PDA

View Full Version : Carolina Gets Recruit(s)



trueblue
01-03-2008, 10:09 PM
Carolina just got a commitment from John Henson, a five star recruit out of Texas in the class of '09. He's 6-10/200lbs. Hope we can return the favor here soon with Boyton or Echenique. Anybody heard if we are recruiting John Wall out of Raleigh? I know we are interested in Painter and McDonald.

Duke09
01-04-2008, 12:36 AM
skinny kid. length helps though

CMS2478
01-04-2008, 07:37 AM
Carolina just got a commitment from John Henson, a five star recruit out of Texas in the class of '09. He's 6-10/200lbs. Hope we can return the favor here soon with Boyton or Echenique. Anybody heard if we are recruiting John Wall out of Raleigh? I know we are interested in Painter and McDonald.

We are looking at Wall, Dawkins watched all of his games at Glaxo Tournament.......but if I had to guess I would say we are a long shot for him and not real sure we would want him anyway (his atttitude kind of stinks). :(

jawk24
01-04-2008, 11:35 AM
Crapolina getting it done again. You have to give them credit; they are identifying, evaluating and offering post players much more efficiently than we are.

RP_McMurphy
01-04-2008, 11:37 AM
Has really put a hard press out on Wall with him attending alot of Kentucky games. Will still be tough to get out of ACC country but Billy G. knows his recruiting.

jawk24
01-04-2008, 12:00 PM
Let me get this straight, Crapolina has signed another big man. We will only have one true big man (Zubek) this year and next year. UNC will potentially have 5 true post players on next year squad and baring no other signees they will still have 5 true post players for the 2009-2010 season. What’s the matter with this picture here, can somebody tell me why can’t we sign quality post players ?? Please tell me what’s missing???

CMS2478
01-04-2008, 12:35 PM
Let me get this straight, Crapolina has signed another big man. We will only have one true big man (Zubek) this year and next year. UNC will potentially have 5 true post players on next year squad and baring no other signees they will still have 5 true post players for the 2009-2010 season. What’s the matter with this picture here, can somebody tell me why can’t we sign quality post players ?? Please tell me what’s missing???


Probably because we have the reputation of just launching 3's and not utilizing the big men. Whether that is an accurate statement or not I won't judge, but that seems to be the common belief. :(

j.j. jones
01-04-2008, 01:41 PM
So... Kerlonna just got one in the truck. Or... did one just fall off from the turnip truck?

http://i4.tinypic.com/6stue4p.jpg

Devilsfan
01-04-2008, 02:41 PM
They can't be more than 8" taller than their position coach.

hondoheel
01-04-2008, 08:03 PM
http://ucla.scout.com/2/717083.html

I'm in shock. What a great couple of days it has been.

sandinmyshoes
01-04-2008, 08:37 PM
At least UNC should not be in competition for any more post players from the next two classes. Unbelievable how they've raked them in. :confused:

weezie
01-04-2008, 08:42 PM
I'm starting to break out in a rash.

Patrick Yates
01-04-2008, 08:47 PM
We'll see how this all shakes out, but I am not buying. I know that Ol Roy loves mobile big men, but this is rediculous.

By the time that the 09 Class arrives on campus, Hans will definitely be gone, thank God. Still, that team will feature Thompson, Stephenson (unless one or both is good enough to go pro early, and I haven't seen any indication of that, or the capability), Zeller and Davis. The last two are part of the 08 class. Neither Zeller, nor Davis, project as early entry candidates. Davis might, but that is a real longshot, and certainly not after 1 year.

So, the 09-10 Tar Heels have Seniors in Stephenson and Thompson, and Sophs in Zeller and Davis. Now we are supposed to believe that that the Wear twins and Henson are comming? Not so much. Henson and the Wear twins each (all three), are mobile bigs who play an inside outside game. Which means that they are carbon copies of Zeller and Davis. Since the commits of the 09ers mean nothing, I am not buying it. That is too many horses and not enough PT.

This seems bad, and if it holds up, it would be disasterous for Duke, no matter what anyone else says. But I don't think this holds up. I don't know who leaves, or doesn't come, but this roster won't hold up. No way.

For fear of yet another, marginally warranted ban, I will leave alone our recruiting prospects for the post. That horse isn't getting any deader.

Patrick Yates

sandinmyshoes
01-04-2008, 08:54 PM
There are rumors that Stepheson might transfer, but who knows? Henson might be accepting the fact that he will need an extra year to develop physically?

Yech. I prefer your "not buying it" theory.

DukeBlood
01-04-2008, 09:21 PM
Who is Duke after in this class? Which bigs?

The guards are Boynton and possibly Wall or McDonald? Or because of E. Williams did we back off of McDonald?

Anyway, What about the bigs? Are we in good shape with them?

gotham devil
01-04-2008, 09:40 PM
Who is Duke after in this class? Which bigs?

The guards are Boynton and possibly Wall or McDonald? Or because of E. Williams did we back off of McDonald?

Anyway, What about the bigs? Are we in good shape with them?

Greg Echenique and Erik Murphy are the two bigs.

JBDuke
01-04-2008, 10:40 PM
Let me get this straight, Crapolina has signed another big man. We will only have one true big man (Zubek) this year and next year. UNC will potentially have 5 true post players on next year squad and baring no other signees they will still have 5 true post players for the 2009-2010 season. What’s the matter with this picture here, can somebody tell me why can’t we sign quality post players ?? Please tell me what’s missing???

In 1988, Duke beat Carolina three times despite not having a true low post player and with Carolina starting both J.R. Reid and Scott Williams and bringing Pete Chilcutt off the bench.

It's not how big you are that counts, it's how you use what you've got.

hondoheel
01-04-2008, 11:45 PM
Gotham, why do you write off DeShawn Painter and Reeves Nelson? Scout lists them both as having offers from Duke.

Bob Green
01-05-2008, 04:02 AM
Gotham, why do you write off DeShawn Painter and Reeves Nelson? Scout lists them both as having offers from Duke.

Duke has offered neither Painter nor Nelson.

acciconoclast
01-05-2008, 07:02 AM
Roy must be trying to staff a 6'8" and up league. Wear twins just committed.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 10:12 AM
Let me get this straight, Crapolina has signed another big man. We will only have one true big man (Zubek) this year and next year. UNC will potentially have 5 true post players on next year squad and baring no other signees they will still have 5 true post players for the 2009-2010 season. What’s the matter with this picture here, can somebody tell me why can’t we sign quality post players ?? Please tell me what’s missing???

This is a recorded message ... This "Duke can't recruit big men" thing has only been a complaint over the last year or so. In the class of 2005, Duke had three main targets -- Brian Zoubek, Brandan Wright and Lance Thomas. Duke signed two. Last year, Duke got three major targets early, but got into the Patrick Patterson sweepstakes. There is a legit argument to be made that Duke should have been involved with someone else earlier in the process, but after Duke dumped Kevin Love, it's tough to say who that player should have been. Remember, it's not just a a question of looking at recruiting rankings. Academics, work ethic and crazy fathers must all be examined, among other factors. Then, this year, Duke lost Greg Monroe to Georgetown and never really went after anyone else.

So, we're basically talking about two recruiting classes and among those classes, two recruits. Again, it's reasonable to say that Duke should be finding a way to cast a wider net. But a wider net will lead to some kids like Brian Zoubek who take time to develop. So, you can't say Duke should go after more bigs because there are none on the roster when a 7'2" sophomore is already on campus.

Hopefully Duke will land most of its targets for 2009 and this point will be moot again. ...end recorded message

By the way, as nice as it must be for Carolina to stockpile big guys, they can't put seven on the floor at once.

hondoheel
01-05-2008, 11:14 AM
Don't forget Jon Brockman.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 11:19 AM
Don't forget Jon Brockman.

Why would I include Jon Brockman? Duke landed two other posts in that class -- Josh McRoberts and Eric Boateng. Now, you can make any argument you want about how those guys ended up doing at Duke and how Brockman has performed at Washington, but it really doesn't matter. The issue was supposedly about Duke's inability to bring in big men. Duke brought in two bigs in that class. If we're going to throw Brockman into the mix, we might as well start talking about every other big guy who didn't sign with Duke, from Chris Webber to Jason Collier. Somehow, Duke managed to land other good big guys.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 11:21 AM
In 1988, Duke beat Carolina three times despite not having a true low post player and with Carolina starting both J.R. Reid and Scott Williams and bringing Pete Chilcutt off the bench.

It's not how big you are that counts, it's how you use what you've got.

ferry was 6'10". he may not have been a back-to-the-basket low post player but he still was 6'10" and could cover other bigs. alaa also came off the bench at 6'10" to bang. 6'6" and skinny 6'7" guys just don't cut it when it comes to covering powerful 6'10" guys.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 11:31 AM
Why would I include Jon Brockman? Duke landed two other posts in that class -- Josh McRoberts and Eric Boateng. Now, you can make any argument you want about how those guys ended up doing at Duke and how Brockman has performed at Washington, but it really doesn't matter. The issue was supposedly about Duke's inability to bring in big men. Duke brought in two bigs in that class. If we're going to throw Brockman into the mix, we might as well start talking about every other big guy who didn't sign with Duke, from Chris Webber to Jason Collier. Somehow, Duke managed to land other good big guys.

the difference is that duke knew that this year (k knew mcbob was gone last year before the season started) and knows that next year it won't have any bigs. it's very different when you already have shel, boozer or brand anchoring the d and a fish gets away in the recruiting wars. the urgency is much more intensified now.

i also don't consider l thomas a true big. he is 6'8" and very thin. big powerful inside guys, like blair and hans, push him around like a rag doll.

Devilsfan
01-05-2008, 11:33 AM
Failing on PP and Monroe may have cost us a couple of Final Fours.. I still wonder why there was no back up plan if we missed on these two recruits.

yancem
01-05-2008, 12:12 PM
So, the 09-10 Tar Heels have Seniors in Stephenson and Thompson, and Sophs in Zeller and Davis. Now we are supposed to believe that that the Wear twins and Henson are comming? Not so much. Henson and the Wear twins each (all three), are mobile bigs who play an inside outside game. Which means that they are carbon copies of Zeller and Davis. Since the commits of the 09ers mean nothing, I am not buying it. That is too many horses and not enough PT.

