PDA

View Full Version : Bilas' take



Classof06
01-03-2008, 03:41 PM
Bilas did his January rundown of the ACC and predicted Duke to be a Sweet 16 team, possibly an Elite 8 team if our shots fall. He picked us 2nd in the ACC.

Jay's only doing his job, but I thought it was very unlike Bilas to essentially label teams the first week of January. I think to project what teams will do in March before 95% of these teams have even played a conference game is just an exercise in futility. Nevertheless his analysis of Duke was pretty solid. He said that because we're small and aren't a great rebounding team, we have to shoot the ball well to compete against the elite teams in America. I personally agree.

I think right now we are a Sweet 16/Elite 8 team, but I also believe Duke still has more than enough time to grow into a team that can go farther.

Thoughts?

SilkyJ
01-03-2008, 03:55 PM
Bilas did his January rundown of the ACC and predicted Duke to be a Sweet 16 team, possibly an Elite 8 team if our shots fall. He picked us 2nd in the ACC.

Jay's only doing his job, but I thought it was very unlike Bilas to essentially label teams the first week of January. I think to project what teams will do in March before 95% of these teams have even played a conference game is just an exercise in futility. Nevertheless his analysis of Duke was pretty solid. He said that because we're small and aren't a great rebounding team, we have to shoot the ball well to compete against the elite teams in America. I personally agree.

I think right now we are a Sweet 16/Elite 8 team, but I also believe Duke still has more than enough time to grow into a team that can go farther.

Thoughts?

basically i agree with everything you said. the article was good (i only read the first two parts though, i must admit...) and i agreed with just about everything Jay said, except i felt there's not much new info or much to be gained from the article. not trying to bash, but he just kinda pointed out the obvious for me...

the only thing i slightly disagreed with was his analysis of UNC's shooting. losing frasor hurts them in that regard (even though he was shooting poorly this year, we all know he's a good shooter. i mean he's no wes miller, but who is), but The Duke is a VERY, VERY good outside shooter (kinda like JJ, he's so good that his shooting % falls off b/c he takes some really hard shots) and green isn't far behind, and lawson is solid. granted they dont have as many weapons from the outside as we do, but i think we are the exception in this regard (i mean who has 6 or 7 GOOD outside shooters on their team, it just doesn't happen often) and I think that they shoot it just fine...

Duke12
01-03-2008, 03:56 PM
Think Jay is again spot on....alot depends on bracket matchups

HumboldtDevil
01-03-2008, 04:03 PM
Pretty solid analysis, but without saying anything others aren't already saying. If Duke shoots well it could very easily make the Final Four, though.

He didn't mention Duke's defense, which is key in March. He also stuck with the generic "if the shots fall" theory. Yes, if Duke makes a ton of shots, especially from the outside, it'll go far in March. The real key as the Devils get into conference play is creating easy shots. And, of course, finishing off those easy shots. There were times when Duke got into the lane against Pitt and just didn't finish. Henderson missed a dunk, but that would have been an amazing play. I'm thinking more of Henderson taking it too far in on the last possession of regulation and getting into an area where he couldn't shoot an open pull-up and was too far away to just drop it in or use the glass. Singler missed a gimme with a few minutes left and Henderson failed to pass the ball to Singler three times on the curl play we ran to perfection a couple times in the opening half. Those are the things Duke needs to really take care of to win late in March.

The Pitt game is a perfect example of the kind of game that Duke will need to win at some point in the NCAA Tourney if it wants to be in the Final Four. Poor shooting from deep, missed a bunch of free throws, some foul trouble, odd officiating, etc. And between Henderson and Singler, two guys that will have the ball a lot in the tourney, the Devils gave away 10-12 points on some basic plays mentioned above. Think about that. As bad as Duke played it could've easily had another 10 points in regulation (FTs aside) of a game that went to OT.
I guess Bilas was trying to paint using broad strokes, but he might have convinced himself that Duke is still better than he is giving it credit for if he went into details too much.

Devilsfan
01-03-2008, 04:18 PM
Jay makes them sound like the New England Patriots of the NCAA.
Lawson is faster than a speeding bullet and Hanstravel is more pwerful than a locomotive. Guess they can trade their locker room in for a telephone booth.
We can only hope that Jon has some of David in him when we face this Goliath.

