Greg Echinique

[watzone]

Duke offered Greg Echenique of St. Benedict's a scholorship on Friday. He joins Kenny Boynton and Erik Murphy. Duke will sign at least four players in the talented 09 class. You can get all the skinny in my premium newsletter if that's your thing.

http://myblogdevils.eponym.com/

[Turtleboy]

We have to sign in now just to read your free stuff? Wassup?

[speedevil]

Duke offered Greg Echenique of St. Benedict's a scholorship on Friday. He joins Kenny Boynton and Erik Murphy. Duke will sign at least four players in the talented 09 class. You can get all the skinny in my premium newsletter if that's your thing.

http://my.eponym.com/admin/index.cgi

did you mean duke will *offer* at least 4 players? if so whos the other?

[Troublemaker]

did you mean duke will *offer* at least 4 players? if so whos the other?

I don't think so. Duke will need a big '09 class. Two players (Singler, Henderson) stand a great chance of declaring early within the next two seasons. When the dust settles, I expect 4 players to be signed.

[crote]

He joins Kenny Boynton and Erik Murphy. Duke will sign at least four players in the talented 09 class.

Scout says the we've yet to offer Boynton, but that we have extended offers to Reeves Nelson and Deshawn Painter. Murphy is listed as having an offer.

I trust your info more so than theirs, watzone. I wonder, though, if Nelson and Painter are likely to receive offers as well. I've been seeing their names (especially Nelson's) for a while now.

Nice to see us stocking up on big guys, in any event.

[Bob Green]

It is my understanding that Duke has backed off Reeves Nelson.

[freedevil]

Why are we recruiting Murphy? I've never seen him play, but he just looks slow. Someone, please angrily rebuff my prejudgment and convince me I'm wrong.

[Bob Green]

Why are we recruiting Murphy? I've never seen him play, but he just looks slow. Someone, please angrily rebuff my prejudgment and convince me I'm wrong.

If you have never seen him play, how does he look slow? The scouting report on Murphy is that he is extremely skilled around the basket. I interpret that as saying he knows how to score. Like you, I've never seen him play.

[speedevil]

If you have never seen him play, how does he look slow? The scouting report on Murphy is that he is extremely skilled around the basket. I interpret that as saying he knows how to score. Like you, I've never seen him play.

thats a funny one

[speedevil]

Duke offered Greg Echenique of St. Benedict's a scholorship on Friday. He joins Kenny Boynton and Erik Murphy. Duke will sign at least four players in the talented 09 class. You can get all the skinny in my premium newsletter if that's your thing.

http://myblogdevils.eponym.com/


what are your sources? just because duke offers at least 4 players doesnt mean 4 will sign.

[watzone]

what are your sources? just because duke offers at least 4 players doesnt mean 4 will sign.

Nobody said Duke would sign four players for sure, or I didn't mean that. I do feel they are in great shape to do so tho. I have a network of sources and Duke will offer four players, three are done. They are evaluating others. If you go to my site, you will likely see a hint at the possible fourth player.

Duke could lose a player to the pros, but I doubt it will be two unless of course they win it all.

[JasonEvans]

Anybody else watch Echenique play on ESPN2 a couple nights ago? his St. Benedict's team beat the nation's #1 high school team, Oak Hill.

Dan Hurley's St. Benedict's team is loaded with Louisville signee Samardo Samuels (a certain Mickie Dee) and Tamir Jackson also on the roster. Jackson just went nuts in this game and I won't be surprised to see his stock get higher (UAB and St. Joe's have been after him for a while but now schools like Georgetown, St. John's, Maryland, and Va Tech are getting involved).

Echenique is a load inside. He is very strong around the hoop and finished quite well. I didn't see much in terms of an ability to create his own shot (though it is worth noting that St. Ben's doesn't look for him to create that much on his own -- they let Samardo and Tamir do that), but he cleaned up and dunked with authority when he got the ball around the hoop. His sheer physical size would be a nice addition to a Duke team that can use some muscle in the paint. There were moments where I caught myself thinking that he would be making a contribution at Duke RIGHT NOW if he was here -- even though I know that he is still 2 yers away from coming to school (and he has not even picked Duke yet).

http://www.hoopgroup.com/hoopgroup/images/hg/Gregory%20Echenique.jpg
http://www.hoopgroup.com/hoopgroup/images/hg/Gregory%20Echenique.jpg

--Jason "I find it interesting that one of the schools apparently in the running for Greg is UPenn... yes, the school from the Ivies. Shows Greg knows the valuie of an ejumacashun too ;)" Evans

[JasonEvans]

what are your sources? just because duke offers at least 4 players doesnt mean 4 will sign.