Patrick Yates

Let's not forget that all the big men in the world don't do any good if there are any guards to get them the ball. by 09-10, Thomas, Frasor, Ginyard, Green will have all graduated and most likely Lawson and Ellington will have entered the draft. Which leaves them only with the guards they sign for 08 and 09. The only guard they have signed for 08 Larry Drew and currently they have not signed any guards for 09. This makes for an interesting team make up.

Also on an interesting aside, it was only two years ago that UNC fans were lamenting the fact that Ol Roy couldn't seem to sign any big men. It seemed like the whiffed on 10-12 prospects over a couple year span.

sandinmyshoes
01-05-2008, 12:29 PM
Let's not forget that all the big men in the world don't do any good if there are any guards to get them the ball. by 09-10, Thomas, Frasor, Ginyard, Green will have all graduated and most likely Lawson and Ellington will have entered the draft. Which leaves them only with the guards they sign for 08 and 09. The only guard they have signed for 08 Larry Drew and currently they have not signed any guards for 09. This makes for an interesting team make up.

Also on an interesting aside, it was only two years ago that UNC fans were lamenting the fact that Ol Roy couldn't seem to sign any big men. It seemed like the whiffed on 10-12 prospects over a couple year span.


You realize that by bringing this up you've probably managed to jinx the jinx. If they get verbals from three guards in the next month I'm blaming you! ;)

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 12:43 PM
the difference is that duke knew that this year (k knew mcbob was gone last year before the season started) and knows that next year it won't have any bigs. it's very different when you already have shel, boozer or brand anchoring the d and a fish gets away in the recruiting wars. the urgency is much more intensified now.

i also don't consider l thomas a true big. he is 6'8" and very thin. big powerful inside guys, like blair and hans, push him around like a rag doll.

Thomas hasn't been pushed around much this year at all. He hasn't played against Hansbrough this seasons, so I'm interested to hear how you've seen him "pushed around like a rag doll." And in the Pitt game, Thomas only played 14 minutes (on a very gimpy ankle). Eight of those came in the first half -- when Duke was controlling the game. By my count, Blair scored six points (two of which came on a jumper to open the game) and had one offensive rebounds while Thomas was in the game.

As far as the recruiting issue goes, we've discussed this 1,000 times. Once K found out McRoberts was gone before the season started, he stepped up his recruitment of Patterson big-time. But it was late in the game to get involved with any other recruits, considering how many gave early verbals. At that point, Duke had already passed on Love and he was headed to UCLA. Duke already had Singler in the bag (who I still think is a perfect 4 in the Duke system). What other bigs could K have chased in the Class of 2007 that late in the game? And would their academic/character profiles have meshed? Koufos was long gone. Duke had missed on Gary Johnson and Blake Griffin (which almost never gets talked about -- Patterson was the backup plan to them). Who else should Duke had chased, keeping in mind that K's method of success has always been to get involved with kids early, let them know they are at the top of a very short list, and get them as quickly as possible? What guys were left as seniors to chase? It seems there was just one -- Patrick Patterson.

As far as Monroe goes, we know the whole story. We know the Class of 2008 stinks. We know Duke devoted most of its energy to Monroe, and didn't think most of the other bigs were worthy of chasing, instead saving the scholarships for a big 2009 haul. We know that K did get Czyz. The kid might be a project, but he's built very well to handle banging inside. And the question then becomes whether some frosh "backup plan" would be any more helpful next year than Zoubek or Thomas. I seriously doubt it.

The big test is 2009. Duke needs to land at least one of its main targeted bigs. If that happens, everything is fine. If not, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 12:44 PM
Failing on PP and Monroe may have cost us a couple of Final Fours.. I still wonder why there was no back up plan if we missed on these two recruits.

Patterson WAS the backup plan last year. Duke had been interested in Kevin Love, then dropped him because of a variety of factors. K moved on to Gary Johnson and Blake Griffin, but missed. Duke got involved with Patterson late. Who else do you suggest Duke should have recruited?

yancem
01-05-2008, 12:47 PM
You realize that by bringing this up you've probably managed to jinx the jinx. If they get verbals from three guards in the next month I'm blaming you! ;)

Fair enough but I'm also in agreement with Patrick, I have a hard time believing that 5 similar and high quality players (especially post players, most teams rely on more guards than post players) are going to sign with 1 team over a two year span. All 5 of those big guys rank pretty high and will expect quality minutes. Pretty much no one plays more than 2 players over 6'9" at a time on the college level. That means that 3 of them would have to be on the bench at any given time and that doesn't even take Thompson and Stephens into account.

This just doesn't add up by my math.

Jim3k
01-05-2008, 12:55 PM
Failing on PP and Monroe may have cost us a couple of Final Fours...

Excuse me? This is little more than drivel unless you can demonstrate how that would have happened. As I see it, this is 20-20 hindsight speculation and not worthy of much beyond dismissal. Since you have made no effort to support the conclusion, I fail to see your point and wonder why you posted it.

JBDuke
01-05-2008, 02:01 PM
ferry was 6'10". he may not have been a back-to-the-basket low post player but he still was 6'10" and could cover other bigs. alaa also came off the bench at 6'10" to bang. 6'6" and skinny 6'7" guys just don't cut it when it comes to covering powerful 6'10" guys.

Alaa played a TOTAL of 10 minutes in the three Carolina games. He took 3 shots, missed them all, grabbed one board, commmitted one foul, and coughed it up one time. In 1988, Alaa was still a project and did not make a meaningful contribution in games.

The only player over 6'8" that was in the rotation was Danny, and he was hardly a "true post player", which was the complaint from the poster I was responding to. Still, we managed to get by that year - beating Carolina (and other teams with "true post players") and advancing to the Final Four, despite asking our "6'6" and skinny 6'7" guys" to cover "powerful 6'10" guys".

As Jumbo has pointed out time and time again, we've gotten our fair share of big guys, but whether or not we have superior post players, Coach K has generally found a way to win with what he's got.

Devil in the Blue Dress
01-05-2008, 02:13 PM
Alaa played a TOTAL of 10 minutes in the three Carolina games. He took 3 shots, missed them all, grabbed one board, commmitted one foul, and coughed it up one time. In 1988, Alaa was still a project and did not make a meaningful contribution in games.

The only player over 6'8" that was in the rotation was Danny, and he was hardly a "true post player", which was the complaint from the poster I was responding to. Still, we managed to get by that year - beating Carolina (and other teams with "true post players") and advancing to the Final Four, despite asking our "6'6" and skinny 6'7" guys" to cover "powerful 6'10" guys".

As Jumbo has pointed out time and time again, we've gotten our fair share of big guys, but whether or not we have superior post players, Coach K has generally found a way to win with what he's got.

Coach K has demonstrated this characteristic repeatedly over the years.

Devilsfan
01-05-2008, 02:17 PM
I didn't realize we missed on so many big men. I guess I'm just disapointed in our lack of a physical inside game and couldn't understand how teams like Pitt could have the vision to see the merits of a player like Blair. It seems to be our only weakness in a VERY good team, especially if we incur an off day shooting.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 02:34 PM
I didn't realize we missed on so many big men. I guess I'm just disapointed in our lack of a physical inside game and couldn't understand how teams like Pitt could have the vision to see the merits of a player like Blair. It seems to be our only weakness in a VERY good team, especially if we incur an off day shooting.

Duke could never, ever, ever have taken a kid like Blair. Carlos made this point very well in a post (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=77427&postcount=38)a couple of weeks ago. Does a 300-pound high school kid with bad knees and some connections to some serious shady characters sound like a kid Duke should, or would, chase?

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 02:39 PM
I want to make another point, too. To the people who continue to lament Duke's lack of a big man: When Duke recruited Zoubek, don't you think they expected him to be able to start as an upperclassman? If not, I doubt Duke would have recruited him. So, if he's ready by then, what's the big deal? Food for thought, at least.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 03:41 PM
Alaa played a TOTAL of 10 minutes in the three Carolina games. He took 3 shots, missed them all, grabbed one board, commmitted one foul, and coughed it up one time. In 1988, Alaa was still a project and did not make a meaningful contribution in games.

The only player over 6'8" that was in the rotation was Danny, and he was hardly a "true post player", which was the complaint from the poster I was responding to. Still, we managed to get by that year - beating Carolina (and other teams with "true post players") and advancing to the Final Four, despite asking our "6'6" and skinny 6'7" guys" to cover "powerful 6'10" guys".

As Jumbo has pointed out time and time again, we've gotten our fair share of big guys, but whether or not we have superior post players, Coach K has generally found a way to win with what he's got.

you can label ferry whatever you want but it is completely misleading to make it sound like duke beat unc, who had several bigs, 3x without any bigs of our own. ferry was 6'10" and covered their bigs. the fact that he wasn't a true center is irrelevant. we don't have anyone even remotely like him this year.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 03:55 PM
Thomas hasn't been pushed around much this year at all. He hasn't played against Hansbrough this seasons, so I'm interested to hear how you've seen him "pushed around like a rag doll." And in the Pitt game, Thomas only played 14 minutes (on a very gimpy ankle). Eight of those came in the first half -- when Duke was controlling the game. By my count, Blair scored six points (two of which came on a jumper to open the game) and had one offensive rebounds while Thomas was in the game.

correct me if i am wrong, but lance is a sophmore and played against hansbrough last year. since when do we completely ignore what has happened in prior seasons when evaluating players? and yes, once mcbob got in foul trouble, after holding hans in check for most of the game, he had his way with duke. i don't have the play-by-play stats but i assume that lance was on him for some of that because who else would have been?

also, blair had TWENTY rebounds but only 6 of which were offensive rebounds. how many of those defensive rebounds were when lance was in the game. i was there courtside and lance couldn't do much at all to stop blair when he was in there. there is a lot that goes on in a game that doesn't result in offensive rebounds so i am confused why that is that stat you are using as a be-all-end all to whether someone holds his own. you were there. can you honestly state that you were impressed with how lance or anyone on our team played against blair on either end of the court? don't forget that it's not like he is lebron or duncan but a largely unheralded freshman.


