PDA

View Full Version : Cornell post-game thread



KandG
01-06-2008, 07:47 PM
They actually showed the game here in Boston, but it was probably just as well that most people didn't see it. Pretty ugly game from our standpoint, though Cornell should be very proud. Our half court offense was pretty arid for the second straight game, and several players definitely struggled...Taylor King was MIA in the second half.

Hope it was just rust.

duke74
01-06-2008, 07:49 PM
They actually showed the game here in Boston, but it was probably just as well that most people didn't see it. Pretty ugly game from our standpoint, though Cornell should be very proud. Our half court offense was pretty arid for the second straight game, and several players definitely struggled...Taylor King was MIA in the second half.

Hope it was just rust.

So was Brian, despite the fact that their 7 foot statue was eating us up. Yikes.

feldspar
01-06-2008, 07:49 PM
Wow. That game was so boring I actually fell asleep during it.

That's a first.

sandinmyshoes
01-06-2008, 07:56 PM
I know everyone is going to say we were rusty, but that was an Ivy League team that had not played in six days and the game was in Cameron. Not a very impressive outing for our guys. But a win is a win.

jma4life
01-06-2008, 07:56 PM
I'm going to try to stay optimistic and attribute the sloppy play to the long lay off.

One funny thing about this game. I heard the announcers mention that Louis Dale attended Duke basketball camp which I also attended a couple of times so I decided to see if I recognized him. I went online and found a shot and he reminded me strikingly of a kid that I knew there and actually played one on one a couple of times. The kid would be a sophomore now which Dale is. Also, the kid that I knew was from Alabama. Looking at CU's site, it seems as if Dale is also from Alabama. I'm not positive it's the same kid but I think there's a pretty good chance that it is. I'd have to say that even though this wasn't the best Duke game, Paulus and Smith did a better job guarding Dale than I possibly did.

Oh yea, and the kid was named Louis.

godukerocks
01-06-2008, 07:59 PM
Duke did not play anywhere near their best, and Cornell executed well.

Rust?

I don't know, but let's hope next game's better than this against Temple.

pete
01-06-2008, 08:00 PM
How about the night Markie had. He now leads the team in points/rebounds/steals/and nearly assists per game. People get upset about his FT% and I agree he needs to make more but he is the best player on this team and he makes sure everybody gets involved in the game.

shadowfax336
01-06-2008, 08:03 PM
This is always a fun subject for people depending on your thoughts on certain players. I thought it was a good idea, even if the results weren't exactly there (besides Nolan looking good in expanded playing time). I wouldn't mind if Zoubek stayed in the starting lineup, but I'll be dismayed and unhappy if Paulus isn't starting by the UVA game next week. But then, that says more about my personal biases than anything else... Paulus is my favorite guy to watch on the team and while I appreciate Lances D, a center who can't rebound is not something I like to see...

Ben63
01-06-2008, 08:04 PM
Wow, that was a snoozer. I was so excited for the game after no Duke since the Pitt game and it was so boring. Im glad my Titans were on, even though they lost. We must play better or we're in trouble.

KandG
01-06-2008, 08:08 PM
How about the night Markie had. He now leads the team in points/rebounds/steals/and nearly assists per game. People get upset about his FT% and I agree he needs to make more but he is the best player on this team and he makes sure everybody gets involved in the game.


Markie was the one unequivocal positive on our side...his fastbreak tomahawk will be played on the highlights, but he was really tough for most of the game overall. Singler had some very nice plays, but he was very erratic inside and outside (and on the FT line).

We took away their 3 pointers most of the time, but our defense on the pick and roll, and some of the rotations and transition defense...oy. As I said in the other thread, I hope it was just rust. K won't lack for tape of defensive breakdowns to show the team.

evrdukie
01-06-2008, 08:12 PM
I suppose a lot of us watched Duke and Cornell and are now seeing UNC and Clemson. Pretty sobering contrast so far.

freedevil
01-06-2008, 08:13 PM
Other than Demarcus, not much to see here... move along.

uncwdevil
01-06-2008, 08:15 PM
Can anybody tell what is bandaged to Nolan's arm? At first it looked like a regular ace, but one of the close ups showed what looked like a bizarre soap-shaped object bulging from underneath...

he was wearing an armband against Pitt but I didn't notice the soap-shaped object until tonight, I have no idea what it could be?

greybeard
01-06-2008, 08:17 PM
Cornell has a much better club than most of you expected and the few of you have commented since seeing them play have allowed.

1. One of the things that makes Duke Duke is that Duke players are smart. So are Cornell's, real, real smart. Cornell's offensive and defensive concepts are extremely clever and played by players equal to the task from a mental and performance perspective. K must have figured out how to take away what Cornell was doing offensively the first half that was so effective, that, and Cornell's starting bigs got into foul trouble and were really nowhere to be found the second half. Foote was the best big on the floor the second half; well, maybe Singlar had an edge but not by much.

2. Not only did Duke shut down Cornell's starting bigs in the second half, but they also shut down Cornell's two best players, both of whom are extremely good shooters and were nowhere to be found the second half. Give Cornell the credit it deserves, and you will see that Duke played better than you think.

3. King made at least two big misstakes during the short time he was in, one of which, an entirely ill-conceived across the court pass is something he has done before and probably kept him on the bench.

4. Cornell did a good job in the half court defense; they were well coached, understood what Duke likes, and disrupted it.

5. Cornell's starting bigs before they got tired showed me that they could play anywhere if games were 15 minutes. Smart, great hands, no fear or hesitation, and skilled. They played exceptionally well offensively in the first half, and defensively played well and smart throughout.

6. Once Cornell couldn't match during Duke's first half runout, the game was essentially over. Like a kitten playing with a mouse. To Cornell's credit, they were good enough to not look, well, mousy. On the other hand, if DeMarcus don't make those open threes, you guys might have a more entertaining game than you could have handled. ;)

RelativeWays
01-06-2008, 08:23 PM
Yuck. I don't know about you guys but after the Pitt game and the two week layoff, this is not what I was expecting. I expected Duke to be rusty execution-wise, but I wasn't expecting the enthusiasm to be so lackluster and lethargic. Dmarc played great and Hendo, Paulus and Singler had solid offensive efforts. Defensively, it was pretty poor. That one guy for Cornell was penetrating at will at the end of the game, just like teams used to do us last year. Duke didn't play like they were threatened and this was one of those games that had the feeling of ending badly, like VCU badly.

Saratoga2
01-06-2008, 08:25 PM
Markie was the one unequivocal positive on our side...his fastbreak tomahawk will be played on the highlights, but he was really tough for most of the game overall. Singler had some very nice plays, but he was very erratic inside and outside (and on the FT line).

We took away their 3 pointers most of the time, but our defense on the pick and roll, and some of the rotations and transition defense...oy. As I said in the other thread, I hope it was just rust. K won't lack for tape of defensive breakdowns to show the team.


He is a tough, determined player with athleticism. He appears to be the most consistent overall player on the team at this point. His ball handling and FT shooting are not assets, but overall he is our best.

Zoubek brought us some balance inside and can score and defend against that level of player. I am not sure why coach K went away from him in the second half. Neither Thomas nor McClure really offered any offense tonight, so the coach must think their mobility makes them superior defenders. Anyone else see why Zoubek had to sit in the second half.

Scheyer is an excellent overall player, but I wish he would attempt more offensively. They had one period where he and Paulus seemed to be playing catch. Perhaps they had a play on but nothing materialized.

Smith has he good moments. He is not a developed play maker but has the ability to get to the basket and is at least a decent shooter.

I am not sure why Kind didn't play more. Coach K must have seen someting in the 6 minutes he played that required him to sit the remainder of the game.

delfrio
01-06-2008, 08:28 PM
Thoughts:

1. Nice game for Demarcus. 1,000 point on an emphatic dunk.

2. The 3-ball for Singler should be a bonus, not a legitimate option.

3. C'mon Lance.

4. While my record-keeping leaves much to be desired, I think the pre-game consensus on this board about our performance is running at about 90% wrong. If people think it will be a blowout, it's not. If people think it will be a close game, it's not. Stay away from Vegas.

5. Nolan should have taken the Cornell player's hand up, but otherwise pretty good showing for him.

Constantstrain 81
01-06-2008, 08:39 PM
Ugly game.

Demarcus did have a good game. I thought McClure did as well. Still, we did not seem to be in sync on offense or defense.

I have always been a big Paulus fan - but I am now thinking that his role is that of short shooting guard who doesn't handle the ball. He makes good passes when he catches and redirects. He makes good shots when he catches and shoots. I just don't see him as very effective with the ball in his hands trying to create or direct the offense.

Taylor King - out of control. Catch and shoot. Catch and pass. Once you make a shot, catch, fake and drive. All that said - Taylor is probably not who we want driving from 25 feet and creating.