It is worth noting that Watzone runs a "premium" recruiting website and posts information here for free from time to time... and we thank him for doing that!

He most assuredly has good, legitimate sources close to the Duke program. He is not just some random poster spouting off random opinions with nothing to back them up.

--Jason "I think Watzone meant Duke would like to sign 4 players from the class" Evans

[freedevil]

Why are we recruiting Murphy? I've never seen him play, but he just looks slow. Someone, please angrily rebuff my prejudgment and convince me I'm wrong.

I meant never seen him play personally. I saw a video clip where he didn't look so quick.

[Ignatius07]

Is that picture of Echenique from last year? I thought when watching the game that his number was 00. In fact I think Samuels may have been #4.

[Jumbo]

what are your sources? just because duke offers at least 4 players doesnt mean 4 will sign.

In case you're new here, Watzone has good sources within the program.

[Jumbo]

Duke offered Greg Echenique of St. Benedict's a scholorship on Friday. He joins Kenny Boynton and Erik Murphy. Duke will sign at least four players in the talented 09 class. You can get all the skinny in my premium newsletter if that's your thing.

http://myblogdevils.eponym.com/

What did Duke offer him? I hope it wasn't "head football coach." ;)

[Jumbo]

Duke could lose a player to the pros, but I doubt it will be two unless of course they win it all.

Are you talking about after this season or next season? And how would winning it all influence anyone's decision?

[CameronBlue]

Are you talking about after this season or next season? And how would winning it all influence anyone's decision?

It was reported that in a conversation with Sean May, JJ discussed going pro after his junior season but decided to return, in part to thank Duke and K for being prominently featured in the offense. If there's validity in the statements by Grant (91-92), Shane (01) and others that the college experience is to be valued, then it stands to reason that winning a title is, for some guys, part of that experience. Further the exposure of playing for the national championship surely bares a measurable return when it comes to enhancing a player's draft status. Not sure this is much of a debateable point.

[jimsumner]

If Ohio State had lost in the second round of the NCAA Tournament last season, does anyone think Mike Conley would have gone anywhere near as high in the NBA draft?

Playing really well on college-basketball's biggest stage can significantly enhance the NBA-draft status of a player.

[johnb]

In a different thread, someone was talking about Greg Echinique's interest in attending a school that is strong academically and has a significant Hispanic presence (he's a native of Venezuela). Obviously, Miami is in a different league in terms of Spanish speakers, but when Hispanic Magazine offered its list of the best schools for Latinos a couple of years ago, Duke was #4:

http://www.hispaniconline.com/magazine/2005/march/Features/top25colleges.html

[MChambers]

But you really ought to tell us who the other schools on the list were, so we can worry about them, too!

[77devil]

In a different thread, someone was talking about Greg Echinique's interest in attending a school that is strong academically and has a significant Hispanic presence (he's a native of Venezuela). Obviously, Miami is in a different league in terms of Spanish speakers, but when Hispanic Magazine offered its list of the best schools for Latinos a couple of years ago, Duke was #4:

http://www.hispaniconline.com/magazine/2005/march/Features/top25colleges.html

My first reaction was to suggest that someone immediately send the article to the Echinique camp. Then I read in the Duke abstract that Durham has better weather than Palo Alto and decided that the source has no credibility.;)

[CDu]

My first reaction was to suggest that someone immediately send the article to the Echinique camp. Then I read in the Duke abstract that Durham has better weather than Palo Alto and decided that the source has no credibility.;)

Slight quibble: it says Durham has better than the ivy league schools (like Stanford). We can totally send it as an endorsement now!

[Cali-Duke]

My first reaction was to suggest that someone immediately send the article to the Echinique camp. Then I read in the Duke abstract that Durham has better weather than Palo Alto and decided that the source has no credibility.;)

I hated Duke weather when I came...then again I was spoiled by weather from the Bay Area all my life =)

[77devil]

Slight quibble: it says Durham has better than the ivy league schools (like Stanford). We can totally send it as an endorsement now!

Woops. You are correct. Should have read it more carefully. Immediately send to Echinique.

[gotham devil]

I hated Duke weather when I came...then again I was spoiled by weather from the Bay Area all my life =)

Echenique has been spoiled by spending the last two years in beautiful downtown Newark.

I know there are some gates and stone walls amidst the Gothic Wonderland, but he may also miss the fifteen foot high fence surrounding the St. Benedict's campus.