The big test is 2009. Duke needs to land at least one of its main targeted bigs. If that happens, everything is fine. If not, then there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

this is where a lot of people disagree. there is a serious problem THIS year and there will be a continuing serious problem NEXT year. if we whiff for 2009, then just add 2010 to the list of years that have a serious problem. it would be great if zoubek develops a lot over the summer and all of this is mute (at least for next year and 2010) but i am having a hard time thinking that that will happen.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 04:33 PM
As far as the recruiting issue goes, we've discussed this 1,000 times. Once K found out McRoberts was gone before the season started, he stepped up his recruitment of Patterson big-time. But it was late in the game to get involved with any other recruits, considering how many gave early verbals. At that point, Duke had already passed on Love and he was headed to UCLA. Duke already had Singler in the bag (who I still think is a perfect 4 in the Duke system). What other bigs could K have chased in the Class of 2007 that late in the game? And would their academic/character profiles have meshed? Koufos was long gone. Duke had missed on Gary Johnson and Blake Griffin (which almost never gets talked about -- Patterson was the backup plan to them). Who else should Duke had chased, keeping in mind that K's method of success has always been to get involved with kids early, let them know they are at the top of a very short list, and get them as quickly as possible? What guys were left as seniors to chase? It seems there was just one -- Patrick Patterson.

i think that the point a lot of people on here are trying to make is that k needs to re-evaluate his past mo of putting all his eggs in 1 basket because it hasn't been working very well in recent years. k never should be in a position where the only guy he is going after says no so then k has to scramble around at the last minute looking for other guys. recruiting is something that literally goes on for years so i find it very odd that k would be in such an apparent desperate situation with only PP to go after, albeit very late in the ballgame.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 05:10 PM
you can label ferry whatever you want but it is completely misleading to make it sound like duke beat unc, who had several bigs, 3x without any bigs of our own. ferry was 6'10" and covered their bigs. the fact that he wasn't a true center is irrelevant. we don't have anyone even remotely like him this year.

Singler is two inches shorter and arguably stronger. Is there a really big difference between 6'10" and 6'8"? Come on.

Acymetric
01-05-2008, 05:15 PM
Singler is two inches shorter and arguably stronger. Is there a really big difference between 6'10" and 6'8"? Come on.

Consider that in general wingspan and height are related, so he's a little shorter, with slightly shorter arms. I'm not sure who can get further off the ground when they jump, but if it was about the same then Singler would give up maybe 3 inches to Ferry. 3 inches can be a lot, if its the difference between just tipping a ball and missing it completely.

Not that Singler can't be effective inside (he can. No Sheldon Williams, but nobody else really is. Sheldon wasn't that tall either btw. 6'9 I think.)

In short: there is a huge difference between 6'10 and 6'8. But Singler is a good player so he can compensate for that.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 05:17 PM
Singler is two inches shorter and arguably stronger. Is there a really big difference between 6'10" and 6'8"? Come on.

apparently not to you. plenty of other people on here don't think that a 6'8" 220 guy isn't the answer when it comes to guarding hansbrough, hibbert, love or whatever other premiere big we will be facing in the coming months. i'm not sure how you are measuring singler's strength. he is a fantastic player but i wouldn't exactly identify strength as one of his strengths.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 05:24 PM
correct me if i am wrong, but lance is a sophmore and played against hansbrough last year. since when do we completely ignore what has happened in prior seasons when evaluating players? and yes, once mcbob got in foul trouble, after holding hans in check for most of the game, he had his way with duke. i don't have the play-by-play stats but i assume that lance was on him for some of that because who else would have been?

Thomas played 11 minutes in the first UNC game. He played six in the second game. During the brief time he was in, I'm pretty sure he matched up with either Brandan Wright or one of UNC's reserves -- likely Green or Thompson. Duke used a mix of Zoubek, McClure and McRoberts on Hansbrough. Zoubek and McClure actually did an excellent job against Hansbrough in the game in Durham.

So, no, Thomas really has no experience guarding Hansbrough. And even if he did guard him for a few minutes last year, isn't it possible that Lance might be stronger this year?


also, blair had TWENTY rebounds but only 6 of which were offensive rebounds. how many of those defensive rebounds were when lance was in the game. i was there courtside and lance couldn't do much at all to stop blair when he was in there.

I was down there too. Again, Lance a) only played 14 minutes and b) was playing on a bad ankle. The bulk of Lance's playing time came as Duke built a 12-point halftime lead. Pitt only scored 65 points in 45 minutes -- somehow Duke managed to stop Blair and everyone else out there. And I don't worry about defensive rebounds. Those are a symptom of missed shots. Do you expect Duke to be an excellent offensive rebounding team? I don't. Duke doesn't have to do much at all on the offensive glass to win. Blair got 14 defensive rebounds because Duke shot horribly.


there is a lot that goes on in a game that doesn't result in offensive rebounds so i am confused why that is that stat you are using as a be-all-end all to whether someone holds his own. you were there.

You had said something about Lance being unable to contain Blair. The two areas where you'd need someone to "contain" another big player is in the post and on the offensive boards. That's why I posted those respective stats.


can you honestly state that you were impressed with how lance or anyone on our team played against blair on either end of the court? don't forget that it's not like he is lebron or duncan but a largely unheralded freshman.

Blair's probably more heralded as a frosh than Duncan was, but that's besides the point. Obviously, Blair was a force against Duke. But Duke played like crap. Duke only scored 64 points, and that had very little to do with Blair. Pittsburgh was not scoring on a lot of straight post-ups. It was the 19 offensive rebounds that led to put-back opportunities. And, again, holding Pitt to 65 points in 45 minutes should be good enough to win. I don't expect Duke to look WORSE than that on the boards this year. So, then consider that they lost on a tough three-pointer in overtime and it shows you that Duke can win games against rugged teams simply by shooting just a little better.

BTW, I was imporessed by Zoubek in his six minutes. I liked the job Singler did at times. And I would have liked Singler to have been given the ball on the perimeter more to exploit Blair at the other end.




this is where a lot of people disagree. there is a serious problem THIS year and there will be a continuing serious problem NEXT year. if we whiff for 2009, then just add 2010 to the list of years that have a serious problem. it would be great if zoubek develops a lot over the summer and all of this is mute (at least for next year and 2010) but i am having a hard time thinking that that will happen.

My point is there is nothing we can do about this year or next year. We are who we are, and we'll go with that. Lamenting the loss of Patterson or Monroe means nothing -- it's crying over spilled milk. I'll concern myself with the present and the future. That means doing a good job recruiting a big or two from the Class of 2009 and allowing Zoubek and Thomas to develop. Because, as I said, there's no way K would have brought in either Zoubek or Thomas if he didn't think they would be ACC-caliber starters at some point in their careers.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 05:31 PM
i think that the point a lot of people on here are trying to make is that k needs to re-evaluate his past mo of putting all his eggs in 1 basket because it hasn't been working very well in recent years. k never should be in a position where the only guy he is going after says no so then k has to scramble around at the last minute looking for other guys. recruiting is something that literally goes on for years so i find it very odd that k would be in such an apparent desperate situation with only PP to go after, albeit very late in the ballgame.

Did you not see the part where I listed all the bigs K was involved in from the Class of 2007?
First there was Kevin Love. Duke was very solid with him until some stuff went down. Let's just say that I'm not a big fan of the kid's character.
Duke went hard after Gary Johnson and Blake Griffin. Uncharacteristically, Duke missed on both. Duke had been involved with Patterson, but he wasn't the first choice. That changed by late summer/early fall of last year. So, it's completely wrong to say that K's eggs were all in "one basket."

And, again, unless you can suggest some other options K should have pursued who a) would have been more than just a "body" b) fit Duke's academic profile c) were of proper character and d) were interested in Duke, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 05:33 PM
Consider that in general wingspan and height are related, so he's a little shorter, with slightly shorter arms. I'm not sure who can get further off the ground when they jump, but if it was about the same then Singler would give up maybe 3 inches to Ferry. 3 inches can be a lot, if its the difference between just tipping a ball and missing it completely.

Not that Singler can't be effective inside (he can. No Sheldon Williams, but nobody else really is. Sheldon wasn't that tall either btw. 6'9 I think.)

In short: there is a huge difference between 6'10 and 6'8. But Singler is a good player so he can compensate for that.

Wingspan is generally related to height, but not always. Taylor King, for instance, has a greater wingspan than most players his height, and thus is able to play "bigger." Also, it's Shelden, not Sheldon.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 05:36 PM
apparently not to you. plenty of other people on here don't think that a 6'8" 220 guy isn't the answer when it comes to guarding hansbrough, hibbert, love or whatever other premiere big we will be facing in the coming months. i'm not sure how you are measuring singler's strength. he is a fantastic player but i wouldn't exactly identify strength as one of his strengths.

I don't think Singler will be the only one guarding any of those guys. But he can do it in spurts. BTW, Ferry didn't always guard the opposing team's biggest guy. Brickey often did.
What you're missing is there are many ways to skin a cat. Singler doesn't have to "bang" with someone bigger. He can use quickness, positioning, footwork and intelligence. Defense is about positioning, and brute strength is only one way to win the battle of positioning.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 05:38 PM
My point is there is nothing we can do about this year or next year. We are who we are, and we'll go with that. Lamenting the loss of Patterson or Monroe means nothing -- it's crying over spilled milk. I'll concern myself with the present and the future. That means doing a good job recruiting a big or two from the Class of 2009 and allowing Zoubek and Thomas to develop. Because, as I said, there's no way K would have brought in either Zoubek or Thomas if he didn't think they would be ACC-caliber starters at some point in their careers.

well there actually is something to do rather than just have everyone stick their proverbial heads in the sand. as i stated on another post, k really needs to re-evaluate his recruiting mo. what has worked in the past hasn't appeared to be working as of late. are these just 2 years of outliers? i don't know but his practice of putting all of his eggs in 1 basket only to have it blow up not 1 but 2 years in a row should cause some red flags to go up.

also, we only have been discussing the frontline situation and haven't even touched on the pg situation, which is think is just as problematic.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 05:41 PM
I don't think Singler will be the only one guarding any of those guys. But he can do it in spurts. BTW, Ferry didn't always guard the opposing team's biggest guy. Brickey often did.
What you're missing is there are many ways to skin a cat. Singler doesn't have to "bang" with someone bigger. He can use quickness, positioning, footwork and intelligence. Defense is about positioning, and brute strength is only one way to win the battle of positioning.

we'll just have to wait and see how the 2 (or 3) games play out because it will be 2 extremely different styles going against each other. unfortunately unc no longer has a coach as stupid as doherty who was willing to negate his size advantage in 2001 by trying to play "small ball" against us when boozer was out.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 06:04 PM
Did you not see the part where I listed all the bigs K was involved in from the Class of 2007?
First there was Kevin Love. Duke was very solid with him until some stuff went down. Let's just say that I'm not a big fan of the kid's character.
Duke went hard after Gary Johnson and Blake Griffin. Uncharacteristically, Duke missed on both. Duke had been involved with Patterson, but he wasn't the first choice. That changed by late summer/early fall of last year. So, it's completely wrong to say that K's eggs were all in "one basket."