I think I'm actually more depressed than after the Pitt game.

evrdukie
01-06-2008, 08:58 PM
Ugly game.

Demarcus did have a good game. I thought McClure did as well. Still, we did not seem to be in sync on offense or defense.

I have always been a big Paulus fan - but I am now thinking that his role is that of short shooting guard who doesn't handle the ball. He makes good passes when he catches and redirects. He makes good shots when he catches and shoots. I just don't see him as very effective with the ball in his hands trying to create or direct the offense.

Taylor King - out of control. Catch and shoot. Catch and pass. Once you make a shot, catch, fake and drive. All that said - Taylor is probably not who we want driving from 25 feet and creating.

I think I'm actually more depressed than after the Pitt game.

If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress.

mgtr
01-06-2008, 08:59 PM
I agree with other posters that the game was ugly, but I think we learned who the go-to guys were on this team at he end. Nelson (of course), Paulus and or Smith, Singler, Henderson, and Scheyer, with doses of McClure (I am continued to be reminded how good of a rebounder he is). While small, that group seems to be the core. Zoubek and Thomas played the way they normally do. Taylor King proved that he is not King Taylor.
I am optimistic that the next game will be less ugly.

Constantstrain 81
01-06-2008, 09:03 PM
Taylor King's strength is stretching the defense, shooting and making the three. When he missed two early, he seemed to go away from his game. I think he would have gotten more playing time if he had kept to his strength.

My theory on Lance Thomas? Lance is 6'8". He needs to play that way. I think maybe it is a confidence thing. Lance needs to play big. He never seems to look for his shot. He is not a threat. Yet, he could be. I watch UNC play and Danny Green and Marcus Ginyard, two players smaller than Lance, seem to play bigger than he does when I watch them play. Lance is one of our big guys - we need him to play that way.

jimsumner
01-06-2008, 09:07 PM
FWIW, K devoted most of his postgame to Duke's lack of communication. The players echoed this. K says that Duke played hard but not together. He acknowledged that the lay-off may have been a contributing factor but did not apologize for the lay-off. The season started unusually early, ends unusually late, and K thinks that the long lay-off will be beneficial down the stretch.

K was disappointed that Cornell got more than their share of lose balls early but Duke did improve after intermission.

McClure had a nice game on D and rebounding. It looks like his PT will come at the expense of Taylor K.

Duke just needs to play. The mid-week/weekend cycle has begun and will run through the end of the season.

loran16
01-06-2008, 09:12 PM
If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress.

That game looks closer to Duke-Pitt, with Clemson playing the part of Duke.....they cant hit the side of a barn with a free throw.

It's not ending well.

uncwdevil
01-06-2008, 09:24 PM
That game looks closer to Duke-Pitt, with Clemson playing the part of Duke.....they cant hit the side of a barn with a free throw.

It's not ending well.

yeah, i'm glad we don't play either one of them this week

feldspar
01-06-2008, 09:35 PM
BTW, who is Corel?

mgtr
01-06-2008, 09:46 PM
BTW, who is Corel?

Isn't that some kind of dish? Somewhat unbreakable, I am told.

jsimmons
01-06-2008, 09:53 PM
-taylor king must be in the dog house. for us at the game, when he came out he seemed to be less than interested in huddles.

-paulus wont be starting again anytime soon. nolan is faster and quicker on defense. plus when he turns the ball over its because of physical errors, not mental errors.

-what was the thing on nolan's arm? it looked like he had a can of dip wrapped on his arm. i have never seen anything like that.

feldspar
01-06-2008, 09:53 PM
Isn't that some kind of dish? Somewhat unbreakable, I am told.

I believe it's also a graphic design program.

mgtr
01-06-2008, 10:01 PM
I believe it's also a graphic design program.

Yes, but it is trickly to use.

Karl Beem
01-06-2008, 10:10 PM
-taylor king must be in the dog house. for us at the game, when he came out he seemed to be less than interested in huddles.

-paulus wont be starting again anytime soon. nolan is faster and quicker on defense. plus when he turns the ball over its because of physical errors, not mental errors.

-what was the thing on nolan's arm? it looked like he had a can of dip wrapped on his arm. i have never seen anything like that.

That's three.

Bob Green
01-06-2008, 10:14 PM
-paulus wont be starting again anytime soon. nolan is faster and quicker on defense. plus when he turns the ball over its because of physical errors, not mental errors.



I prefer to view the situation as Smith and Paulus complimenting each other, but as far as head-to-head comparisons go, Paulus played more minutes, scored more points, and dished out more assists tonight.

Troublemaker
01-06-2008, 10:21 PM
If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress.

What does this even mean? Especially since you repeated it, you must think you're blowing our minds with this point. If you're saying the Duke game was boring in comparison....well, duh. There is no way a meaningless non-conf game against an Ivy League team is going to match the intensity of an ACC opener between two top-20 teams.

dukelifer
01-06-2008, 10:22 PM
I expected this game to be easy for Duke. It was far from that. If Duke had shot better in the first few minutes they might have opened a 20 pt lead and rode that the whole game- playing relaxed. Instead, Duke shooting was shaky again and Cornell got more and more confidence as the game went on. Except for the first 8 minutes, I thought Cornell took control of the game's pace and once they stopped turning the ball over- pretty much played Duke even. The big layoff was an issue- but this team is still not passing as well as they need to. When they make the extra pass- they often get some easy shots. Singler is good around the basket- they need to pass to him more down there. If not for Nelson, Duke might have lost this game. He was strong throughout. Henderson had some nice dunks and Paulus hit some threes- but overall the play was pretty uninspired. Not a great start to the"second" season. I am concerned about King. He looked like a wounded puppy on the bench. He was not happy and clearly was told his night was done. Hopefully he will pick it up- Duke needs his emotion out on the court. The team did not play well together tonight - credit Cornell- but still Duke is much much better and tonight it did not show.

Troublemaker
01-06-2008, 10:26 PM
FWIW, K devoted most of his postgame to Duke's lack of communication. The players echoed this. K says that Duke played hard but not together. He acknowledged that the lay-off may have been a contributing factor but did not apologize for the lay-off. The season started unusually early, ends unusually late, and K thinks that the long lay-off will be beneficial down the stretch.

K was disappointed that Cornell got more than their share of lose balls early but Duke did improve after intermission.

McClure had a nice game on D and rebounding. It looks like his PT will come at the expense of Taylor K.

Duke just needs to play. The mid-week/weekend cycle has begun and will run through the end of the season.

I think there was probably some hangover from the Pitt game as well. The last time these kids were on the court together for a game, they had their hearts ripped out by a buzzer-beater. It's probably hard to get "up" for Cornell after that. I don't expect the lackluster play to continue.

TwoDukeTattoos
01-06-2008, 10:36 PM
Duke is rusty. Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know. But I also think Duke is exposed. Pitt exposed us. With our obvious lack of size, all a team has to do is control the tempo and defend the 3 reasonably well, and we're done. That doesn't mean we aren't a good team - it simply means that we're not championship-caliber. At least not yet. The more tape that opponents watch, the longer our season may become (or shorter come March).

jipops
01-06-2008, 10:39 PM
McClure had a nice game on D and rebounding. It looks like his PT will come at the expense of Taylor K.



I stated this several times after the first few games of the season that we would be getting more benefit from a healthy McClure than King. Taylor is an excellent shooter on the break but if he's closed out and has to put it on the floor, bad things can happen. McClure has much more to offer in terms of this team's needs. His D can be very effective even for an undersized forward, he's a solid on the boards, and he's experienced.

We did a pretty good job at times on defense against their key guys, but overall I thought our defense was pretty bad. Cornell seemed to get into the lane any time they wanted, and there is no excuse for allowing them to shoot ~50% in Cameron, no matter how long the layoff. Hopefully this was just the byproduct of the extremely poor communication shown out there today. We also struggled mightily against their zone.

I really would have liked to have seen us win as a result of execution instead of just having more talent. But unfortunately that didn't happen today.

Troublemaker
01-06-2008, 10:45 PM
Duke is rusty. Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know. But I also think Duke is exposed. Pitt exposed us. With our obvious lack of size, all a team has to do is control the tempo and defend the 3 reasonably well, and we're done. That doesn't mean we aren't a good team - it simply means that we're not championship-caliber. At least not yet. The more tape that opponents watch, the longer our season may become (or shorter come March).

Are you saying no opponent prior to Pitt knew Duke was small? C'mon now. Pitt beat Duke but they didn't "expose" some big secret. Pitt manhandled Duke on the boards while Duke won the rebounding stats comfortably against Cornell. The two games bore little resemblance other than Duke being cold from three in both. This isn't the start of a slide.

jipops
01-06-2008, 10:46 PM
Duke is rusty. Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know. But I also think Duke is exposed. Pitt exposed us. With our obvious lack of size, all a team has to do is control the tempo and defend the 3 reasonably well, and we're done. That doesn't mean we aren't a good team - it simply means that we're not championship-caliber. At least not yet. The more tape that opponents watch, the longer our season may become (or shorter come March).