3rd Dukie
01-03-2008, 06:04 PM
Pretty solid analysis, but without saying anything others aren't already saying. If Duke shoots well it could very easily make the Final Four, though.

He didn't mention Duke's defense, which is key in March. He also stuck with the generic "if the shots fall" theory. Yes, if Duke makes a ton of shots, especially from the outside, it'll go far in March. The real key as the Devils get into conference play is creating easy shots. And, of course, finishing off those easy shots. There were times when Duke got into the lane against Pitt and just didn't finish. Henderson missed a dunk, but that would have been an amazing play. I'm thinking more of Henderson taking it too far in on the last possession of regulation and getting into an area where he couldn't shoot an open pull-up and was too far away to just drop it in or use the glass. Singler missed a gimme with a few minutes left and Henderson failed to pass the ball to Singler three times on the curl play we ran to perfection a couple times in the opening half. Those are the things Duke needs to really take care of to win late in March.

The Pitt game is a perfect example of the kind of game that Duke will need to win at some point in the NCAA Tourney if it wants to be in the Final Four. Poor shooting from deep, missed a bunch of free throws, some foul trouble, odd officiating, etc. And between Henderson and Singler, two guys that will have the ball a lot in the tourney, the Devils gave away 10-12 points on some basic plays mentioned above. Think about that. As bad as Duke played it could've easily had another 10 points in regulation (FTs aside) of a game that went to OT.
I guess Bilas was trying to paint using broad strokes, but he might have convinced himself that Duke is still better than he is giving it credit for if he went into details too much.

Really good observations, Humboldt.

dukie8
01-03-2008, 07:18 PM
Bilas did his January rundown of the ACC and predicted Duke to be a Sweet 16 team, possibly an Elite 8 team if our shots fall. He picked us 2nd in the ACC.

Jay's only doing his job, but I thought it was very unlike Bilas to essentially label teams the first week of January. I think to project what teams will do in March before 95% of these teams have even played a conference game is just an exercise in futility. Nevertheless his analysis of Duke was pretty solid. He said that because we're small and aren't a great rebounding team, we have to shoot the ball well to compete against the elite teams in America. I personally agree.

I think right now we are a Sweet 16/Elite 8 team, but I also believe Duke still has more than enough time to grow into a team that can go farther.

Thoughts?

why is it an "exercise in futility" to project what teams will do at the end of the season when we are at the midpoint? do you expect analysts to keep mum until march and then analyze the season after it is over? it's not like he made any earth-shattering observations -- duke is good and it's ability to hit outside shots and deal with a weak inside game will determine how it does in the ncaat. it's not like anyone who follows duke didn't know that already.

dukie8
01-03-2008, 07:20 PM
The Pitt game is a perfect example of the kind of game that Duke will need to win at some point in the NCAA Tourney if it wants to be in the Final Four. Poor shooting from deep, missed a bunch of free throws, some foul trouble, odd officiating, etc. And between Henderson and Singler, two guys that will have the ball a lot in the tourney, the Devils gave away 10-12 points on some basic plays mentioned above. Think about that. As bad as Duke played it could've easily had another 10 points in regulation (FTs aside) of a game that went to OT.

there is zero chance that duke is going to the final 4 if it plays the way it did against pitt in the sweet 16. this team doesn't have enough room for error to shoot poorly from the field, get killed on the boards and miss a ton of fts. do that against memphis, kansas or ucla and it is the end of the line.

SilkyJ
01-03-2008, 07:39 PM
why is it an "exercise in futility" to project what teams will do at the end of the season when we are at the midpoint?

exhibit a: clemson. they love to go 10-0 by Jan 1 and then not make the tourney



there is zero chance that duke is going to the final 4 if it plays the way it did against pitt in the sweet 16. this team doesn't have enough room for error to shoot poorly from the field, get killed on the boards and miss a ton of fts. do that against memphis, kansas or ucla and it is the end of the line.

have to agree there.

i do think we are on the cusp of being a final four team though. all we need is some slight improvements over the next 2 months from a few guys...and if Lance is one of them then i think we are in great shape.

dukie8
01-03-2008, 07:43 PM
have you heard of a team called clemson. they go like 10-0 by Jan 1 and then don't make the tourney for 3 straight years.

yeah, and i remember people last year saying that their ocs was a joke and that it is hard to tell how they are going to do once they hit the acc. this year people are saying that their ocs was better, they are more experienced, they have at least 1 player who can shoot fts and that they should make the ncaat this time around. clemson might not but i don't see any harm in predicting it (or another collapse) with half the season already in the books.