And, again, unless you can suggest some other options K should have pursued who a) would have been more than just a "body" b) fit Duke's academic profile c) were of proper character and d) were interested in Duke, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

i understand that duke's academic profile eliminates most top recruits right off the bat. i remember quin once telling me that something like 40 of the top 50 recruits in a given year you can eliminate immediately because of academics.

i don't follow the minutiae of the recruiting wars like you do but, from what i gather on dbr, k was going all out to get love and then had to scramble late to get into the PP sweepstakes. how johnson and griffen fit into love and then patterson i will have to differ to you on. whatever the strategy was we ended up with nobody. no big deal if that was a 1-off situation but then this year was deja vu all over again. go all out for monroe, whiff and then wind up with another year of no bigs. i can understand 1 year if it is an aberration but 2 years in a row seems like it is more than just bad luck.

you dismissal of going after blair also is a bit flip. we shouldn't have gone after him because he had a knee injury in high school and has some "bad" associations? i'm not saying that he should have been the guy we should have gone after but, after realizing that we were going to have no big guys this year, i think you need to be a little more risk taking in trying to get someone. it's not like he was an unknown -- he WANTED to play for duke. moreover, it's not like being associated with "bad" characters has stopped k from recruiting people in the past. i don't know who blair's associates were but were they any worse than maggette's?

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 06:27 PM
well there actually is something to do rather than just have everyone stick their proverbial heads in the sand. as i stated on another post, k really needs to re-evaluate his recruiting mo. what has worked in the past hasn't appeared to be working as of late. are these just 2 years of outliers? i don't know but his practice of putting all of his eggs in 1 basket only to have it blow up not 1 but 2 years in a row should cause some red flags to go up.

also, we only have been discussing the frontline situation and haven't even touched on the pg situation, which is think is just as problematic.

Let's back up a second. First of all, this team is 10-1 and I think we all think that given the right matchups, it is capable of a deep Tourney run.

Secondly, I think K has already changed is recruiting to a certain degree. Take Czyz. He's much more of a "developmental" guy than Duke's brought in recently. K is also filling up his scholarship allotment unlike ever before. And, again, K hasn't been putting all his eggs in "one basket." I can keep repeating myself if you like, but Duke was hard after four bigs in the Class of 2007. And if Duke feels that there is no big man in the Class of 2008 who actually could have contributed to the team, I have no problem with saving that scholarship for 2009. They just need to land at least one guy in 2009.

I'm not worried about PG recruiting at all. K got exactly who he wanted two years ago in Paulus. Now, you can criticize his evaluation of Paulus, but you can't say Duke didn't get exactly who it (and everyone else) wanted in that class. He was supposed to be an elite, four-year starter at the point.

I'm very confident that Nolan Smith will figure out how to play the point, too. And I don't think Duke will have any trouble signing another PG (if they want one) in the Class of 2009. Duke is a wonderful place to play PG, and there aren't many guys who wouldn't want to go there.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 06:28 PM
we'll just have to wait and see how the 2 (or 3) games play out because it will be 2 extremely different styles going against each other. unfortunately unc no longer has a coach as stupid as doherty who was willing to negate his size advantage in 2001 by trying to play "small ball" against us when boozer was out.

Well, both teams love to run, so the two styles aren't totally different. They should be fun games. And it's totally possible for Duke to win a game where the other team's big man goes off for something like 30 and 15. Duke just needs to execute on offense and play great perimeter D.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 06:38 PM
i understand that duke's academic profile eliminates most top recruits right off the bat. i remember quin once telling me that something like 40 of the top 50 recruits in a given year you can eliminate immediately because of academics.

Exactly. Not enough people recognize this. I'm glad you have this perspective.


i don't follow the minutiae of the recruiting wars like you do but, from what i gather on dbr, k was going all out to get love and then had to scramble late to get into the PP sweepstakes. how johnson and griffen fit into love and then patterson i will have to differ to you on. whatever the strategy was we ended up with nobody. no big deal if that was a 1-off situation but then this year was deja vu all over again. go all out for monroe, whiff and then wind up with another year of no bigs. i can understand 1 year if it is an aberration but 2 years in a row seems like it is more than just bad luck.

I try not to follow the recruiting wars. They don't interest me that much, and it's sort of like the making of sausage -- the less I know, the better. That said, I know that Duke was in good shape with Love but was also recruiting other bigs. I know that Duke soured on Love (Love will make it sound like he soured on Duke, but I'm not a big fan of the kid at all) and moved on. The next choices were Johnson and Griffin, with whom Duke was already involved. But they made a couple of other choices. Sadly, that happens from time to time. Patterson was the fourth choice. I'm in the camp that believes he was using Duke for attention. But, either way, that's not the same as the Monroe situation. That's a bunch of swings and misses. Monroe was a singular target in a weak class. It's a shame Duke didn't land him. But, as I said in earlier, if there weren't any other bigs K wanted, if there weren't guys capable of beating out Zoubek or Thomas, there was no point in wasting a scholarship. Better to hold it for 2009. But, obviously, K has to deliver in 2009.


you dismissal of going after blair also is a bit flip. we shouldn't have gone after him because he had a knee injury in high school and has some "bad" associations? i'm not saying that he should have been the guy we should have gone after but, after realizing that we were going to have no big guys this year, i think you need to be a little more risk taking in trying to get someone. it's not like he was an unknown -- he WANTED to play for duke. moreover, it's not like being associated with "bad" characters has stopped k from recruiting people in the past. i don't know who blair's associates were but were they any worse than maggette's?

Carlos pointed out that two main guys who were recruiting Blair were Huggins and Calipari. That's generally a bad, bad sign. Blair says he wanted to play for Duke. He was also 300 pounds at the time. He didn't show sings of being such a good player. We have no idea to what degree he expressed that interest in Duke. And, to get back to the start of this thread, we don't know his academic profile. Since you acknowledge that point, it's really hard to come out and say, "Duke should have recruited DeJuan Blair" when all we really know about him is that he is a force in the paint.

Bob Green
01-05-2008, 06:46 PM
also, we only have been discussing the frontline situation and haven't even touched on the pg situation, which is think is just as problematic.

Point Guards:

2008/9 - Greg Paulus, Nolan Smith, Elliot Williams
2009/10 - Nolan Smith, Elliot Williams, Kenny Boynton (?)
2010/11 - Nolan Smith, Elliot Williams, Kenny Boynton (?), ???

Recruiting a pure point guard from the Class of 2010 should be a priority. Greg Paulus will graduate in 2009 leaving Duke with a couple of very capable combo guards to share the point in the 2009/10 season. Kenny Boynton is another combo guard who is being heavily recruited by Duke so my optimistic side states we will have three combo guards available to split time at the point with Junior Nolan Smith being the primary option.

I wouldn't characterize the pg situation as problematic, but it is, at a minimum, a position our recruiting efforts need to focus upon.

Dukefan1989
01-05-2008, 06:52 PM
I seriously think that Duke fans are some of the hardest basketball fans in the world to please. I have been a Devil fan since 1998, partly because I'm not that old.

When I look at Duke's recruiting over the past 10 years, I don't know of too many teams that have had the consistency that Duke has had in the recruiting process. For anyone to say that Duke is falling behind in recruiting, is either on drugs, or has serious mental problems.

I think the majority of Duke fans would agree that we would rather have a 3-4year guy, than a one-and-done. I'd rather Coach K be recruiting players like Scheyer, Paulus, Zoub, and Lance, who are 3-4 year guys, than players like Oden, Rose, and Love. 3-4 year guys gain experience, and that means everything.

As for the "big man" issue. I don't know who is going to guard Hansbrough. Never really gave it any thought. I know this though, we will be ready to play, and we will have a great shot at taking Tabacco road, not because we have a "big man" but because we have a team that is a unit, and it works together, and IT HAS EXPERIENCE. Will we win a championship? I don't know, but did we when Shelden, a "big", was at Duke?.... Uhhh no. Shelden was great, but last time I checked, we still have 3 NC's. "Big men" don't win championships, experienced teams do.

That's what I think. ;)

evrdukie
01-05-2008, 06:57 PM
One fact has become increasingly evident during the last couple years. Unless Duke can recruit players with NBA potential at the point guard and low post positions, the team won't have the degree of success to which Duke fans are accustomed. Right now that's not happening and there's reason to be concerned about it.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 07:35 PM
One fact has become increasingly evident during the last couple years. Unless Duke can recruit players with NBA potential at the point guard and low post positions, the team won't have the degree of success to which Duke fans are accustomed. Right now that's not happening and there's reason to be concerned about it.

Based on what? One season? Two years ago Duke was #1 most of the season, won the ACC, and got tripped up in the Sweet 16. This year Duke is 10-1. So, the way I count, last year was the only season where Duke didn't have "the degree of success to which Duke fans are accustomed." So you're basing this rash generalization on a one-year sample size?

dukie8
01-05-2008, 07:56 PM
Based on what? One season? Two years ago Duke was #1 most of the season, won the ACC, and got tripped up in the Sweet 16. This year Duke is 10-1. So, the way I count, last year was the only season where Duke didn't have "the degree of success to which Duke fans are accustomed." So you're basing this rash generalization on a one-year sample size?

if you are happy with the #1 #1 seed getting knocked out with only 2 wins in the ncaat in 2006, then you are in the minority. getting upset by michigan st in 2005 as a #1 seed wasn't exactly a season that lived up to expectations either. it's not like they lost in the final 4 to another top team (like in 2004). these were monumental collapses by teams that were supposed to go several games further than what they did. so that is 3 straight seasons of not achieving anything even close to its ultimate goals.

many people disagree but piling up regular season wins and flubbing it in the ncaat doesn't define a successful season at duke. do you think unc would trade its nc for the acc title in 2005? nobody ever talks about how they didn't win the acct because it means next to nothing if you go to the final 4 or win the nc -- particularly when you are favored to and have a team that is better than most teams.

this team might end all talk of this by going to the final 4 but we won't know until march.

evrdukie
01-05-2008, 07:58 PM
Based on what? One season? Two years ago Duke was #1 most of the season, won the ACC, and got tripped up in the Sweet 16. This year Duke is 10-1. So, the way I count, last year was the only season where Duke didn't have "the degree of success to which Duke fans are accustomed." So you're basing this rash generalization on a one-year sample size?