If we have such an "obvious" lack of size, then why would it have taken the Pitt game to expose that? Do you think that Duke fans were the only ones that knew about this lack of size issue?

Guess what, our team watches tape too.

sandinmyshoes
01-06-2008, 10:51 PM
If the DBR write up on this game says anything about Cornell playing with great passion, I think I'll pluck my eyeballs out and eat them.

The real games are starting now, so let's hope this woke the boys up.

Devilsfan
01-06-2008, 10:59 PM
What did Taylor do to deserve the front row seat for the entire second half?

dukie8
01-06-2008, 11:00 PM
If we have such an "obvious" lack of size, then why would it have taken the Pitt game to expose that? Do you think that Duke fans were the only ones that knew about this lack of size issue?

Guess what, our team watches tape too.

teams might know about it but most don't have the players to take advantage of it.

also, it took most of the season in 2006 for teams to figure out that you throw your entire defense at jj and shel and nobody else could pick up the slack. lsu had the players to execute it.

what do you think unc and clemson are going to do when we play them?

rockymtn devil
01-06-2008, 11:02 PM
Duke is rusty. Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know. But I also think Duke is exposed. Pitt exposed us. With our obvious lack of size, all a team has to do is control the tempo and defend the 3 reasonably well, and we're done. That doesn't mean we aren't a good team - it simply means that we're not championship-caliber. At least not yet. The more tape that opponents watch, the longer our season may become (or shorter come March).

I disagree. First and foremost, given the nature of the Pitt game (tempo, style of play, etc.) I was encouraged that the game was close. Duke shouldn't win games like that, and, despite being killed on the boards, nearly beat a respectable Panthers team.

Second, not many teams can be confident in winning no matter what style of game they are in. Maybe Memphis and Carolina, but other than that, teams struggle when they fail to play their style of game. That's just reality.

Finally, I disagree with your opinion that Duke's size problems kill it on offense. Our lack of size hurts us on defense, especially in terms of giving up offensive rebounds. On offense, the ability to effectively drive to the basket will help negate the lack of an inside offensive presence. Further, being able to drive will help open up outside shooting opportunities.

jipops
01-06-2008, 11:04 PM
What did Taylor do to deserve the front row seat for the entire second half?

If you are able to recognize the leadership that DeMarcus played with today (as stated in your post subject) then you should be aware of why Taylor didn't play in the 2nd.

Troublemaker
01-06-2008, 11:06 PM
teams might know about it but most don't have the players to take advantage of it.

also, it took most of the season in 2006 for teams to figure out that you throw your entire defense at jj and shel and nobody else could pick up the slack. lsu had the players to execute it.

what do you think unc and clemson are going to do when we play them?

They're going to try to pound Duke inside, but that was the case even before the Pitt game.

Also, JJ and Shel received double-teams and focus all season long. In the LSU game, the support players missed wide open shots but that doesn't mean that game was the first time an opponent tried to give attention to JJ and Shel.

Devilsfan
01-06-2008, 11:06 PM
My question "pops" is, what did he do to be benched in the second half?

Ignatius07
01-06-2008, 11:07 PM
In my area, the first minute or so was pre-empted by a women's game, but it seemed like the starters were Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Zoubek, and Smith. I am glad to see Z get more minutes, since he is clearly a linchpin to this team's success. And Lance still got minutes so it wasn't a huge demotion.

Clearly Smith starting over Paulus is very interesting. What to make of this? Will it become a trend? I think the staff eventually sees Smith as closer to the answer at PG than Paulus - and starting today was an indication of that, I think - but it remains unclear at what point the torch will officially be passed. Many posters have mentioned how Paulus's real contributions come from his passing and shooting ability, so maybe K and the other coaches have decided to accelerate Smith's development as PG so he can handle a bigger load in the postseason.

jimsumner
01-06-2008, 11:13 PM
"Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know"

Duke played its first regular-season game November 9. That's early. Then a long and taxing trip to Hawaii. Duke played SEVEN games in November, an eighth on December 1. And that doesn't include the two practice games. Eleven games before Christmas. That's a lot. Throw in exams.

Now, let's fast forward to the other end of the tunnel. Duke's final regular-season game is March 8. The ACC Tournament runs from March 13 to March 16. The NCAA Tournament doesn't even start until March 20. That's late.

Early start, late finish. K was willing to take a longer break and take a risk of being rusty against Cornell with the expectation that it would reap benefits down the line from a more rested team.

jipops
01-06-2008, 11:13 PM
teams might know about it but most don't have the players to take advantage of it.

also, it took most of the season in 2006 for teams to figure out that you throw your entire defense at jj and shel and nobody else could pick up the slack. lsu had the players to execute it.

what do you think unc and clemson are going to do when we play them?

wrong, everyone knew the entire season we only had two viable options on offense in 2006. Remember the problems we had with VaTech? We finished with an excellent conference record that year but we didn't exactly slide through it. Which is why I said at the end of that season that we over-achieved having only two reliable offensive options for the entire season (of course they were 2 very nice options). LSU didn't execute anything special from what other teams did. They were far superior athletically to be sure, but having only one guy with the ability to hit perimeter shots eventually killed us in that one.

What do you think we will do when we play unc and clemson?

jipops
01-06-2008, 11:16 PM
My question "pops" is, what did he do to be benched in the second half?

Non existent on D. Terrible decisions on offense. I think the pass to the crazies put the nail in it.

Jim3k
01-06-2008, 11:20 PM
What did Taylor do to deserve the front row seat for the entire second half?

Threw a near no-look cross court pass across the key and into the third row.

dukie8
01-06-2008, 11:21 PM
wrong, everyone knew the entire season we only had two viable options on offense in 2006. Remember the problems we had with VaTech? We finished with an excellent conference record that year but we didn't exactly slide through it. Which is why I said at the end of that season that we over-achieved having only two reliable offensive options for the entire season (of course they were 2 very nice options). LSU didn't execute anything special from what other teams did. They were far superior athletically to be sure, but having only one guy with the ability to hit perimeter shots eventually killed us in that one.

What do you think we will do when we play unc and clemson?

and which games were the other 3 left wide open the entire game? the lsu game is the only game that i recall that was the case. it took most of the season for other teams to realize that that was the best way to play duke. coming into the season, melch was considered a very dangerous 3-point shooter and not someone to be left open. it took game after game of him missing shots for teams to eventually realize that whoever was assigned to him is better off harrassing jj and shel. lsu knew that and had the players to execute it.

i'm not sure what we are going to do against unc and clemson and i am not sure that the team does either. the cornell game had the feel of a crossroads game. is smith the new starting pg for good? is king in the doghouse for good? is lance in the doghouse for the foreseeable future? these things need to be sorted out before figuring out how to play unc and clemson. however, you can be sure that both of those teams will be pounding it inside all game long.

feldspar
01-06-2008, 11:33 PM
"Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know"

Duke played its first regular-season game November 9. That's early. Then a long and taxing trip to Hawaii. Duke played SEVEN games in November, an eighth on December 1. And that doesn't include the two practice games. Eleven games before Christmas. That's a lot. Throw in exams.

Now, let's fast forward to the other end of the tunnel. Duke's final regular-season game is March 8. The ACC Tournament runs from March 13 to March 16. The NCAA Tournament doesn't even start until March 20. That's late.

Early start, late finish. K was willing to take a longer break and take a risk of being rusty against Cornell with the expectation that it would reap benefits down the line from a more rested team.

Please don't cloud the issue with facts, Mr. Sumner.

RelativeWays
01-06-2008, 11:39 PM
You know, with all this talk about size and how Duke will struggle with big teams, why is it the teams with the clutch point guard or wing player player that seem to do us in? I will be far more worried about Lawson and Ellington in a close game scenario than I will Thompson or Hansbrough.

365Duke
01-07-2008, 12:12 AM
he was wearing an armband against Pitt but I didn't notice the soap-shaped object until tonight, I have no idea what it could be?



Mr. Smith waited to long in the Christmas break to get his newest tat, and it is just a little tender. I have seen this before with other basketball players and I think that is the reason, if I recall.

Jumbo
01-07-2008, 12:15 AM
Duke is rusty. Why we take two and a half weeks off when the rest of the nation is playing I will never know.

Well, as Jim Sumner pointed out, Duke's season started unusually early, and hopefully will go unusually late. Coach K wanted the long break. It wasn't about some short-term result (will it really matter in two months if Duke only beat Cornell by 14?). It was about giving the team a long-term break (the players actually got to go home for a bit -- like normal kids) and giving the staff sort of a mid-term break to step away and evaluate the team without preparing for games. So, maybe that's why Duke took some time off.