Troublemaker
01-03-2008, 11:38 PM
Jay is a sports analyst and one of the things analysts do is make predictions. It's just part of the job and it's not like we should expect any of them to sit around and bide their time marking X's on their calendars until the magical date arrives when it's okay to make a prediction. That said, we're certainly overanalyzing ClassOf06's words, as I'm sure it was just a throwaway comment that he didn't intend to lead to further discussion.

So anyway, there will certainly be some surprises left this season and things to learn about the team before it's all done. For example, at the same point last season, we could not have expected Paulus to eventually become the most important scorer on that team nor could the team's defensive collapse at the end of the season that was perhaps precipitated by McClure's injury be predicted. This season, who knows what's in store? Perhaps, to use another example, someone emerges Roshown McLeod-style after the holiday break. Hopefully Zoubek.

DukeU3x
01-04-2008, 02:36 AM
I agree. With everyone.

However enjoyable, it is a bit futile to predict where teams will finish at the end of March. It’s hard to pick where teams will finish at the beginning of March. And even though the cute clerk in accounting who doesn’t know Georgetown from Georgia Southern has won more NCAA bracket pools than the most of us, we continue to fill out the sheets.

Okay, that said Humboldt seems to have nailed it. We can go deep, if…. Obviously, we all worry about us underneath which means that on one of those typical college hoops nights when the refs see charges/blocks from a different angle, when the rims are a little tighter/looser, when legs get a little heavier because of the altitude/travel, AND when the other guys are great bangers we’ll struggle mightily.

We might not run into a situation like that until very deep into the tourney, but we might run into a situation like that in the first round (been known to happen). Either way, we will run into a game like that. And, so will unc@ch. Which is what makes this my favorite sport.

And don't knock Bilas for picking unc@ch as a final four team or telling the truth about a couple of guys on their ball club. He's probably been accused of more pro-Duke/anti-what'stheirnames bias than any other announcer.

gw67
01-04-2008, 06:59 AM
I think early January is the perfect time to make "predictions" on the ACC finish. The teams have played approximately 1/2 their schedule and Bilas has probably seen all 12 teams play by now.

He predicts that 6 teams will make the NCAA. Based on my observations so far this season, I think that this is a stretch. I see UNC, Duke, Clemson and NC State making the tourney and perhaps either Florida State or Virginia sneaking in. This is a down year for the ACC and last night's Virginia game illustrates this.

Bilas and several others predict that Miami will be strong and will make the NCAA's. I've seen them play on the tube twice and they haven't impressed. They will be an interesting team to follow.

gw67

HK Dukie
01-04-2008, 07:54 AM
Jay Bilas on Duke: "The Destination: This is a Sweet 16 or perhaps Elite Eight team with a great shooting weekend."

The Sweet 16 is played on Thursday/Friday and the Elite Eight on the weekend. So if Duke had a great shooting weekend, wouldn't that mean Duke is destined for the Final 4 after shooting well in the Elite Eight?

Unless of course he meant....

(a) This is a sweet 16 OR
(b) perhaps Elite Eight team WITH a great shooting weekend

I like choice "b" but I don't think he meant it that way.

_Gary
01-04-2008, 10:11 AM
And don't knock Bilas for picking unc@ch as a final four team or telling the truth about a couple of guys on their ball club. He's probably been accused of more pro-Duke/anti-what'stheirnames bias than any other announcer.

Huh??? Since when has Jay Bilas ever, and I do mean ever, been accused of being too pro-Duke in his analysis? Or too anti-UNC? That's definitely not an accurate description of Jay. If anything, Jay goes out of his way to be somewhat low key about Duke so as not to be accused of homerism.