Based on what happened last season and based on what seems likely to happen in the foreseeable future, including the remainder of this season--and the next year or two unless recruiting for those positions takes an unexpectedly favorable bounce. Frankly, it's foolish to characterize as "rash" an observation so simple as to be self evident, namely, that a top tier basketball team requires dominating low post and point guard players. I guess it depends on your expectations. If you're going to be content with a Duke team ranked in the top twenty, no problem. Duke will probably be all set for years to come. But final four, elite eight--that's an entirely different story and it doesn't help to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, Jumbo, no amount of cheerleading is going to substitute for top notch players at those positions.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 08:16 PM
Based on what happened last season and based on what seems likely to happen in the foreseeable future, including the remainder of this season--and the next year or two unless recruiting for those positions takes an unexpectedly favorable bounce. Frankly, it's foolish to characterize as "rash" an observation so simple as to be self evident, namely, that a top tier basketball team requires dominating low post and point guard players. I guess it depends on your expectations. If you're going to be content with a Duke team ranked in the top twenty, no problem. Duke will probably be all set for years to come. But final four, elite eight--that's an entirely different story and it doesn't help to deny the obvious. Unfortunately, Jumbo, no amount of cheerleading is going to substitute for top notch players at those positions.

part of the problem is that the 2 glaring weaknesses of this team -- no low post presence and at best a mediocre pg -- were known over a year ago (fall of 2006 when mcbob indicated he wasn't coming back). nothing was done to address these problems last year in recruiting and nothing was done again this year. if nothing gets done again next year (all of us are crossing our fingers that something will be), then it is just going to be more of the same.

as evrdukie noted, we have a roster loaded with mcd aas so winning 20 games, being ranked in the top 20 and winning a couple of games in the ncaat should continue for the foreseeable future. i just don't see a final 4 or nc until we get a low post presence and an upgrade at pg. maybe smith will grow into the pg role but it's not going to be this year unless he dramatically improves very soon.

maybe i am missing something but where are all these teams that have made the final 4 recently with no low post presence and a pg who is at best mediocre?

evrdukie
01-05-2008, 08:27 PM
part of the problem is that the 2 glaring weaknesses of this team -- no low post presence and at best a mediocre pg -- were known over a year ago (fall of 2006 when mcbob indicated he wasn't coming back). nothing was done to address these problems last year in recruiting and nothing was done again this year. if nothing gets done again next year (all of us are crossing our fingers that something will be), then it is just going to be more of the same.

as evrdukie noted, we have a roster loaded with mcd aas so winning 20 games, being ranked in the top 20 and winning a couple of games in the ncaat should continue for the foreseeable future. i just don't see a final 4 or nc until we get a low post presence and an upgrade at pg. maybe smith will grow into the pg role but it's not going to be this year unless he dramatically improves very soon.

maybe i am missing something but where are all these teams that have made the final 4 recently with no low post presence and a pg who is at best mediocre?


Dukie8 makes my point better than I did. Both of us, and many others, have identified a conspicuous weakness that really needs to be addressed unless Duke BB fans are willing to define their expectations way down. Maybe five or ten years from now I'll be content with winning 20 games and maybe a game or two in the NCAA tourney, but I'm not there yet. Frankly, it's depressing to recognize that some posters seem willing to define success in those terms.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 08:44 PM
if you are happy with the #1 #1 seed getting knocked out with only 2 wins in the ncaat in 2006, then you are in the minority.

Nice straw man. I never said I was "happy" about getting knocked out early. I realize, though, that the NCAA Tourney is a bit of a crapshoot. Duke had a great season in 2006. It had one bad game. Stuff happens. Was it a great season? No, because of the way it ended. But it was a darn good season, and the original poster talked about the level of success Duke is "accustomed to having." I fail to see how the one loss to LSU is some indicator of a recruiting plan gone wrong.


getting upset by michigan st in 2005 as a #1 seed wasn't exactly a season that lived up to expectations either.

The funny thing about 2005 was that Duke overachieved. I never imagined that team would get a #1 seed. It had no depth. Shav got mono. Reggie Love had to come back to school to play hoops -- and then got hurt. That team was lacking in a ton of areas -- the fact that it earned a #1 seed was nothing short of amazing.


it's not like they lost in the final 4 to another top team (like in 2004). these were monumental collapses by teams that were supposed to go several games further than what they did. so that is 3 straight seasons of not achieving anything even close to its ultimate goals.

I already stated my feeling on 2005. Duke really shouldn't have expected to go much further. I agree with 2006. But if you can't at least see some good in 32-4, then you are destined to be constantly be disappointed. Success isn't purely defined by the NCAA Tournament.


many people disagree but piling up regular season wins and flubbing it in the ncaat doesn't define a successful season at duke.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can still have a successful season at 32-4 with a ACC title that can become special with a long Tourney run. People who have been Duke fans longer than a few years understand that.


do you think unc would trade its nc for the acc title in 2005?
Total straw man.


nobody ever talks about how they didn't win the acct because it means next to nothing if you go to the final 4 or win the nc -- particularly when you are favored to and have a team that is better than most teams.

I'm pretty sure UNC's players and fans weren't happy that they didn't win the ACC title. A national title helps erase that memory, for sure. Only one team wins a national title. That makes for a very limited view of success.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 08:56 PM
Based on what happened last season and based on what seems likely to happen in the foreseeable future, including the remainder of this season--and the next year or two unless recruiting for those positions takes an unexpectedly favorable bounce.

What's going to happen in the "foreseeable future?" Please share, so I don't have to bother worrying about the rest of Duke's games.


Frankly, it's foolish to characterize as "rash" an observation so simple as to be self evident, namely, that a top tier basketball team requires dominating low post and point guard players.

So simple? Interesting. How about that top-tier point guard on UConn's 2004 title team, Taliek Brown? How about that top-tier center on Syracuse's 2003 title team, Craig Forth? How did they manage to win titles without your magic formula? (Those are just two recent examples off the top of my head. We can go through many, many more recent Final Four teams that lacked a "dominating low post" player a "dominating" point guard, or both.


I guess it depends on your expectations. If you're going to be content with a Duke team ranked in the top twenty, no problem. Duke will probably be all set for years to come.
Great. You're using the same straw man as Dukie8. Well done. Let me throw the reverse straw man at you -- so you'll obviously be miserable with anything less than a Final Four appearance every year, right?


But final four, elite eight--that's an entirely different story and it doesn't help to deny the obvious.

Nothing is obvious, other than your poor attempt to reduce a complex game into oversimplified hogwash.


Unfortunately, Jumbo, no amount of cheerleading is going to substitute for top notch players at those positions.

Nope. But top-notch players at other positions certainly will. Just ask Carmelo Anthony.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 08:59 PM
part of the problem is that the 2 glaring weaknesses of this team -- no low post presence and at best a mediocre pg -- were known over a year ago (fall of 2006 when mcbob indicated he wasn't coming back). nothing was done to address these problems last year in recruiting and nothing was done again this year.

Are you even reading posts at this point? Nothing was done? Duke chased four post players. Duke chased Patterson hard. Duke also didn't know it had a "glaring weakness" at the point -- the team had high hopes for Paulus after a full year of starting at the point as a frosh. And nothing was done to address the position? Does Duke not have a kid named Nolan Smith learning the offense behind Paulus right now?

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 09:00 PM
Dukie8 makes my point better than I did. Both of us, and many others, have identified a conspicuous weakness that really needs to be addressed unless Duke BB fans are willing to define their expectations way down. Maybe five or ten years from now I'll be content with winning 20 games and maybe a game or two in the NCAA tourney, but I'm not there yet. Frankly, it's depressing to recognize that some posters seem willing to define success in those terms.

Funny, I haven't seen a single poster talk about defining success as winning "20 games and maybe a game or two in the NCAA tourney." Well, except you.

Nittany Devil
01-05-2008, 09:22 PM
Are you even reading posts at this point? Nothing was done? Duke chased four post players. Duke chased Patterson hard.

I admire Jumbo's patience in making the same point over and over again.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 09:25 PM
Nice straw man. I never said I was "happy" about getting knocked out early. I realize, though, that the NCAA Tourney is a bit of a crapshoot. Duke had a great season in 2006. It had one bad game. Stuff happens. Was it a great season? No, because of the way it ended. But it was a darn good season, and the original poster talked about the level of success Duke is "accustomed to having."

i agree that the ncaat can be a crapshoot and you are gone if you have a single bad night. however, "stuff" doesn't just happen 3 years in a row. nobody thought that there were bigger issues going on in 2002 when the team lost in the ncaat because people realize that it is a crapshoot and that upset most thought was a one-off event.

2006 was great if you enjoyed watching k pour everything into jj setting all sorts of points records -- to the exclusion of best preparing the team for the ncaat. we have gone over this ad infinitum but i wanted to vomit in some of those games when duke was up by 20+ at halftime in cis and k had jj in there firing away for 35 minutes. i would never call a duke season that ends in the 3rd round of the ncaat "great" when the team had 2 first team senior aas on it and the #1 #1 seed. great at duke involves final 4s and ncs. we aren't talking about seton hall or wake here.


I fail to see how the one loss to LSU is some indicator of a recruiting plan gone wrong.

strawman. where did i say that?


The funny thing about 2005 was that Duke overachieved. I never imagined that team would get a #1 seed. It had no depth. Shav got mono. Reggie Love had to come back to school to play hoops -- and then got hurt. That team was lacking in a ton of areas -- the fact that it earned a #1 seed was nothing short of amazing.

i agree that getting a #1 seed was a big achievement. however, it's not like they had a bunch of clowns on the team. they had just come off a final 4 (a final 4 that many of us think should have resulted in a nc) and had jj and shel as juniors. they started the year ranked #11 so it wasn't like they came from nowhere to get a #1 seed. in any event, even if they were a 2 or 3 seed, flaming out to michigan st in the 3rd round was a failure no matter how you slice it with the experience and talent on that team.


I already stated my feeling on 2005. Duke really shouldn't have expected to go much further. I agree with 2006. But if you can't at least see some good in 32-4, then you are destined to be constantly be disappointed. Success isn't purely defined by the NCAA Tournament.

no. i only am disappointed when the team blows up in the ncaat and loses to teams it shouldn't lose to. 2004 obviously was a great year. 2003 was a successful year as well given the new players and what expectations were. the team was so young and it would have been ridiculous to have expected them to have beaten a very very good kansas team. obviously 2002 was a huge disappointment and 2001 was as good as they come.