But I also think Duke is exposed. Pitt exposed us. With our obvious lack of size, all a team has to do is control the tempo and defend the 3 reasonably well, and we're done.

Uh, how did that manifest itself today? Duke killed Cornell on the boards. Duke was able to push the tempo. The missed threes were largely open shots. And it Pitt "exposed" Duke to the point where that formula would result in Duke being "done," then why did that game go to overtime, and why did Pitt need a step-back three with 5 seconds left to win it? Give me a break. Give us all a break.

Jumbo
01-07-2008, 12:19 AM
What did Taylor do to deserve the front row seat for the entire second half?

Let's see.
-Took one ridiculous three pointer that didn't hit anything.
-Three a cross-court pass to someone sitting in the first row of the stands.
-Was part of groups that were outscored 16-9 while he was in the game.
-Drove recklessly on a couple of occasions.
-Didn't defend well.

Duke has a lot of options in Taylor's spot, and Coach K rightly went with them today.

Troublemaker
01-07-2008, 12:29 AM
and which games were the other 3 left wide open the entire game?

Every game. In every game, JJ and Shel would draw defensive attention and rotate the ball and Duke would get an open shot. Maybe that game stood out to you because the season ended with that game, or maybe it's because Duke's support players kept clanging, which made LSU focus even more on JJ and Shel. Chicken/egg.



i'm not sure what we are going to do against unc and clemson and i am not sure that the team does either.

The team is going to do what Duke does. They're going to drive-and-kick on offense and pressure the ball and rotate on defense. And UNC and Clemson will do what they do, and may the best team win.



the cornell game had the feel of a crossroads game.

To me, it had the feel of a routine and meaningless post-holiday game. K played around with a different starting lineup but nothing extraordinarily different occurred wrt minute distribution. Zoubek gave some good minutes. Scheyer attacked the basket more than usual with mixed results finishing. Those were the only notable things I saw.

dukepsy1963
01-07-2008, 01:15 AM
The boys tonight (and in the Pitt game) looked more like the team I expected we would have before the season started; capable of some nice moments from time to time, but not great....just good. I kinda was surprised with how well they started this year...actually amazed in fact. They seemed to be really enjoying the game too!

Tonight and in the Pitt game, I didn't see or feel much enthusiasm. They didn't seem to have any fire! That worries me more than anything else.

Had it not been for Nelson, we would have lost this game. Somehow he always manages to do his job regardless of where the "heads" of the rest of the team might be.

Plus, if we don't get better at making threes and FTs, we are a done deal IMO.

And, although I don't hold much stock in rankings, we are not a top 10 team
this year. Good, but certainly not great....

DukeBlood
01-07-2008, 03:11 AM
Smith played well. 4-6 from for 9 points. Im not quite sure if he is ready to take over Paulus's spot for good but he is playing very well. Not making huge mistakes or even many mistakes.

Scheyer... Started off great last season and slowed down. Started off great this season and seems to be slowin down. Didnt shoot well today but at least he finds other ways to get it done.. He played a ok game with 3 REB, 2 AST, 2 STL and no TO's. He needs to find his stroke again. At least IMO. 1-10 FG against Pitt and 2-8 FG against Cornell. 5-6 FT's though.

Nelson played well. Happy to see him get his 1000th point. Congrats. He is my favorite Dukie right now.

Oriole Way
01-07-2008, 05:01 AM
The boys tonight (and in the Pitt game) looked more like the team I expected we would have before the season started; capable of some nice moments from time to time, but not great....just good. I kinda was surprised with how well they started this year...actually amazed in fact. They seemed to be really enjoying the game too!

Tonight and in the Pitt game, I didn't see or feel much enthusiasm. They didn't seem to have any fire! That worries me more than anything else.

Had it not been for Nelson, we would have lost this game. Somehow he always manages to do his job regardless of where the "heads" of the rest of the team might be.

Plus, if we don't get better at making threes and FTs, we are a done deal IMO.

And, although I don't hold much stock in rankings, we are not a top 10 team
this year. Good, but certainly not great....


I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments. Lots of troubling trends which I hope get reversed in the next few games.

I've been disappointed by Lance Thomas and his inability to produce in his limited playing time. I keep waiting to see some sort of improvement from him. Anything. Seeing how conference play will tighten up minutes and the rotation, I don't expect Lance to grow much further this year. He's essentially the same non-factor he was last year.

I was also hoping Zoubek would get more time in the second half. I thought he played fine in the first. Really wish K would develop him a little more, we're going to need something resembling an interior game during ACC play.

I was thrown off by the starting lineup tonight. Was K shaking things up, or can we expect a shakeup? I would like to see Nolan start more often and have Paulus come off the bench and see if that alters the dynamic favorably at all. If Smith can start penetrating and dishing effectively, it would help this offense immensely.

gw67
01-07-2008, 08:41 AM
Some additional thoughts on last night’s game:

• Nelson and Singler are separating themselves from the rest of the team as the top players. Last night, both were scoring, rebounding, passing and playing good defense. Their play follows several other good games. I enjoy seeing seniors step it up and Nelson certainly played like an All ACC player last night.
• Smith continues to remind me of a young Daniel Ewing. The best part of his game appears to be his offense. He has a good jumper and he is effective driving to the hoop. Based on last night and several other games, I see his defensive play as above average but he is certainly not the shutdown defender that many envisioned. I expect him to develop into an outstanding defensive player but he got lost several times last night on screens. Lastly, he is not an effective passer or playmaker at this stage in his development. In the second half, it appeared that Scheyer took over running the offense for several offensive possessions with Smith moving to the wing.
• It will be interesting to see where King, Thomas and Zoubek land with McClure playing more minutes. It would not surprise me to see McClure playing more and two of these three playing significantly less as the Devils enter the ACC season.

gw67

Kilby
01-07-2008, 09:42 AM
What I like about Smith:

1) He pushes the ball better and more consistently than anyone else on the team.
2) When he gets down the floor he can finish.
3) He will not get smoked by the quicker guards that Duke faces.

Highlander
01-07-2008, 09:59 AM
Some additional thoughts on last night’s game:
• It will be interesting to see where King, Thomas and Zoubek land with McClure playing more minutes. It would not surprise me to see McClure playing more and two of these three playing significantly less as the Devils enter the ACC season.

gw67

I agree. It is good to have Dave healthy again. However, I worry about a player who is only in the game for defense. Last night Dave only attempted one shot and missed it. He played 14 minutes and had 5 rebounds, zero assists, zero steals, and zero points. I think it will hurt us against stronger opponents if we have someone on the floor who is a liability on offense ore defense, because the other team will exploit that player half the time he is in the game. King is the opposite of McClure, in that his D is mightily suspect, and last night his whole game was off. I wish I could put King's offensive firepower together with Dave's defense. That would be one hell of a player.

Saratoga2
01-07-2008, 11:01 AM
I agree. It is good to have Dave healthy again. However, I worry about a player who is only in the game for defense. Last night Dave only attempted one shot and missed it. He played 14 minutes and had 5 rebounds, zero assists, zero steals, and zero points. I think it will hurt us against stronger opponents if we have someone on the floor who is a liability on offense ore defense, because the other team will exploit that player half the time he is in the game. King is the opposite of McClure, in that his D is mightily suspect, and last night his whole game was off. I wish I could put King's offensive firepower together with Dave's defense. That would be one hell of a player.

It would be great if every player on the floor could pose some real offensive threat. Neither Thomas or McClure offer that quality at this time, so the scoring load has to be completely supplied by others. While Zoubek is not as quick as either of them, he can score and rebound and he can clog up the middle. He has problems getting out to the top of the key to defend and then dropping back quickly. I though he represented a much better match against Cornells 7 footer than others that Duke could put on the floor.

dukechem
01-07-2008, 11:02 AM
I thought that King's body language when the camera focused on him at the end of the game showed an angry young man, not one who understood why he was sitting.

King seems to be one who expresses a lot of emotion on the court, and people like that often do spectacularly good things (a three from 25 feet to put in the dagger) and spectacularly bad things (like a cross court pass into the cheap seats.)

dukestheheat
01-07-2008, 12:36 PM
i did believe that we'd be totally rusty and would need the defibrillators for revival by the coaches and at the half.

anytime you miss time off of the court like we did over the break, it's going to show, and tonight, it did but this should not surprise anyone, imo.

what we saw was normal and expected, and our game versus temple will work better overall, based on what i've seen from this duke team this year.

count it.

dukestheheat.

evrdukie
01-07-2008, 03:23 PM
What does this even mean? Especially since you repeated it, you must think you're blowing our minds with this point. If you're saying the Duke game was boring in comparison....well, duh. There is no way a meaningless non-conf game against an Ivy League team is going to match the intensity of an ACC opener between two top-20 teams.