[ArtVandelay]

I hated Duke weather when I came...then again I was spoiled by weather from the Bay Area all my life =)

Seriously. Duke has some phenomenally nice weather, in my view. Not as nice of a fall as we get up in New Yawk, but spring on the Duke campus is frickin beautiful. Definitely played a role in my going to Duke - you can't beat those April days on the quad when everyone is outside. Good times.

[dyedwab]

Seriously. Duke has some phenomenally nice weather, in my view. Not as nice of a fall as we get up in New Yawk, but spring on the Duke campus is frickin beautiful. Definitely played a role in my going to Duke - you can't beat those April days on the quad when everyone is outside. Good times.


Just want to reiterate this point. My April visit to Duke sealed the deal with me. And there really is nothing like the Duke campus on a 70 degree day in April, after winning the National Championship.:)

[OZZIE4DUKE]

Just want to reiterate this point. My April visit to Duke sealed the deal with me. And there really is nothing like the Duke campus on a 70 degree day in April, after winning the National Championship.:)

The thing about the weather in Durham is that you can also have 70 degree days in January, as we did a couple of weeks ago.

We can play golf almost 11 months in the year. The four to six bad weeks are broken up into 5 day stretches between mid November and early March. Hard to beat it, really. Not like San Diego, but neither are the prices or traffic.

[johnb]

But you really ought to tell us who the other schools on the list were, so we can worry about them, too!

You're absolutely right. When we start losing players to MIT, Caltech, and Harvard, even I will become a Duke basketball pessimist.

[Mike Corey]

Greg Echenique has committed to Rutgers (http://njmg.typepad.com/zagsblog/2008/03/echenique-to-ru.html).


"The family decided over the weekend, they took the weekend to think about it," St. Benedict's assistant coach Scott Smith said. "They had enough information on all the schools. They felt very comfortable with Rutgers. They've been there since Day One. They're the first team that offered him a scholarship."

"It's a big jump on his part and he really believes that they can get it done with the players that they have and Mike Rosario," Smith added. "And hopefully this will persuade other kids to stay in state. This is a dream and he really wants to make this happen for the state."

[Jumbo]

Greg Echenique has committed to Rutgers.

Well, I guess if we're in the middle of a meltdown already, might as well lump in all the bad stuff at once.

[weezie]

Man, when I went to college, the idea was to get as far away as possible from your parents.
Sighhhhh, this is some stinkingly bad news.:(

At least he didn't pick MD.

[wisteria]

we had Lance over Rutgers, if I remembered correctly.

So does it mean Rutgers gets the better laugh?

[monkey]

Awww ... dude. What the heck is going on here? I feel like the 180 degree turn from how I used to feel during the UNC-Doherty recruiting/playing debacle years ... this is like schadenfreude in reverse.:(

[jimbonelson]

Greg Echenique has committed to Rutgers (http://njmg.typepad.com/zagsblog/2008/03/echenique-to-ru.html). at least we have time to try to get another big player

[BlueintheFace]

Well, now it really looks like we won't have a back to the basket big man for a few years!!

[Lulu]

Is there any chance at all that this has absolutely nothing to do with our last game? Especially considering the timing.

[Coballs]

Man, when it rains it sure does pour. I really hope that the staff has some back up plans that we don't know about as of yet.

[VaDukie]

Not a good way to start the week.

[Coballs]

I'm sure Echenique has his own good reasons for choosing to stay close to home, but losing out on a top recruit to Rutgers sure does stink and it seems to be a sign of the times for Duke.

[Coballs]

at least we have time to try to get another big player

We've had several years.

[Jumbo]

We've had several years.

We get the point that you're frustrated. I'm disappointed too.

[BlueintheFace]

I know most want to see a beastly back to the basket big man, but we still have a 6'11" rebounding machine in Mason Plumlee committed. Lets keep our heads up everyone.

[Jumbo]

I know most want to see a beastly back to the basket big man, but we still have a 6'11" rebounding machine in Mason Plumlee committed. Lets keep our heads up everyone.

That's true. We should keep in mind that we've had some pretty good success with inside/out, 6'10"/6'11" guys. Plumlee needs to put on some weight, but he's got another 20 months to do that. Hopefully we'll land another big, but either way, in the worst case scenario we'll have Zoubek, Thomas and Plumlee in two years.

[mgtr]

I think we have the last laugh -- Echenique has to play for Rutgers.