The two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can still have a successful season at 32-4 with a ACC title that can become special with a long Tourney run. People who have been Duke fans longer than a few years understand that.

Total straw man.

so now only the old timers can understand your point? total strawman. as i stated earlier, seasons that involve early exits in the ncaat by duke teams don't become "special." you can be undefeated in the regular season and if the season ends with a 1st or 2nd exit from the ncaat, then that's not so special at duke.


I'm pretty sure UNC's players and fans weren't happy that they didn't win the ACC title. A national title helps erase that memory, for sure. Only one team wins a national title. That makes for a very limited view of success.

i'm pretty sure most unc players and fans could not care in the least that they didn't win the acc title because they won the nc. please provide some evidence of unc people stating something along the lines of "man that was cool that we won the nc in 2005 but not winning the acc title really put a damper on the season."

where did i define success as only winning the nc? another complete strawman. failing to win the nc or even getting to the final 4 is a huge disappointment when you have one of (if not) the best teams and don't even get close to it (see duke 2002, 2005 and 2006). i don't think that anyone is going to be disappointed with this year's team if they lose in the sweet 16 because that's about what everyone realistically expects. if they somehow get hot and go to the elite 8 or final 4, then it will be a very successful season.

Bob Green
01-05-2008, 09:42 PM
This thread is a classic example of the "glass half full" vs. the "glass half empty" view of the team. I fail to understand the apparent panic of the "glass half empty" proponents.

At point guard, Greg Paulus has been solid so far this season. His statistics of 8.5 points, 3.6 assists, & 1.9 turnovers in 26.6 minutes per game are not the type of numbers that incite panic. Moreover, as a team, Duke is averaging 16.5 assists per game, which is 3rd in the ACC. We have a solid pg for this season and next.

Before someone responds about his lack of speed and lateral quickness and inability to defend top tier ACC point guards, remember that DeMarcus Nelson, or Gerald Henderson or Nolan Smith will pull that duty so it isn't worth discussing.

On the frontline, Kyle Singler has been very good to date. The "glass half empty" crowd needs to remember that Kyle was a Top 5 recruit so while they are lamenting the recruits who went elsewhere they can rejoice a little in who picked Duke. Seeing as Kyle is a freshman, I expect he will improve as the season unfolds and really hit his stride in the late season and post season.

Of course, we are loaded at the shooting guard/wing position with DeMarcus Nelson, Gerald Henderson, Jon Scheyer, Taylor King, and Nolan Smith. We've already signed Top 20 recruit Elliot Williams so this position is set for next season as well.

Everything I've stated so far is pretty straight-forward and uncontroversial (at least from my perspective) but now I will move on to a couple of points that are mostly my opinion and I admit upfront, when it comes to Duke basketball, I am an optimist.

First, Lance Thomas is much stronger than he is given credit. I've read that he is the strongest on the team in the weight room and taking one look at DeMarcus Nelson's physique that says a lot. Lance struggled with a bad ankle and foul trouble last year and has injured his ankle again this season, but I believe he will suprise folks during ACC play if (big if) he can stay healthy.

Second, Brian Zoubek will develop into a very strong post player before his four years at Duke are over. Will it happen this year? Probably not, but he is a guy who can score some points, grab some rebounds, and, most important, disrupt the opposing team's half-court offense this year. My immediate concern with Zoubek is his foul shooting. He must knock down the free ones or opposing teams will just hack him.

Last point, how good is Taylor King? IMO, the jury is still out on this one, but King has proven he has the ability to be an explosive scorer and seeing as he is just a Freshmen he should improve with every game. If King can consistently knock down 3-pointers against quality ACC teams, Duke could really force our opponents to abandon their inside game in an attempt to matchup with the skill sets Duke places on the court.

evrdukie
01-05-2008, 09:43 PM
Funny, I haven't seen a single poster talk about defining success as winning "20 games and maybe a game or two in the NCAA tourney." Well, except you.

As a rule, the introduction of heavy sarcasm into discussions isn't a promising development, at least from the perspective of advancing a coherent point of view. There's probably not much more to add to this exchange. As I stated before, your point of view about these things probably depends on your expectations regarding Duke basketball.

You asked whether I'd be miserable if Duke isn't in the final four. I'll pretend that's a serious question, even though it's not. The answer is that I won't be miserable if Duke never wins another game. It's a game, for God's sake. Nevertheless, I enjoy seeing them win games and tournaments against first rate teams and I'm concerned that by failing to address the low post and point guard problems (problems which no amount of happy talk can obscure), we're not going to see as much success as we're used to seeing from Duke. End of story. You're apparently satisfied with the last few years and see no reason for concern regarding the future, so you're all set.

Dukefan1989
01-05-2008, 09:51 PM
where did i define success as only winning the nc? another complete strawman. failing to win the nc or even getting to the final 4 is a huge disappointment when you have one of (if not) the best teams and don't even get close to it (see duke 2002, 2005 and 2006). i don't think that anyone is going to be disappointed with this year's team if they lose in the sweet 16 because that's about what everyone realistically expects. if they somehow get hot and go to the elite 8 or final 4, then it will be a very successful season.



where did i define success as only winning the nc? another complete strawman. failing to win the nc or even getting to the final 4 is a huge disappointment when you have one of (if not) the best teams and don't even get close to it (see duke 2002, 2005 and 2006). i don't think that anyone is going to be disappointed with this year's team if they lose in the sweet 16 because that's about what everyone realistically expects. if they somehow get hot and go to the elite 8 or final 4, then it will be a very successful season.


Well, in order for Duke to be a non-dissapointment to you, do you realize that this would have to be Duke's outcome.

2000- Sweet Sixteen
2001- NCAA Champions
2002- Final Four/National Championship
2003- Sweet Sixteen
2004- Final Four
2005- Final Four/National Championship
2006- Final Four/National Championship
2007- Second Round


I would challenge you to name one team that has even come close to this success

dukie8
01-05-2008, 10:07 PM
Well, in order for Duke to be a non-dissapointment to you, do you realize that this would have to be Duke's outcome.

2000- Sweet Sixteen
2001- NCAA Champions
2002- Final Four/National Championship
2003- Sweet Sixteen
2004- Final Four
2005- Final Four/National Championship
2006- Final Four/National Championship
2007- Second Round


I would challenge you to name one team that has even come close to this success

i'm not sure what you are getting at. you outline what duke's seed was in the ncaat for the last 8 years and then ask me to name a team that has come close to that success. using your bizarre formula, right off the bat, florida clearly has close to (probably more) success than duke's seeds. that includes 2 ncs as well as an upset of duke in 2000 with a run to the title game. please explain where you are going with this.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 10:56 PM
i agree that the ncaat can be a crapshoot and you are gone if you have a single bad night. however, "stuff" doesn't just happen 3 years in a row. nobody thought that there were bigger issues going on in 2002 when the team lost in the ncaat because people realize that it is a crapshoot and that upset most thought was a one-off event.

Right, but it hasn't been three years in a row. I think we both agree that last year's team just wasn't very good. It was the youngest since WWII and had glaring weaknesses. So "stuff" didn't happen -- Duke just wasn't good enough. And you know my feeling about 2005 -- Duke overachieved all year. The team played without a true point guard (Dockery was never really a point and Ewing had to run the team a lot) and the 4 was a revolving door of mediocrity (the loss of Deng really hurt). Basically, Duke had three very good players (Shelden, J.J., Ewing) and very little else. It ran into a Michigan State team that was hardly a pushover. Ager, Anderson, Davis, Brown, etc. -- that team had real talent. A 4/5 over a #1 seed is rarely a huge upset, and I was definitely very nervous before that game. I really don't consider that a "flameout." Duke lost to a good team, and I never thought Duke was that great, despite the #1 seed it earned. That leaves 2006...


2006 was great if you enjoyed watching k pour everything into jj setting all sorts of points records -- to the exclusion of best preparing the team for the ncaat. we have gone over this ad infinitum but i wanted to vomit in some of those games when duke was up by 20+ at halftime in cis and k had jj in there firing away for 35 minutes. i would never call a duke season that ends in the 3rd round of the ncaat "great" when the team had 2 first team senior aas on it and the #1 #1 seed. great at duke involves final 4s and ncs. we aren't talking about seton hall or wake here.

We've talked about that game a bunch of times since you joined the board. All I can say is that I've never seen an entire Duke team shoot so poorly on a given night. Everyone remembers J.J.'s 3-for-18 performance. But Duke's other perimeter shooters -- Paulus, Dockery, Nelson and Melchionni -- combined to shoot 3-for-19! And they weren't just missing jumpers, they were missing wide open jumpers because of all the attention given to J.J. (plus Shelden) inside. Watching that game was just such about as helpless a feeling as I can remember in basketball. If you don't make wide open shots, you can't win. It's that simple.



i agree that getting a #1 seed was a big achievement. however, it's not like they had a bunch of clowns on the team. they had just come off a final 4 (a final 4 that many of us think should have resulted in a nc) and had jj and shel as juniors. they started the year ranked #11 so it wasn't like they came from nowhere to get a #1 seed. in any event, even if they were a 2 or 3 seed, flaming out to michigan st in the 3rd round was a failure no matter how you slice it with the experience and talent on that team.

Well, you know how I feel about that game, based on what I said above.



no. i only am disappointed when the team blows up in the ncaat and loses to teams it shouldn't lose to. 2004 obviously was a great year. 2003 was a successful year as well given the new players and what expectations were. the team was so young and it would have been ridiculous to have expected them to have beaten a very very good kansas team. obviously 2002 was a huge disappointment and 2001 was as good as they come.

I agree with a lot of what you said. The funny thing is that 2004 burns me up way more than 2005 or 2006. In 2006, I felt bad for J.J. and Shelden. But that team had some major weaknesses (no consistent third scorer, a really small backcourt, a frosh point guard, an injured Nelson, etc.). The 2004 team was awesome. Duhon had a fantastic senior year. J.J. and Ewing were steady scorers on the wings. Deng was just a brilliant college player. Shelden was a force inside. Dockery was much better suited as a defensive spark off the bench. Shav was Shav, but was a force against UConn. You could do a lot worse than a fifth-year Nick Horvath as your fourth inside player. Duke had that game won, and would have waltzed to the national title against Georgia Tech. I rarely blame anything on the refs, but that was one of the worst officiated games I've ever seen, and I still feel as if Duke got robbed against UConn that night. That was a really, really, really good Duke team.



i'm pretty sure most unc players and fans could not care in the least that they didn't win the acc title because they won the nc. please provide some evidence of unc people stating something along the lines of "man that was cool that we won the nc in 2005 but not winning the acc title really put a damper on the season."