Sorry you had trouble understanding my post. I'll try to do better.

Cicero
01-07-2008, 03:27 PM
If the DBR write up on this game says anything about Cornell playing with great passion, I think I'll pluck my eyeballs out and eat them.


they also impressed us with their physical play and their heart. . . . Cornell was having none of that. They came to win and they were nearly in a position to do so.

DBR seems to take the Coach K line on things...most teams we play are "well-coached," play "really hard," and may even have a "special" player.

Troublemaker
01-07-2008, 04:30 PM
Sorry you had trouble understanding my post. I'll try to do better.

Try is not enough. You should be a do-er, not a try-er. At least that's what I teach my younglings.

dw0827
01-07-2008, 04:33 PM
DBR seems to take the Coach K line on things...most teams we play are "well-coached," play "really hard," and may even have a "special" player.

Actually, I thought Cornell was well-coached and played really hard. They aren't a cupcake by any means.

I completely agree with dukestheheat in that I also expected a very rusty Duke team, firing on half its cylinders, somewhat lethargic, not mentally sharp. Normal and expected, and why we play teams like Cornell and Temple before jumping into the ACC fray. Happens every year . . . except that this break was longer than usual . . . and seemed like a month.

jimsumner
01-07-2008, 04:41 PM
"DBR seems to take the Coach K line on things...most teams we play are "well-coached," play "really hard," and may even have a "special" player."

Doesn't mean it's not true. One of the realities of being at Duke's level is that everybody gets up for you; and yes, the same thing applies to the Heels and a few others.

I strongly suspect Cornell had yesterday's game circled on their calendars a long time. I'm pretty sure Duke didn't look at the Cornell game as an opportunity to make a statement on national television before a disbelieving public. The general consensus is that K does a remarkable job in getting his team to play hard as possible as often as possible. But Duke is always going to the be the biggest--or one of the biggest--games on everyone's schedule. And the converse can't be true. Duke can't have 35 biggest games.

Did you notice the final 30 seconds or so yesterday? Cornell emptied its bench, putting in five guys who hadn't otherwise played just so they could someday tell their grandchildren that they played Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium. In pre-game introductions, it's not at all unusual for opposing players to come over to the Duke bench just to shake K's hand. I doubt whether they do that for Frank Haith or Seth Greenburg.

Sure, there's an intimidation factor that sometimes gives Duke a bump but I think that is more than offset by the adrenaline that everybody gets playing Duke. Opposing teams might be occasionally intimidated by the name on the jersey but nobody ever overlooks Duke, nobody is ever flat against Duke.

And besides, does anyone seriously expect K to open a press conference with "gee, that sure was some lousy coaching by the other team?" :)

Classof06
01-07-2008, 05:00 PM
My theory on Lance Thomas? Lance is 6'8". He needs to play that way. I think maybe it is a confidence thing. Lance needs to play big. He never seems to look for his shot. He is not a threat. Yet, he could be. I watch UNC play and Danny Green and Marcus Ginyard, two players smaller than Lance, seem to play bigger than he does when I watch them play. Lance is one of our big guys - we need him to play that way.

I wasn't able to catch the game last night but is Lance still fighting with that ankle injury? I don't know if he is or not but the bottom line is that this team needs more from him and I'm really starting to get concerned with Lance's lack of production with ACC play on the horizon. He needs to pick it up...quick.



-what was the thing on nolan's arm? it looked like he had a can of dip wrapped on his arm. i have never seen anything like that.

Nolan is one of the few Duke players to have a tattoo on his arm upon arriving at Duke. I don't remember what it was but it was a relatively large tattoo. He's covered it up the past 3-4 games and I'd bet anything it was at Krzyzewski's request. I know a lot of Catholic high schools make their athletes do it. Being from Ohio, I noticed Lebron had to wear one in high school for both football and basketball.

evrdukie
01-07-2008, 05:18 PM
Try is not enough. You should be a do-er, not a try-er. At least that's what I teach my younglings.

Jeez, Troublemaker. I believe you misunderstood again. I meant I would try harder to enable you to understand my posts. That effort must necessarily involve both of us and, not least, greater determination on your part toward comprehension.

Let me provide an example. I suggested in my earlier message that a discouraged Duke fan (who had just posted to express dismay at the Duke performance against Cornell) might consider contrasting the then ongoing UNC/Clemson game with the preceding Duke/Cornell game. To help you avoid confusion, I probably should have supplied the further observation that the level of intensity, as well as the level play, was not encouraging for any Duke fan who can anticipate Duke playing either UNC or Clemson in the weeks ahead.

Troublemaker, you can depend on me to do my part to enable you to benefit as fully as possible from my future postings. I'm confident that together we can achieve significant improvment.

greybeard
01-07-2008, 06:32 PM
Re: Lance. I'd have to think that the ankle is still something of an issue. Unless he reinjures, it will be less an issue with time, and less an issue when play up and down the court speeds up.

Cornell's bigs are smart and tough. They are not cut, but they are strong, especially lower body strong. They move their feet extremely well for big strong guys, have very good hand/eye coordination, and understand the game. Think Hansborough without the year round work by experts and without the extra tinges of talent that make Hansborough stand out.

I once asked a Doctor friend of mind who is also a world class photographer how good he was as compared to the very best. He answered something like, "People with talent can get 95 percent to the top in a few years with hard work." After that, increments come extremely slowly and even a fraction of a percentage becomes exceedingly meaningful. Those Cornell guys are real good and are precisely the body types that Lance will have the most difficulty with, especially if the game is not fast up and down.

Root for the kid; if his ankle does not hold him back, he will compete very, very well against the guys at UNC you mentioned, especially if the captain of this Duke team keeps leading the way he did last night. Nelson, Henderson, and Scheyer, if they are on their games, will create the opportunities for Lance to be effective. With everyone's support, he'll make plays, big ones! Go Duke!

Troublemaker
01-07-2008, 06:53 PM
Jeez, Troublemaker. I believe you misunderstood again. I meant I would try harder to enable you to understand my posts. That effort must necessarily involve both of us and, not least, greater determination on your part toward comprehension.

Let me provide an example. I suggested in my earlier message that a discouraged Duke fan (who had just posted to express dismay at the Duke performance against Cornell) might consider contrasting the then ongoing UNC/Clemson game with the preceding Duke/Cornell game. To help you avoid confusion, I probably should have supplied the further observation that the level of intensity, as well as the level play, was not encouraging for any Duke fan who can anticipate Duke playing either UNC or Clemson in the weeks ahead.

Troublemaker, you can depend on me to do my part to enable you to benefit as fully as possible from my future postings. I'm confident that together we can achieve significant improvment.

Uh, yeah, I really was just making fun of you, dude. I mean, if you really want to be "dismayed" or "depressed" by the comparison of those two games, then be my guest. I happen to think it's a stupid way to think about things since you could just as easily compare the UNC/Nicholls St and Duke/Marquette games and come away feeling jubilant instead of "dismayed"/"depressed" (hahaha). So Duke ends their non-conf slate having crushed 6 out of 7 scrub teams instead of crushing 7 out of 7. Big deal.

evrdukie
01-07-2008, 09:29 PM
Uh, yeah, I really was just making fun of you, dude. I mean, if you really want to be "dismayed" or "depressed" by the comparison of those two games, then be my guest. I happen to think it's a stupid way to think about things since you could just as easily compare the UNC/Nicholls St and Duke/Marquette games and come away feeling jubilant instead of "dismayed"/"depressed" (hahaha). So Duke ends their non-conf slate having crushed 6 out of 7 scrub teams instead of crushing 7 out of 7. Big deal.

OK, you got me on substance and I take it all back. But do me a favor. Jettison the "Dude", the quotations sprinkled around your posts and the parenthetical "ha, ha" business. This is a Duke board and your prose style is bringing us down.

Jumbo
01-07-2008, 09:35 PM
OK, you got me on substance and I take it all back. But do me a favor. Jettison the "Dude", the quotations sprinkled around your posts and the parenthetical "ha, ha" business. This is a Duke board and your prose style is bringing us down.

... so says the guy who introduces his infallible "elite point guard/elite big man" theory, then refuses to provide any evidence to back it up and ignores counter-claims. I believe any freshman humanities class at Duke teaches students how to support an argument with specific examples. Glass houses.

evrdukie
01-07-2008, 10:13 PM
... so says the guy who introduces his infallible "elite point guard/elite big man" theory, then refuses to provide any evidence to back it up and ignores counter-claims. I believe any freshman humanities class at Duke teaches students how to support an argument with specific examples. Glass houses.

Don't taze me, Bro.

