look to make a special pass.

Paulus's job is to get the ball into attack position. You don't threaten the defense as described above, you embolden them. The defense is looking to "kill the head" and the body dies. They are trained, organized to do it. Paulus's job is to take the risk without posing the threat. Maintain composure, and put it in the hands of a wing. The wing initiates, if he draws Paulus's guy, Paulus is an offensive piece. In that posture, the defense in a sense has pressured the wrong guy. So Paulus takes the heat reserved for the classic point, the Paul's of the world, and Duke's initiators have fresh legs and minds not cluttered by the first aggressive wave of the defense.

If the defense backs away from the asssault on the point, that is pressure by a superior athlete with help coming from who knows where, and seeks to stay at home on the wings, then Paulus reads it and can act as a classic point.

The high screens for the initiators remove the need to spend a good move to get the edge on their defender. They then can turn the corner as they enter the middle with more tricks in their arsenals and get up and go in their tanks. Much of the exterior intensity has been extended on the point.

Now, could Paulus take on the pressure like a classic point and look to beat the defense, finish with a pull up or charge to the rim or dish, and do it effectively, CDu says not as well as you'd want. I've always felt that he showed a lot of that ability year 1, and that since then has not been whole enough to tell. Even this year I have some doubts (having foot surgery is a last resort and often presents less than ideal results) as to his complete health. However, I have a more optimistic view than CDu on that score, but cannot say he's wrong. He, like I said, as a better appreciation and fondness for the position than I. I am not a fan of the dominant point.

I have to think that Paulus would love to hurt folks who look to challenge him more than he tries to now. Exercising self restraint keeps him under more pressure longer than if he excaped and attacked. He'd also have a chance to make the other guys look real bad, which they can do to him if they catch him right. That is what they are trained for. So, he essentially needs to get the ball into the forecourt in balance and be able to start the ball rolling so that an initiator, attacker, can penetrate the defense, score the ball, or initiate inside out play. A division of responsibilities reposited on some teams in one player, the star point.

[CDu]

Classic point, say Hurley, Paul, Lawsen, you pressure them to get them to give up the ball or turn it over, they make you pay if they can. Look to blow past, create penetration and score or drop off for an inside play by a big. At the least, penetrate the pressure and look to make a special pass.

Paulus's job is to get the ball into attack position. You don't threaten the defense as described above, you embolden them. The defense is looking to "kill the head" and the body dies. They are trained, organized to do it. Paulus's job is to take the risk without posing the threat. Maintain composure, and put it in the hands of a wing. The wing initiates, if he draws Paulus's guy, Paulus is an offensive piece. In that posture, the defense in a sense has pressured the wrong guy. So Paulus takes the heat reserved for the classic point, the Paul's of the world, and Duke's initiators have fresh legs and minds not cluttered by the first aggressive wave of the defense.

If the defense backs away from the asssault on the point, that is pressure by a superior athlete with help coming from who knows where, and seeks to stay at home on the wings, then Paulus reads it and can act as a classic point.

The high screens for the initiators remove the need to spend a good move to get the edge on their defender. They then can turn the corner as they enter the middle with more tricks in their arsenals and get up and go in their tanks. Much of the exterior intensity has been extended on the point.

Now, could Paulus take on the pressure like a classic point and look to beat the defense, finish with a pull up or charge to the rim or dish, and do it effectively, CDu says not as well as you'd want. I've always felt that he showed a lot of that ability year 1, and that since then has not been whole enough to tell. Even this year I have some doubts (having foot surgery is a last resort and often presents less than ideal results) as to his complete health. However, I have a more optimistic view than CDu on that score, but cannot say he's wrong. He, like I said, as a better appreciation and fondness for the position than I. I am not a fan of the dominant point.

I have to think that Paulus would love to hurt folks who look to challenge him more than he tries to now. Exercising self restraint keeps him under more pressure longer than if he excaped and attacked. He'd also have a chance to make the other guys look real bad, which they can do to him if they catch him right. That is what they are trained for. So, he essentially needs to get the ball into the forecourt in balance and be able to start the ball rolling so that an initiator, attacker, can penetrate the defense, score the ball, or initiate inside out play. A division of responsibilities reposited on some teams in one player, the star point.