That's not what I'm saying. Obviously, a national title helps erase whatever came before it. One team has that luxury. But a conference title is a pretty significant achievement. Ever been to the ACC Tourney? You can bet your bottom dollar that everyone in the arena seriously cares about winning that title. It's not an achievement to be mocked.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 11:04 PM
As a rule, the introduction of heavy sarcasm into discussions isn't a promising development, at least from the perspective of advancing a coherent point of view.

It's a shame you had to introduce (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80197&postcount=59)it, then:
Unfortunately, Jumbo, no amount of cheerleading is going to substitute for top notch players at those positions.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif
There's probably not much more to add to this exchange. As I stated before, your point of view about these things probably depends on your expectations regarding Duke basketball.


I'm concerned that by failing to address the low post and point guard problems (problems which no amount of happy talk can obscure), we're not going to see as much success as we're used to seeing from Duke. End of story.

Here's an idea. Why don't you introduce some facts to support your crackpot theory? Why don't you do something to show me that Duke has severe point guard problems? Why don't you provide some examples that actually support you contention that you need a dominant post player and point guard to be an elite team? Why don't you respond to my examples of Syracuse and UConn? If you are just going to throw out baseless statements as if they are law, you're not going to get very far. People on this site generally are smarter than that.


You're apparently satisfied with the last few years and see no reason for concern regarding the future, so you're all set.

What were you saying about sarcasm again? You're clearly going to win the straw man award, though. Congrats.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 11:27 PM
Are you even reading posts at this point? Nothing was done? Duke chased four post players. Duke chased Patterson hard. Duke also didn't know it had a "glaring weakness" at the point -- the team had high hopes for Paulus after a full year of starting at the point as a frosh. And nothing was done to address the position? Does Duke not have a kid named Nolan Smith learning the offense behind Paulus right now?

yes. we have no bigs in this year and no bigs in for next year. putting your hands up in the air and simply saying "well, we tried for the right guys but none of them decided to come to duke" doesn't count for doing something about it. maybe an alternative would be to recruit someone not at the top of every recruiting list but who can play inside? you make it sound like there wasn't a single guy left to recruit after 4 guys said no. plenty of other schools seem to be able to find diamonds in the rough who can play at the d1 level inside. heck, bc seems to be able to find guys every year that nobody heard of that can play.

why did duke have such high hopes for paulus going into last year? i watched him play his entire freshman year and didn't think he was the answer at pg (and there were plenty of other people on here who thought the exact same thing). i also have seen many people repeatedly state on here that smith is NOT a true pg and he is more suited to the 2. featherston's piece on him supports that notion:

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1287974


One question about Smith is what role he’ll play in the backcourt for Duke. He shared the backcourt at Oak Hill with the gifted Lawson and the even more gifted Jennings – both prototype point guards.
What does that make Smith?
“I consider myself a combo guard,” Smith said. “I’ll do whatever it takes to win.”
He claims that he shared the point with Lawson and Jennings at Oak Hill.
“It was back and forth,” he said. “I was playing with two great point guards. If I got the ball, I was pushing it. If they got the ball, they were pushing it. Both of them could also score, so it was basically two combo guards in the backcourt.”
...
“This summer, I spent a lot of time playing the point guard,” he said. “Greg [Paulus] and I, we’re competitors who will make each other better. If Coach K or any of the other coaches want me to score, want me to defend, I feel like I can do that.”
Assistant coach Steve Wojciechowski said the Blue Devil staff loves Smith’s versatility.
“Nolan will be given the opportunity to play on the ball at the point and also to play off the ball,” Wojo said. “He’s got the size and athleticism to play all three of the perimeter positions in college. And he’s got the skills to play either the one or the two in college. Whether he’s our point guard or if he plays off the ball, he’s really going to help us with ball handling. He’ll also really help us with guarding the ball. He’s a very good athlete. He’s got a Chris Duhon-type body with the long arms and very good quickness.”

it sure doesn't sound to me like they weren't bringing him in to be the pg this year (or next year for that matter). those were not the things the coaches were saying when hurley, paulus, quin or even duhon showed up.

dukie8
01-05-2008, 11:47 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said. The funny thing is that 2004 burns me up way more than 2005 or 2006. In 2006, I felt bad for J.J. and Shelden. But that team had some major weaknesses (no consistent third scorer, a really small backcourt, a frosh point guard, an injured Nelson, etc.). The 2004 team was awesome. Duhon had a fantastic senior year. J.J. and Ewing were steady scorers on the wings. Deng was just a brilliant college player. Shelden was a force inside. Dockery was much better suited as a defensive spark off the bench. Shav was Shav, but was a force against UConn. You could do a lot worse than a fifth-year Nick Horvath as your fourth inside player. Duke had that game won, and would have waltzed to the national title against Georgia Tech. I rarely blame anything on the refs, but that was one of the worst officiated games I've ever seen, and I still feel as if Duke got robbed against UConn that night. That was a really, really, really good Duke team.

2006 burns me up a lot more than 2004 for several reasons. first, that uconn team was very very good. it almost was like an nba team with legitimate players at every position and multiple future nba studs with gordon and okafor leading the charge. even though we had that game and let it slip away, losing to a team of that caliber in the final 4 is nothing to be ashamed of. beating ga tech 2 nights later would have been a lock (kind of like kansas in 1991).

second, i still believe that k got caught up in 2006 with getting jj every scoring record known to mankind even if it meant doing things that were going to hurt the team in the long run. there was a lot of pressure on that team from day 1 and, for whatever reason, the team seemed drained by the time the ncaat rolled around (i'm not opening up the can of worms as to whether they were mentally or physically fatigued). there were far too many games where the game was over at halftime and k kept jj in there firing away when he could have rotated other guys in there to have either given them experience or to have rested jj. i felt that that team peaked much too early and it was running on empty by the time the ncaat rolled around (winning the acct certainly didn't help in resting up for the ncaat but i know that you think it is rather important). also, with the mass exodus to the nba, having a freshman pg isn't what it used to be. conley worked out fine last year for ohio st. having 2 senior first team aas on the court with him certainly minimized that as much as it could be.

third, that was a sweet 16 loss -- not a final 4 loss. a 4/5 beating a 1 might be fairly common but it doesn't make it any more upsetting and it isn't that common when the 1 is the #1 1.

lastly, that team may have had weaknesses but it had 2 of the 3 best players in the country that year (with morrison being the other one) along with the number 1 rated freshman in college (mcbob). that's a heck of a lot of firepower. the 2004 team was good but it didn't even have a single player in the top 5 -- nevermind 2 in the top 3.

Jumbo
01-05-2008, 11:57 PM
yes. we have no bigs in this year and no bigs in for next year.

Hey, Debbie Downer -- don't you know when to quit? You're seriously going to keep going with this crap? We have no bigs for next year? Really? Do you have any idea how Zoubek or Thomas will develop? No. You don't. So give it a rest already.


putting your hands up in the air and simply saying "well, we tried for the right guys but none of them decided to come to duke" doesn't count for doing something about it.

You're right. We should have paid them to come to Duke. Or blackmailed them. Because, you know, whatever Duke wants, Duke should get. Then you could enjoy a trip to the Final Four -- unless Duke were to "flame out" again.


maybe an alternative would be to recruit someone not at the top of every recruiting list but who can play inside?

At what point should Duke have done this? When Duke was involved with Love, Johnson, Griffin and Patterson? Wouldn't said low-level-recruit have said, "Hmmm, you guys are recruiting four better players. Why do you want me? How will I ever get playing time?"

Should Duke have waited? If so, who should Duke have targeted. Don't talk about the problem without the solution. I want names. Otherwise, you're just spitting into wind.


you make it sound like there wasn't a single guy left to recruit after 4 guys said no. plenty of other schools seem to be able to find diamonds in the rough who can play at the d1 level inside. heck, bc seems to be able to find guys every year that nobody heard of that can play.

As I said above, there were a lot of guys left when Duke focused on Patterson last fall. And there was definitely no one left when Patterson opted for Kentucky. Do you remember how late that decision came? Meanwhile, you've ignored this a couple of times, so I'll bring it up again -- who's to say that your hypothetical diamond in the rough not only would have agreed to come to Duke, but also would have been good enough to make a difference? Why would this guy have been better than Zoubek or Thomas? And if Mr. Hypothetical weren't better than Zoubek or Thomas, what would be the point of wasting a scholarship on him?


why did duke have such high hopes for paulus going into last year? i watched him play his entire freshman year and didn't think he was the answer at pg (and there were plenty of other people on here who thought the exact same thing).

Well, you're just a genius. Plenty of other people saw a kid who was thrown into a tough spot as a freshman and performed reasonably well. They remembered that he was the top point guard in his class. They recalled seeing Bobby Hurley look lost at times a frosh, only to go on to set the NCAA assist record. Now, I'm not saying I thought Paulus was going to be an elite point guard after watching him a frosh. But it would have been equally silly to give up on him after that season either. And the guy is solid, at least. He's not the playmaker we'd expected, but he can shoot.

Now, obviously Duke had no reason to recruit a point guard from the Class of 2006, as Paulus had just arrived with much fanfare. After his frosh year, you could make an argument that Duke could have panicked and tried to find a PG who hadn't already committed elsewhere. Granted, that would have been tough, since Duke would have been getting into the picture late. But, hey, I'm sure one phone call to Derrick Rose or Jerryd Bayless would have done the trick, and Duke would have a great one-and-done point guard this year. Right. Thankfully, Duke was already involved with a combo guard at the time -- Nolan Smith. So let's deal with him.


i also have seen many people repeatedly state on here that smith is NOT a true pg and he is more suited to the 2. featherston's piece on him supports that notion:

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1287974



it sure doesn't sound to me like they weren't bringing him in to be the pg this year (or next year for that matter). those were not the things the coaches were saying when hurley, paulus, quin or even duhon showed up.

You completely misread the Featherston piece. Duke sees Smith as a point guard. That's why he's playing roughly 97% of his minutes at the point. Duke's loaded on the wing. The staff loves Smith's on-ball D and knows he'll eventually be able to attack the basket at will. The only question is learning to run the offense, which will take a little bit of time. There's no doubt that the position is his to lose when Paulus graduates, and I have full confidence that he'll run it well. He's more of a point guard than Will Avery was coming into Duke, and somehow Duke managed to assemble one of its best teams with him running the show as a soph.