I don't know, Jumbo, about your obsession with obtaining evidence that a top tier team needs a top tier point guard and a top tier post player. Your insistence is definitely the mark of a "show me" guy (check out those quotes). And yet I can't help but wonder if anything in your experience seems to you as being, well, self-evident. Limiting ourselves to basketball, for example, would you consider the proposition debatable that you need a ball to have a game? How about a blind referee? Would it seem obvious to you that he'd be challenged as a referee or would you need proof? What about a point guard required to wear handcuffs and leg irons? A self evident handicap or just an unproven theory? Anyway, you get the point. I admire you rigorous standards regarding objective evidence, but I'm frankly worried about how you manage from day to day. By the way, scrap the "glass house" reference. We already have enough half time show cliches larded into these posts without stretching for more.

Jumbo
01-07-2008, 10:17 PM
Don't taze me, Bro.

I don't know, Jumbo, about your obsession with obtaining evidence that a top tier team needs a top tier point guard and a top tier post player. Your insistence is definitely the mark of a "show me" guy (check out those quotes). And yet I can't help but wonder if anything in your experience seems to you as being, well, self-evident. Limiting ourselves to basketball, for example, would you consider the proposition debatable that you need a ball to have a game? How about a blind referee? Would it seem obvious to you that he'd be challenged as a referee or would you need proof? What about a point guard required to wear handcuffs and leg irons? A self evident handicap or just an unproven theory? Anyway, you get the point. I admire you rigorous standards regarding objective evidence, but I'm frankly worried about how you manage from day to day. By the way, scrap the "glass house" reference. We already have enough half time show cliches larded into these posts without stretching for more.

Translation: I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try to deflect the issue with mindless rambling again.

I'll make it simple for you: How did UConn win the 2004 NCAA title with Taliek Brown at point guard? How did Syracuse win the 2003 NCAA title with Craig Forth at center? How did Michigan State win the 2000 NCAA title with A.J. Granger at center? Let's start with those simple examples before moving on to anything more complex.

evrdukie
01-07-2008, 10:30 PM
Translation: I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try to deflect the issue with mindless rambling again.

I'll make it simple for you: How did UConn win the 2004 NCAA title with Taliek Brown at point guard? How did Syracuse win the 2003 NCAA title with Craig Forth at center? How did Michigan State win the 2000 NCAA title with A.J. Granger at center? Let's start with those simple examples before moving on to anything more complex.

Jumbo, I believe you already provided the answer earlier today. I'm pretty sure it's in here somewhere (time well spent, by the way):

"A few interesting stats from this game. Taylor King's stellar plus/minus took a big hit, while the small lineup that we expect to see finish games (Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Henderson, Singler) was far and away Duke's most effective group.

Individuals
Jon Scheyer 66-48 (+18)
Gerald Henderson 71-54 (+17)
Kyle Singler 60-44 (+16)
DeMarcus Nelson 60-48 (+12)
Greg Paulus 49-42 (+7)
Nolan Smith 32-27 (+5)
Brian Zoubek 20-16 (+4)
Lance Thomas 18-17 (+1)
Jordan Davidson 0-0 (0)
David McClure 20-23 (-3)
Taylor King 9-16 (-7)

Per 40 Minutes
Jon Scheyer +24
Gerald Henderson +22.7
Kyle Singler +22.1
Brian Zoubek +16
DeMarcus Nelson +15.5
Greg Paulus +12.2
Nolan Smith +11.1
Lance Thomas +4.4
Jordan Davidson 0
David McClure -8.6
Taylor King -46.7

Lineups
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler (x3) 20-7 (+13)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas 5-0 (+5)
Smith-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek 9-5 (+4)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Singler (x2) 6-3 (+3)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-Singler-Zoubek (x2) 11-9 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-McClure 5-3 (+2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-King-Thomas 4-2 (+2)
Smith-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-Singler 1-0 (+1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-McClure-Thomas 2-2 (0)
Paulus-Davidson-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler 0-0 (0)
Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Thomas-Zoubek 0-0 (0)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Henderson-Singler 5-6 (-1)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-Singler-Thomas 5-7 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Henderson-McClure-Singler 3-5 (-2)
Paulus-Scheyer-Nelson-King-Thomas 2-4 (-2)
Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Singler-Zoubek 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Smith-Scheyer-Nelson-Thomas 0-2 (-2)
Paulus-Nelson-Henderson-McClure-King 3-10 (-7)"

Jumbo
01-07-2008, 10:34 PM
Jumbo, I believe you already provided the answer earlier today. I'm pretty sure it's in here somewhere (time well spent, by the way):

Keep it up, Tiger. You're really distinguishing yourself. Taliek Brown, A.J. Granger and Craig Forth. Still waiting. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

evrdukie
01-07-2008, 10:45 PM
Keep it up, Tiger. You're really distinguishing yourself. Taliek Brown, A.J. Granger and Craig Forth. Still waiting. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?

Troublemaker
01-07-2008, 11:46 PM
OK, you got me on substance and I take it all back. But do me a favor. Jettison the "Dude", the quotations sprinkled around your posts and the parenthetical "ha, ha" business. This is a Duke board and your prose style is bringing us down.

Didn't your parents teach you to speak for yourself and not cower behind the "us"? Your thin skin, easily "depressed" temperament (snicker), and rush to sidle up to imaginary allies speaks poorly of you, and so my guess is Duke would not want YOU to speak for them.

jimsumner
01-07-2008, 11:54 PM
evr,

A.J. Granger and Craig Forth were starting centers on teams that recently won NCAA championships. Neither was even in the same zip code as elite centers.

Without putting too fine a point on it, this is known as using an example to refute someone else's point. Folks do it on a regular basis.

dukie8
01-08-2008, 12:03 AM
Translation: I really have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'm going to try to deflect the issue with mindless rambling again.

I'll make it simple for you: How did UConn win the 2004 NCAA title with Taliek Brown at point guard? How did Syracuse win the 2003 NCAA title with Craig Forth at center? How did Michigan State win the 2000 NCAA title with A.J. Granger at center? Let's start with those simple examples before moving on to anything more complex.

it's beyond comprehension that you actually think teams can win a nc without a good pg. brown may not have been hurley but in the biggest game of his life -- the national championship game -- he played 37 minutes with 4 assists and 2 turnovers (in addition to 9 points and 6 rebounds). it also wasn't like he was playing against a chump. jack was en feugo at the end of 2004 and he was held to 3 assists and 5 turnovers. dump on brown all you want but that is exactly the kind of game i would want from a pg in nc game. we can only wish for that kind of performance on both ends of the court out of our current pg when we go up against a top team with an nba quality pg.

evrdukie
01-08-2008, 12:03 AM
Keep it up, Tiger. You're really distinguishing yourself. Taliek Brown, A.J. Granger and Craig Forth. Still waiting. Tick, tock. Tick, tock.

I've had an exchange this evening with Troublemaker and Jumbo and there's a point I'd like to make about it before the thought police prevent me from further posting, which is likely to happen pretty soon now if the prior practice on this board is any evidence.

There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want. Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted. One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness. It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others. Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.

It seems to me that one additional point is worth making. Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.

If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.

Jumbo
01-08-2008, 12:09 AM
it's beyond comprehension that you actually think teams can win a nc without a good pg. brown may not have been hurley but in the biggest game of his life -- the national championship game -- he played 37 minutes with 4 assists and 2 turnovers (in addition to 9 points and 6 rebounds). it also wasn't like he was playing against a chump. jack was en feugo at the end of 2004 and he was held to 3 assists and 5 turnovers. dump on brown all you want but that is exactly the kind of game i would want from a pg in nc game. we can only wish for that kind of performance on both ends of the court out of our current pg when we go up against a top team with an nba quality pg.

Come on, Dukie8. You know better than that. Didn't you say you were a New Yorker at one point? If so, you know Brown never lived up to his billing, was routinely ripped by his own fans, and had an undistiguished career at UConn. One game does not a season make. As a senior he averaged 6.3 ppg, made one three-pointer and shot 55.3% from the line. He did have a nice A/TO ratio, but he was far from an elite PG. He wasn't even above average. And the poster has made it clear that you can't win without both "an elite PG and an elite big man."

evrdukie
01-08-2008, 12:12 AM
Didn't your parents teach you to speak for yourself and not cower behind the "us"? Your thin skin, easily "depressed" temperament (snicker), and rush to sidle up to imaginary allies speaks poorly of you, and so my guess is Duke would not want YOU to speak for them.