Gary

SilkyJ
01-04-2008, 11:26 AM
Huh??? Since when has Jay Bilas ever, and I do mean ever, been accused of being too pro-Duke in his analysis? Or too anti-UNC? That's definitely not an accurate description of Jay. If anything, Jay goes out of his way to be somewhat low key about Duke so as not to be accused of homerism.

Gary

for real. my dad hates the guy cause he's thinks he goes out of his way to appear objective by knocking Duke too much.

greybeard
01-04-2008, 12:31 PM
For the most part, in this day and age, most championships on the college and pro level in contact sports are decided by injuries, at least some or more of the time. Who is missing whom, who is playing at less than 100 percent, and which part is at less, yadayadayada.

If any of the top teams has a key player even significantly dinged, forget it probably.

j.j. jones
01-04-2008, 12:42 PM
Is Duke good enough to win 6 in a row come NCAA time? I don't know. But I could see them winning 4 in a row due to their excellent wings/guards, shooting and quickness. And defense. After that, I think they're capable of winning 2 in a row. I guess 4 + 2 = 6. But I didn't mean it like that. What I'm sayin' is, they can win 4 in a row. Then 2. They're's a big difference. Yowzah.

trinity92
01-04-2008, 12:56 PM
For the most part, in this day and age, most championships on the college and pro level in contact sports are decided by injuries, at least some or more of the time. Who is missing whom, who is playing at less than 100 percent, and which part is at less, yadayadayada.

If any of the top teams has a key player even significantly dinged, forget it probably.

I recently watched the '89 regional semifinal against Georgetown (Phil Henderson dunking over Alonzo Mourning) and the 2001 final against AZ, which really reinforced Greybeard's point. Against GT, pg Charles Smith, really their leader (even more than Alonzo), was hurt, and in 2001 Gilbert Arenas was playing hobbled.

2 of our program's biggest wins, and we were seriously helped by injuries to the other team.

Saratoga2
01-04-2008, 01:56 PM
Jay pointed out our strengths and weaknesses in a fair manner and still rated us a sweet 16 team or even a great 8 team if the chips fall in the right direction.

Our lack of inside strength inside, less than dominant point guard and sub-par free throw shooting have rightly kept us from being considered a final 4 team this year and probably will also carryover into next season as well.

SilkyJ
01-04-2008, 02:15 PM
Is Duke good enough to win 6 in a row come NCAA time? I don't know. But I could see them winning 4 in a row due to their excellent wings/guards, shooting and quickness. And defense. After that, I think they're capable of winning 2 in a row. I guess 4 + 2 = 6. But I didn't mean it like that. What I'm sayin' is, they can win 4 in a row. Then 2. They're's a big difference. Yowzah.

yikes

Classof06
01-04-2008, 03:32 PM
why is it an "exercise in futility" to project what teams will do at the end of the season when we are at the midpoint? do you expect analysts to keep mum until march and then analyze the season after it is over? it's not like he made any earth-shattering observations -- duke is good and it's ability to hit outside shots and deal with a weak inside game will determine how it does in the ncaat. it's not like anyone who follows duke didn't know that already.

Is this is joke or are you serious? First of all, we're not at the midpoint of the season; we've only played 11 games and play about 30 regular season games. Second, I don't expect analysts to keep quiet until March but I also don't expect analysts to say "this team right here is a Sweet 16 team" when teams haven't even gotten into the meat of their schedule. If you didn't know, a lot of how a team is perceived (and thus seeded) is based upon how they do in conference.

I said Bilas' analysis of our team was solid and that I agreed with what he said but I think it's premature to label Duke a Sweet 16/Elite 8 team because I don't think Duke is as good now as they'll be in March. We have 3 players that have only played 11 college games! Each of those 3 players are major contributors and I'm confident that all will be much better by the time the tourney starts. Thus, to try and label Duke (or any other team for that matter) in January is stupid.