And if you expected the coaches to be talking about Smith starting from Day 1, you're nuts. They're loyal to Paulus. He's the incumbant point guard -- a two-year returning starter. What did you expect them to say, "Hey, look at this great guy we brought in. He's going to replace Greg Paulus, who we totally misjudged. We're convinced we can't win with Greg because nobody gets better after two years in college, so we're just going to hand the ball to Nolan."

Uh huh.

dukie8
01-06-2008, 12:47 AM
Hey, Debbie Downer -- don't you know when to quit? You're seriously going to keep going with this crap? We have no bigs for next year? Really? Do you have any idea how Zoubek or Thomas will develop? No. You don't. So give it a rest already.

so now we have to start with the profanity? classy. i know that thomas is 6'8" and contrary to what you and the poster who said he could lift more than nelson, doesn't have much of a presence on the inside as a sophmore. sure, maybe he will develop that in 2 years but i have no idea. what i do know is that there actually are guys who can play on the inside as freshmen (ever hear of the guy named blair?) unc also had a few over the past few years. so now we are down to the top rated bigs that we recruit take 3 or 4 years to develop? wonderful.


You're right. We should have paid them to come to Duke. Or blackmailed them. Because, you know, whatever Duke wants, Duke should get. Then you could enjoy a trip to the Final Four -- unless Duke were to "flame out" again.

or, um, maybe cast a wider net than 4 guys? you still act like there were 4 bigs and only 4 bigs in this year's class that duke could have used.


At what point should Duke have done this? When Duke was involved with Love, Johnson, Griffin and Patterson? Wouldn't said low-level-recruit have said, "Hmmm, you guys are recruiting four better players. Why do you want me? How will I ever get playing time?"

i don't know. how does unc manage to recruit bigs when it already has both bigs on its roster and bigs signed for that class? is there something in the water over there that gives them this ability?


Should Duke have waited? If so, who should Duke have targeted. Don't talk about the problem without the solution. I want names. Otherwise, you're just spitting into wind.

as i stated earlier, i am not professionally involved in recruiting high school basketball players so i don't know the qualities of every high school senior. so now people need to have actual names if they want to comment that duke dropped the ball this year by not bringing in a single big guy? that's a new one. if you want a name, i would start with blair despite the fact that you think he had bad "associates" (were they worse than maggette's?) and a bad knee (it didn't look too bad at msg last month). dig up his sats and get back to me if he met duke's academic requirements.


As I said above, there were a lot of guys left when Duke focused on Patterson last fall. And there was definitely no one left when Patterson opted for Kentucky. Do you remember how late that decision came? Meanwhile, you've ignored this a couple of times, so I'll bring it up again -- who's to say that your hypothetical diamond in the rough not only would have agreed to come to Duke, but also would have been good enough to make a difference? Why would this guy have been better than Zoubek or Thomas? And if Mr. Hypothetical weren't better than Zoubek or Thomas, what would be the point of wasting a scholarship on him?

that's exactly my point. if k were so desperate to get a big guy in and really wanted PP, then why did he let PP play him like a fiddle to the point that k abandoned everyone else only to be told practically last summer that PP was going to kentucky? i don't think that i am being that outlandish to have expected k to have said to PP that he cannot wait until april or whenever he signed and he needed an answer much sooner otherwise he would cut bait and move on. do you honestly think that zoubek is going to make a difference this year or are you just being difficult? against pitt, when we had extreme foul trouble, an extra 5 minutes and were getting KILLED on the inside, he played a grand total of 6 minutes. i really can't think of a more ideal situation for him to play in and he wound up playing 6 more minutes than you and i.


Well, you're just a genius. Plenty of other people saw a kid who was thrown into a tough spot as a freshman and performed reasonably well. They remembered that he was the top point guard in his class. They recalled seeing Bobby Hurley look lost at times a frosh, only to go on to set the NCAA assist record. Now, I'm not saying I thought Paulus was going to be an elite point guard after watching him a frosh. But it would have been equally silly to give up on him after that season either. And the guy is solid, at least. He's not the playmaker we'd expected, but he can shoot.

there actually were a lot of other people who saw the exact same thing -- you just chose to either ignore them or tell them that they don't know what they are talking about. mentioning paulus in the same sentence is close to blasphemy. hurley may have made plenty of "freshman" mistakes his 1st year but he also managed to AVERAGE 7.6 assists per game against a group of point guards that were exponentially better than the ones paulus went up against. ever hear of a guy named kenny anderson? john crotty? walt williams? chris corchiani? was there even 1 pg in the acc in 2006 who was even remotely as good as 1 of those guys? where did i say give up on him? what i did say was recruit someone else so last year wouldn't have been such a disaster at pg. paulus can shoot but unfortunately he is the pg and running the offense and playing d are much more important than being able to shoot at that position (you can tell that to starbury). this isn't going turn into a dump on paulus thread but we will have to agree to disagree about whether he is "solid" when looking at the pgs of other elite teams.


You completely misread the Featherston piece. Duke sees Smith as a point guard. That's why he's playing roughly 97% of his minutes at the point. Duke's loaded on the wing. The staff loves Smith's on-ball D and knows he'll eventually be able to attack the basket at will. The only question is learning to run the offense, which will take a little bit of time. There's no doubt that the position is his to lose when Paulus graduates, and I have full confidence that he'll run it well. He's more of a point guard than Will Avery was coming into Duke, and somehow Duke managed to assemble one of its best teams with him running the show as a soph.

if he can run it well, then we will have our pg for the next 3 years and it won't be an issue. what i have seen of him, he isn't going to be able to run it this year with any regularity. why is our offense so hard to master this year but paulus managed to start from day 1? i think that you completely misread the article of you took away from it that duke thinks that a guy who didn't even play pg in high school (at best he split the position) is going to a full-time pg. call me crazy but using the term "combo" and talking about how he can play all 3 guard slots weren't tossed around when hurley, paulus, wojo or duhon showed up.


And if you expected the coaches to be talking about Smith starting from Day 1, you're nuts. They're loyal to Paulus. He's the incumbant point guard -- a two-year returning starter. What did you expect them to say, "Hey, look at this great guy we brought in. He's going to replace Greg Paulus, who we totally misjudged. We're convinced we can't win with Greg because nobody gets better after two years in college, so we're just going to hand the ball to Nolan."

therein lies much of the problem. k is going to stick with paulus no matter what. i would liked for them to have said "geesh, we thought paulus was going to be our starter for 4 years but after his season last year we really need to re-evaluate that. this guy smith looks like the real deal at pg so let's see what he can do and if he outperforms paulus then we are going to go with him." what do you think roy did with frasor when lawson showed up? if roy were listening to you, i think frasor would have been the guy starting last year.

JBDuke
01-06-2008, 02:07 AM
One thing has become clear. No matter how much factual evidence is presented, dukie8 and his toady, evrdukie, will stick by their guns.

Nothing further to be achieved by keeping this thread active. It has ventured off the original topic, and the principals in the discussion are just throwing the same stuff back and forth at each other, with neither willing to concede. Therefore, I am closing this thread.

THREAD IS CLOSED.

JasonEvans
01-06-2008, 11:01 AM
well there actually is something to do rather than just have everyone stick their proverbial heads in the sand. as i stated on another post, k really needs to re-evaluate his recruiting mo. what has worked in the past hasn't appeared to be working as of late. are these just 2 years of outliers? i don't know but his practice of putting all of his eggs in 1 basket only to have it blow up not 1 but 2 years in a row should cause some red flags to go up.

I won't play the easy trump card of suggesting that maybe Coach K knows a bit more about recruiting than you.

Instead, I will ask you to go back and read some of Jumbo;s excellent posts and then explain why you think Duke is "putting all its eggs in one basket" when there is zero evidence that has happened. Duke has and continues to recruit multiple big men. The notion that we go after only one player at each position is -- well -- just plain wrong.

I would add something that has become obvious to me in recent years but which many folks seem to be unwilling to accept-- I think Coach K has probably decided he does not need a big banger type to win in college basketball. Yup, I think K feels we can make the Final Four and even win the national title with the current makeup of this team -- a team that does not include a "banger" other than the still somewhat raw Zoubek. What's more, I think the pundits will likely make Duke one of the early season favorites to win the national title next season and we will almost certainly not have one of these "banger" types on the roster then either.

Hey, maybe the old man is dead wrong and we must have a 6-10, 230 post player eating up the lane to win. It is possible. But I think K may be on to something here. His teams are mobile and play a team style of defense that is just scary to watch. I think the type of game we play is not very condusive to a slower, less skilled, but larger post player. We need players who can be interchangeable parts on the floor-- everyone defends and plays offense both on the inside and on the perimeter. I think K is recruiting with that in mind.

I would add something more-- some of you get obsessed with how we are going to D opposing big guys but those opposing buy guys have to D our mobile, agile, skilled players on the other end of the floor too. Duke did not lose to Pitt because we got killed inside-- we lost to Pitt because we shot horribly and made poor decisions on offense. It had nothing -- I repeat -- nothing to do with Blair or anyone else hammering us into submission inside. Sure, Pitt was strong inside, that is their game, but we held them to 65 points. If we had performed even remotely normally on the offensive end then we win that game comfortably.

Hasbro will be a load and will probably get 20 and 10 against us and people here will be up in arms and upset about it. Guess what, Hasbro gets 20 and 10 against everyone! The dude is simply the best post player in the country. He puts up big numbers playing against teams with a lot more size than Duke. I think a bigger key will be how he steps out and guards Singler or other mobile Duke players. I think the story for Harbo will be if our perimeter pressure forces him to get the ball in uncomfortable places and if our help D traps and forces him to get rid of the ball.


also, we only have been discussing the frontline situation and haven't even touched on the pg situation, which is think is just as problematic.

Ummm, what are you talking about here? You are aware we have a freshman named Nolan Smith on the roster, right? You know we are recruiting a combo guard sorta like JWill in the 2009 class named Kenny Boynton, right? We have several other stud guards in the 2009 class we are still evaluating and some we will almost certainly offer. What on Earth do you mean in saying we are "problematic" at the PG position?

--Jason "I am not even sure why I get in this debate-- but it is probably so poor Jumbo isn't fighting the good fight solo" Evans