There you go again with all those quotation marks and parentheticals. By the way, you're very believable. You definitely seem to be the snickering type.

evrdukie
01-08-2008, 12:17 AM
Come on, Dukie8. You know better than that. Didn't you say you were a New Yorker at one point? If so, you know Brown never lived up to his billing, was routinely ripped by his own fans, and had an undistiguished career at UConn. One game does not a season make. As a senior he averaged 6.3 ppg, made one three-pointer and shot 55.3% from the line. He did have a nice A/TO ratio, but he was far from an elite PG. He wasn't even above average. And the poster has made it clear that you can't win without both "an elite PG and an elite big man."

Well, Jumbo, since Duke doesn't have either one, the argument is probaby academic anyway for the time being.

Troublemaker
01-08-2008, 12:39 AM
I've had an exchange this evening with Troublemaker and Jumbo and there's a point I'd like to make about it before the thought police prevent me from further posting, which is likely to happen pretty soon now if the prior practice on this board is any evidence.

There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want. Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted. One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness. It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others. Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.

It seems to me that one additional point is worth making. Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.

If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.

Since you dislike cliches, I just wanted you to know that this post of yours is cookie-cutter playing-the-victim tripe. Once I saw your first line, I could've written the rest of it for you. Your cheerleading/critical-thinking false dichotomy is well-covered ground here that I just don't have the patience to discuss again right now but my guess is Jumbo will (can't spell Jumbo without Job!). In fact, there was a pinned thread dealing with more or less this exact subject that received a couple hundred replies over the course of several days, maybe weeks earlier this season. Maybe a mod can link it.

I'll just say this:
(1) You've been asked to argue using examples and counterexamples. You've refused and said that your points are "self-evident". How is that promoting critical thinking?
(2) You've been as snarky as anyone, making you a ridiculous hypocrite.

Jumbo
01-08-2008, 12:41 AM
There’s always an interesting divergence on this board between what I think of as the cheerleader fans and the critical fans. If the point of the board is to foster boundless approval of everything to do with Duke’s basketball program, there’s nothing wrong with that, if that's what most people want.

Funny, I don't think anyone feels that way. That you see things in such a Bushian, black/white way says more about you than it does the board.


Even so, it's a little troublesome that some of the moderators believe their role is to serve as censors whose primary responsibility is to ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted.

Troublemaker is not a moderator, so I have no idea why you mentioned him. Jim Sumner isn't either. I'm a moderator, and I don't think my job is to "ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted." That sounds lovely, but a couple of weeks ago, posters were telling me I was too critical of Gerald Henderson. So, apparently, I'm both too critical and too anti-criticism. Got it.


One aspect of that approach involves a tolerance for, and even encouragement of, intimidation, condescending and nasty remarks and general snarkiness.

I know you love cliches, so, "Pot, meet Kettle." Here is the body (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/search.php?searchid=57231)of your work as a poster. It's simply stunning. I'll let the other posters judge for themselves, but a convincing argument can be made that you are a troll. Some lovely examples:

"No, Troublemaker, you don't understand. You have to do what I say. By the way, I thought you were ending your participation in this particular thread. Anyway, your views are always welcome." -evrdukie, 3/16/07

"Thanks, Troublemaker. Consistency seems to be your long suit. As usual when analysis fails, you can always fall back on insults. As to getting older and inevitably better, which seems to be a fixation of yours, have you wondered at all why many of the Duke players got older and more experienced between last October and this week--and didn't get any better? In fact, were demonstrably worse. Definitely something for you to think about." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

"Sorry to dash your hopes, Troublemaker. It won't be easy, but I'll probably just have to live with your disappointment. Get a good night's sleep and you'll probably feel better in the morning." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

Oddly, after suddenly appearing during Duke's late-season collapse and providing the bulk of your posts after the VCU game, you disappeared until (with two exceptions)... the Pitt game. Hmmm. Since then...

"If we play UNC the way we played tonight, we'll lose by 25 points." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

"Your principal point, which is jaw dropping, is that tonight's game was a good loss. That's preposterous." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

"I've changed my mind. Yes, it was the best loss ever--or at least among the top two or three. I'm glad I was able to see it. And to think, we almost let the loss get away from us!" -evrdukie, 12/20/07

"If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress." -evrduke, 1/6/08

And, of course, there's everything else you've posted in this thread. You're right -- you haven't been condescending, snarky or nasty at all. Gotcha. In reviewing your posts, I'm hard-pressed to find one positive contribution you've made to this board.



It would be better if there were room on the board for fans who are interested is seeing Duke’s basketball team do well, but who, for whatever reason, choose to preserve their critical faculties. In other words, there would be room for both faith based posters and the others.

There's room for both on this board. In fact, most posters employ both qualities.


Of course, achieving that would mean that the cheerleader fans, including some of the moderators, would have to give up their practice of trying to excommunicate everybody else. The overall quality of the board would be much improved.

Not even close. Again, we allow for plenty of criticism. We offer it ourselves. All we ask is that people support what they say, make well-reasoned arguments, and generally debate in good faith. Which leads me to...


Larding several paragraphs of nonsense with basketball jargon, tortured statistics, and sports clichés isn’t the same as providing analysis. Every reader can form his own opinions about such junk, but all the readers shouldn't be pressured to treat such crap as the only legitimate standard for participating in the board.

That is so obnoxious, so pathetic and so fundamentally wrong that I actually don't know how to respond. Wait, yes I do: This is a basketball board. "Basketball jargon" and statistics (whether you feel they've been to Gitmo or not) are part of analysis. They don't represent analysis in its entirety, but to quote the motto of another fine institution, "Knowledge is Good."

More to the point, let's come up with a hypothetical example. Say some poster decides to pronounce some grand theory of basketball. Say he/she decides that you can't be a great team "without an elite PG and an elite big man." Maybe -- just maybe -- it's incumbent on that poster to, I dunno, support that contention? I know that's a revoluationary idea in the art of debate, but if I were to decide that a theory is "self-evident," then watch multiple posters question it, maybe I'd conclude that it might not be as "self-evident" as I originally thought. Maybe I'd take a step back and reconsider my views. Maybe I'd search for examples to support them. And then if some poster completely knocked them down, I wouldn't write something like, "Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?" -evrdukie, 1/8/07

You know, just hypothetically speaking and all.


If this note marks me as an apostate who should be banished from participating, I expect to be able to deal with it. I'm not a basketball expert, just a fan like most of the rest of you. From that perspective, I've very much enjoyed reading many excellent posts by any number of very well informed observers. To all those, my thanks.

No, you're not a fan like the rest of us. You're a fan who doesn't debate in good faith, who only seems to show up after losses, who makes grand pronouncements without any support behind them and who -- despite an admitted lack of basketball expertise -- refuses to back down when contrary evidence is offered. So, no, you aren't like the rest of us at all. Because this is a board where qualities that are the very antithesis of what you've demonstrated are prized, and whose posters contain them in spades. It's what makes this board great. You're the one who needs to adapt, not the rest of the board.

Troublemaker
01-08-2008, 12:53 AM
Here it is, the "Culture of DBR" thread I referenced earlier: http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4642

It's a great thread that maybe you should read. Of course, it's not like you're REALLY interested in discussing that subject in good faith. From where I sit, it seems to me that you ran into a dead-end when pushed to give examples substantiating your points, and as a last resort, you decided to play the victim card. For someone who hates cliches, it must suck to be a walking one.

CALVET
01-08-2008, 02:12 AM
I'm usually a read-only participant as a break from the daily drudgery. But sometimes I interject when someone performs the foot-to-mouth maneuver with extraordinary precision and then obstinately protects ego to the end.

Sure you have a better chance to win it all with both a top tier center and point guard. Certainly you'd have a better shot to win it all with all five positions top tier, two deep. But we have, count 'em, EIGHT Mikie D's. Are you bagging on Duke's recruiting or coaching?

dukie8
01-08-2008, 07:09 AM
Come on, Dukie8. You know better than that. Didn't you say you were a New Yorker at one point? If so, you know Brown never lived up to his billing, was routinely ripped by his own fans, and had an undistiguished career at UConn. One game does not a season make. As a senior he averaged 6.3 ppg, made one three-pointer and shot 55.3% from the line. He did have a nice A/TO ratio, but he was far from an elite PG. He wasn't even above average. And the poster has made it clear that you can't win without both "an elite PG and an elite big man."

i never said he was elite but when you have the best player in college, okafur, and probably the 3rd or 4th best player, gordon, your job is to run the offense, play d and not make stupid mistakes. they weren't relying on him to score so his low ppg is not that big of a deal. uconn fans may see him as their version of king rice, in terms of not living up to expectations, but he had a great game in the championship. my point was to counter your point that he was a chump. chumps don't have great nc games on both sides of the court.

and, yes, i do live in new york but i'm not sure how that has any relevance here.

rtnorthrup
01-08-2008, 08:52 AM
Getting back to the topic, I would like to throw my $.02 into the ring. I think the real issue, for lack of a better word, is team identity. Everyone has been asking for a deeper rotation the last few years and we seem to have our wish granted this year. The underside to a deep rotation is that it can take players longer to determine their role. Here are some examples that I am seeing right now:

1. Paulus- He was brought in last year as a pure, pass first, point guard. I remember reading DBR gush about how he saw passing lanes that other guards just didnt see. Unfortunately, it turns out that his strength, right now, comes from his outside shooting. He is one of our better, if not best, three point threats. His ability to get in the lane and create shots for others simply isnt there right now. This dilemma leads us to:

2. Henderson and Nelson: Because our point guard is not breaking down defenses, we are relying on our wings to do most of our penetration. In my opinion, this is not a bad thing. We have two devastating wings who can get into the lane. Right now, Nelson is excelling. Henderson is still working on when to pull up, when to go to the rim and when to pass. Again, only 12 games into his second season. It's a learning process.