At this point last year, Duke was 13-1. I know you didn't think we'd go to the Final 4 or anything but you probably didn't forsee us getting knocked out in the first round. But anyone who watched the five games that led up to the VCU game, our last 5 games of the season (ACC tourney included), would clearly be able to see that we had a realistic chance of losing to VCU. Losing 3 of your last 5 games going into the NCAA tourney is a red flag; a red flag you can't see in January..

gw67
01-04-2008, 05:17 PM
I guess if one thinks that it is stupid to make a "prediction" for ACC teams after the second phase of the season (to use Jumbo's terms) then one is free to not read the article by one of the best analysts around. I personally think that it a good time for Bilas to give us his viewpoint regarding the ACC teams because the teams have played 11-15 games and he has probably seen them all play. I very much enjoyed his article and I expect that he will re-visit the ACC later in the year. Will there be twists and turns in the road between now and March? Most likely! But part of the enjoyment for me, particularly during dead times, is to evaluate and discuss the league during this journey.

gw67

GMR
01-04-2008, 05:26 PM
Classof06 says that Duke will get much better between now and March. What is the basis for this statement? Last year at this time, Duke was 13-1, and their play was no better, perhaps worse in March than it was in December. Duke was as young or younger last year than this year, so the statement that we have 3 frosh that have played only 11 games is true, but we had a comparable situation last year, but burned up at the end of the season.

I sure hope Classof06 is correct, that Duke will improve. If that's the case, then I believe Duke will be a contender for a Final 4 berth.... no guarantees, but a chance. I believe this long layoff will help, but I wish we had a similar layoff in late February. Burnout is my primary concern with this team, both physical and mental. I sure hope K can watch for this condition, and bring this squad along at a pace that has them playing their best ball of the year in March, not in the first half of the season as has been the case in recent years.

GMR

Troublemaker
01-04-2008, 05:37 PM
to try and label Duke (or any other team for that matter) in January is stupid.

At this point last year, Duke was 13-1. I know you didn't think we'd go to the Final 4 or anything but you probably didn't forsee us getting knocked out in the first round. But anyone who watched the five games that led up to the VCU game, our last 5 games of the season (ACC tourney included), would clearly be able to see that we had a realistic chance of losing to VCU. Losing 3 of your last 5 games going into the NCAA tourney is a red flag; a red flag you can't see in January..

"Stupid"? I'm pretty sure Jay reserves the right to change his opinion the more he sees these teams play. What's the big deal then? I don't think anyone dies if Jay's predictions are wrong.

dukie8
01-04-2008, 06:38 PM
Classof06 says that Duke will get much better between now and March. What is the basis for this statement? Last year at this time, Duke was 13-1, and their play was no better, perhaps worse in March than it was in December. Duke was as young or younger last year than this year, so the statement that we have 3 frosh that have played only 11 games is true, but we had a comparable situation last year, but burned up at the end of the season.

I sure hope Classof06 is correct, that Duke will improve. If that's the case, then I believe Duke will be a contender for a Final 4 berth.... no guarantees, but a chance. I believe this long layoff will help, but I wish we had a similar layoff in late February. Burnout is my primary concern with this team, both physical and mental. I sure hope K can watch for this condition, and bring this squad along at a pace that has them playing their best ball of the year in March, not in the first half of the season as has been the case in recent years.

GMR

there is a big difference between this year and last year -- namely that last year we looked absolutely terrible in nov and dec despite barely squeaking out wins against teams that wound up being very over-rated (eg, air force, indiana and marquette). this year's team has looked stunning at times and very good most of the rest of the time. i can't recall a single game last year in the first 2 months that the team even looked remotely as good as it has against wisconsin, michigan or nm st.

with that being said, i don't have any basis to conclude that i think that this year's team will IMPROVE over the next 2 months. it might, and all of us would be very happy if it did, but i don't see anything different about this team than the teams from the last 3 years, all of which got worse in the last 2 months.

dukie8
01-04-2008, 06:46 PM
I recently watched the '89 regional semifinal against Georgetown (Phil Henderson dunking over Alonzo Mourning) and the 2001 final against AZ, which really reinforced Greybeard's point. Against GT, pg Charles Smith, really their leader (even more than Alonzo), was hurt, and in 2001 Gilbert Arenas was playing hobbled.

2 of our program's biggest wins, and we were seriously helped by injuries to the other team.

huh? how do account for the fact that boozer was "hobbled" at the end of 2001. he actually played LESS minutes than arenas in the final.

i'm not sure why the concept that injuries impact games/success is some new revelation here. did anyone even question that?