First, I really don't think it's any strategic gameplan for to have Paulus absorb the pressure and not attack. In fact, I think Coach K would much prefer it if Paulus could make defenses pay for pressure defense more often. I don't think the "back to the defender" approach is/was an exercise in self-restraint, but moreso an exercise in necessity for Paulus. Second, Paulus doesn't exclusively bring the ball up the court this year. Henderson, Scheyer, Singler, and Nelson often do as well. So that blows the whole "fresh legs" theory. If the intent for Paulus was to save their energy by absorbing the pressure of bringing the ball up court.

Further, I think the net effect of the approach you suggest is not a benefit. The offense would be much more effective if you could attack pressure and not have to withstand the pressure. And it's actually saving the rest of the defense energy, because they can relax and get into position, and not have to react as much to the threat of the point guard beating his man.

It appears to me this season that Coach K wants to get to the offensive end as quickly as possible to try to create easy scoring chances. That would seem to be counter intuitive to the absorb the pressure approach. Thus, I think you're misclassifying what is actually a limitation of Paulus as a courageous strength of his.

Also, I don't think I've never said I was a fan of the dominant PG. I don't want one guy dribbling 90% of the clock and necessarily determining every possession. What I do want is a point guard who's athletic enough to create easy scoring chances for others regularly. Can you succeed without one of those? Sure, but I think it's a lot harder.

[greybeard]

First, I really don't think it's any strategic gameplan for to have Paulus absorb the pressure and not attack. In fact, I think Coach K would much prefer it if Paulus could make defenses pay for pressure defense more often. I don't think the "back to the defender" approach is/was an exercise in self-restraint, but moreso an exercise in necessity for Paulus. Second, Paulus doesn't exclusively bring the ball up the court this year. Henderson, Scheyer, Singler, and Nelson often do as well. So that blows the whole "fresh legs" theory. If the intent for Paulus was to save their energy by absorbing the pressure of bringing the ball up court.

Further, I think the net effect of the approach you suggest is not a benefit. The offense would be much more effective if you could attack pressure and not have to withstand the pressure. And it's actually saving the rest of the defense energy, because they can relax and get into position, and not have to react as much to the threat of the point guard beating his man.

It appears to me this season that Coach K wants to get to the offensive end as quickly as possible to try to create easy scoring chances. That would seem to be counter intuitive to the absorb the pressure approach. Thus, I think you're misclassifying what is actually a limitation of Paulus as a courageous strength of his.

Also, I don't think I've never said I was a fan of the dominant PG. I don't want one guy dribbling 90% of the clock and necessarily determining every possession. What I do want is a point guard who's athletic enough to create easy scoring chances for others regularly. Can you succeed without one of those? Sure, but I think it's a lot harder.

Interesting perspectives. Makes me reexamine.

[Jumbo]

Greybeard,
I agree that Duke is asking its point guards to do less -- i.e. get the team into the offense, but not look to create on their own right away. But that doesn't mean it's a "courageous" thing. I can also tell you that no coach would ever teach a point guard to back the ball up the court. Why? It cuts off his vision. Even if you want your point guard to merely get the ball over halfcourt an deliver it to the wing, you want him to be able to see as much as possible. So, Smith isn't turning his back because Duke's coaches are telling him to do that. He's turning his back because he isn't confident running the position yet, and might be a little shaky with his handle in the process.

[greybeard]

Greybeard,
I agree that Duke is asking its point guards to do less -- i.e. get the team into the offense, but not look to create on their own right away. But that doesn't mean it's a "courageous" thing. I can also tell you that no coach would ever teach a point guard to back the ball up the court. Why? It cuts off his vision. Even if you want your point guard to merely get the ball over halfcourt an deliver it to the wing, you want him to be able to see as much as possible. So, Smith isn't turning his back because Duke's coaches are telling him to do that. He's turning his back because he isn't confident running the position yet, and might be a little shaky with his handle in the process.

The game has changed a bit over the years, Jumbo. On some issues, it even might be said to pass one by; but not if a guy keeps his ears open (deliberate, does tickle the mind, right). Go Duke, and thanks for an insight, especially the patience in the set up!

[throatybeard]

Allow me to clarify, gentlemen. This post was misplaced, inadvertently I can assure you. It was meant to be placed after the still last post on the thread, "Next Step."


We can move it.

[throatybeard]

Thanks for the (backhanded?) compliment?

Aw, c'mon, what's backhanded about comparing a guy to Putin or Ahmadinejad?

[greybeard]

We can move it.

No need. Jumbo showed great patience in getting me to be clear after I had "clarified" things (Prof White: there is only good rewriting), and then both he and CDu made some particularly apt counterpoints.