3. King- 12 games into his college career and he is still struggling with what kind of player is he. Obviously, he can be lights out from anywhere on the court, but sometimes you can see it in his eyes that he has made up his mind to shoot before he even catches the ball. Right now, he is trying to think his way through the game, instead of reacting to it. Again, 12 games as a college player, he will learn his role and he will get his shots.

4. Singler- Our best "big", but is better with the ball in his hands facing the basket. Given that our offense thrives with wing penetration, Singler is sometimes out of position. Plus, if he is facing up, that puts a lot of pressure on Henderson and Nelson to rebound missed shots, which they are doing a pretty decent job.

Again, I think these are identity issues. Scheyer has responded quickly to his role off the bench, but he still seems unsure of when to shoot, when to drive and when to pass. This team will take some time to gel as players get used to each other, know what their shot is, and how to get a teammate his shot.

The other aspect is the speed of the game. We want to play fast, and when our defense is creating turnovers, we have some success. I would say that our lack of a true rebounder slows us down some. The fact that Nelson and Henderson have to rebound makes it harder for us to execute a fast break off a missed shot. Right now our break is inconsistant, but I expect it will get better.

Again, I think becuase of the small number of games which this team has played together, the inconsistency is normal. If these issues have not been worked out by the second half of ACC play, I would be worried.

gw67
01-08-2008, 08:56 AM
I am a little wary of interjecting myself in between Jumbo/troublemaker and evrdukie/dukie8 but here goes. At one time, a team may have needed an elite big man plus an elite pg to win the national title although it is not clear from my memory. My perception is that the college game has transformed during the last fifteen years and having an elite big man is desired but not a necessary condition. IMO, having a good pg is still important but it is not necessary that he be an “elite” player (see Blake, Brown, Green and others). There is no strict formula for success although talent is a pretty good start (some have suggested that you need 3 players who will play in the NBA to be a title contender but I don’t know if the data backs this up).

By the way, Brown was a nice player, IMO. He was quick, took care of the ball and got his team into their offense, although my most distinct memory of him is a negative one. Connecticut played Oklahoma in a nationally televised game in the early 2000’s and I believe that Packer was doing the color. Oklahoma was a good team and they had a wonderful college player, Hollis Price, at pg. Brown was very quick and had a nice spin move to get by the opposition. My recollection is that Packer was very complementary about Brown’s ability to break Oklahoma’s press. Well, Brown was quick but Price was quicker. Twice, while at top speed, Brown tried his spin move on Price and both times Price reacted and took a charge in the middle of his chest. They were exceptional defensive plays and it wasn’t even close to being a block per the replays. To this day, I consider those defensive plays by Price to be among the best I’ve seen.

gw67

Jumbo
01-08-2008, 09:05 AM
i never said he was elite but when you have the best player in college, okafur, and probably the 3rd or 4th best player, gordon, your job is to run the offense, play d and not make stupid mistakes. they weren't relying on him to score so his low ppg is not that big of a deal. uconn fans may see him as their version of king rice, in terms of not living up to expectations, but he had a great game in the championship. my point was to counter your point that he was a chump. chumps don't have great nc games on both sides of the court.

and, yes, i do live in new york but i'm not sure how that has any relevance here.

I think you missed the first part of the argument. I was countering the idea that you need "an elite PG and an elite big man" to win. Clearly, by both our definitions, Brown wasn't elite. I mentioned the NY thing only because being up here, we were both exposed to tons of Brown-bashing among UConn fans.

evrdukie
01-08-2008, 10:27 AM
Funny, I don't think anyone feels that way. That you see things in such a Bushian, black/white way says more about you than it does the board.



Troublemaker is not a moderator, so I have no idea why you mentioned him. Jim Sumner isn't either. I'm a moderator, and I don't think my job is to "ensure that nothing but orthdoxy and uncritical approval of everything to do with the coach and the basketball program is permitted." That sounds lovely, but a couple of weeks ago, posters were telling me I was too critical of Gerald Henderson. So, apparently, I'm both too critical and too anti-criticism. Got it.



I know you love cliches, so, "Pot, meet Kettle." Here is the body (http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/search.php?searchid=57231)of your work as a poster. It's simply stunning. I'll let the other posters judge for themselves, but a convincing argument can be made that you are a troll. Some lovely examples:

"No, Troublemaker, you don't understand. You have to do what I say. By the way, I thought you were ending your participation in this particular thread. Anyway, your views are always welcome." -evrdukie, 3/16/07

"Thanks, Troublemaker. Consistency seems to be your long suit. As usual when analysis fails, you can always fall back on insults. As to getting older and inevitably better, which seems to be a fixation of yours, have you wondered at all why many of the Duke players got older and more experienced between last October and this week--and didn't get any better? In fact, were demonstrably worse. Definitely something for you to think about." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

"Sorry to dash your hopes, Troublemaker. It won't be easy, but I'll probably just have to live with your disappointment. Get a good night's sleep and you'll probably feel better in the morning." -evrdukie, 3/17/07

Oddly, after suddenly appearing during Duke's late-season collapse and providing the bulk of your posts after the VCU game, you disappeared until (with two exceptions)... the Pitt game. Hmmm. Since then...

"If we play UNC the way we played tonight, we'll lose by 25 points." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

"Your principal point, which is jaw dropping, is that tonight's game was a good loss. That's preposterous." -evrdukie, 12/20/07

"I've changed my mind. Yes, it was the best loss ever--or at least among the top two or three. I'm glad I was able to see it. And to think, we almost let the loss get away from us!" -evrdukie, 12/20/07

"If you want to be even more depressed, contrast the Duke/Cornell game with the UNC/Clemson game now in progress." -evrduke, 1/6/08

And, of course, there's everything else you've posted in this thread. You're right -- you haven't been condescending, snarky or nasty at all. Gotcha. In reviewing your posts, I'm hard-pressed to find one positive contribution you've made to this board.




There's room for both on this board. In fact, most posters employ both qualities.



Not even close. Again, we allow for plenty of criticism. We offer it ourselves. All we ask is that people support what they say, make well-reasoned arguments, and generally debate in good faith. Which leads me to...



That is so obnoxious, so pathetic and so fundamentally wrong that I actually don't know how to respond. Wait, yes I do: This is a basketball board. "Basketball jargon" and statistics (whether you feel they've been to Gitmo or not) are part of analysis. They don't represent analysis in its entirety, but to quote the motto of another fine institution, "Knowledge is Good."

More to the point, let's come up with a hypothetical example. Say some poster decides to pronounce some grand theory of basketball. Say he/she decides that you can't be a great team "without an elite PG and an elite big man." Maybe -- just maybe -- it's incumbent on that poster to, I dunno, support that contention? I know that's a revoluationary idea in the art of debate, but if I were to decide that a theory is "self-evident," then watch multiple posters question it, maybe I'd conclude that it might not be as "self-evident" as I originally thought. Maybe I'd take a step back and reconsider my views. Maybe I'd search for examples to support them. And then if some poster completely knocked them down, I wouldn't write something like, "Who in the hell is A.J. Granger? And for that matter, Craig Fark? Does the tick tock sound seem to be coming from inside your head?" -evrdukie, 1/8/07

You know, just hypothetically speaking and all.



No, you're not a fan like the rest of us. You're a fan who doesn't debate in good faith, who only seems to show up after losses, who makes grand pronouncements without any support behind them and who -- despite an admitted lack of basketball expertise -- refuses to back down when contrary evidence is offered. So, no, you aren't like the rest of us at all. Because this is a board where qualities that are the very antithesis of what you've demonstrated are prized, and whose posters contain them in spades. It's what makes this board great. You're the one who needs to adapt, not the rest of the board.

Jumbo, why don't we just let it go before your wheels come off?

greybeard
01-08-2008, 12:33 PM
For whatever it's worth, Everdukie, not that I'm unbiased, but I think Cornell beats Clemson. Grey "you don't have to run faster or jump higher, just be there at a different time to beat your man" beard