[gotham devil]

I think we have the last laugh -- Echenique has to play for Rutgers.
Please

http://njmg.typepad.com/zagsblog/2008/03/echenique-to-ru.html

St. Ben's coach Dan Hurley said: "The combination of it being a quality university, the Big East conference and an opportunity to control his own destiny on the court, and his relationship with the staff there, namely Freddie, Jimmy and Darren, makes it a great fit.

"you just hope that with guys like Gregory and Mike Rosario, and kids in the fiture, if you get enough of these types of guys, you just want it to be exciting about March Madness time. The universities in New Jersey are great and the high school basketball in New Jersey is great and there's no reason why kids shouldn't continue their careers locally."

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

That's about all. To those in the know, is Duke really considered such an unattractive place to play for bigs? We've got tons of PT and the rest of the pieces for a really dominant squad. I know this (8 year run of futility) stinks but I don't know why. Wat, Jumbo, others? What are we doing wrong and how can we fix it?

[Jumbo]

That's about all. To those in the know, is Duke really considered such an unattractive place to play for bigs? We've got tons of PT and the rest of the pieces for a really dominant squad. I know this (8 year run of futility) stinks but I don't know why. Wat, Jumbo, others? What are we doing wrong and how can we fix it?

What eight-year run of futility?

[jlear]

we had Lance over Rutgers, if I remembered correctly.

So does it mean Rutgers gets the better laugh?

I expect a couple of great years from Lance. Seriously, who loves playing basketball more than Lance. After Lance adds 30 LBS of muscle this offseason he will be a monster in the paint.

Lance, I have one word for you...Milkshakes!

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

What eight-year run of futility?

Counting from Shel (signed in 2001 for the class of 2002) we've missed on every legit banger we've pursued in the classes of 2002 through '09-'10. I guess that could be said to be 7 years, not 8. The post guys we have signed (Josh, Kyle, Plumlee) have been "high post" finesse guys. Those are great guys to have, but they're a very different animal, imo.

Regardless of the numbers, we've got a problem. Personally I'd be interested to understand it (I don't pretend to) and I'd LOVE to know how to solve it. Ideas?

[sandinmyshoes]

Where do we go from here, so far as recruiting bigs? Any late bloomers? Any projects out there? Or do we just skip to the next class?

[Jumbo]

Counting from Shel (signed in 2001 for the class of 2002) we've missed on every legit banger we've pursued in the classes of 2002 through '09-'10. I guess that could be said to be 7 years, not 8. The post guys we have signed (Josh, Kyle, Plumlee) have been "high post" finesse guys. Those are great guys to have, but they're a very different animal, imo.

Regardless of the numbers, we've got a problem. Personally I'd be interested to understand it (I don't pretend to) and I'd LOVE to know how to solve it. Ideas?

That's not true. We landed both bigs that we wanted in 2005 (Josh and Boateng). We landed the big we wanted in 2003 (Humphries) ... and then realized we didn't want him. Yes, the last couple of years have been disappointing. But I'm going to hope that Plumlee works out very well (there's no reason why a mobile, long 6'11" kid can't get it done inside in college hoops) and that we find another big from the class of 2009. If not, we still have Zoubek and Thomas for two years and the potential for Czyz to develop into a legit big.

[dukestheheat]

ouch.

I wish him the best of luck up at Rutgers.

dukestheheat

[wiscodevil]

I'm always amazed how vested people get in players they have never seen play.
"You mean we didn't land Greg Echenique? Now how are we going to win?!?"

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

That's not true. We landed both bigs that we wanted in 2005 (Josh and Boateng). We landed the big we wanted in 2003 (Humphries) ... and then realized we didn't want him. Yes, the last couple of years have been disappointing. But I'm going to hope that Plumlee works out very well (there's no reason why a mobile, long 6'11" kid can't get it done inside in college hoops) and that we find another big from the class of 2009. If not, we still have Zoubek and Thomas for two years and the potential for Czyz to develop into a legit big.

I think we disagree on what constitutes a "legit banger" (i.e. not our beloved "point guard on stilts") and what constitutes "landing" (i.e. not sending a headcase to Minnesota or a longterm project to Az. State), but that's neither here nor there. I agree we'll need to make do with what we have and hope that Mason significantly outpreforms his ranking and expectations (Scout lists him as the 16th best PF with his strengths as "midrange game" and his weaknesses as "post play"). I am concerned about our string of misses and genuinely curious why our rep seem to have declined in recent seasons. Not looking for a fight in the wake of bad news, just curious for other people's thoughts on how we can get better.:)

[Cavlaw]

Given the improvement Zoubek was showing towards the end of the season while recovering from the foot problem, I'm fairly optimistic that he could become a very solid presence if he hits the weights and continues to develop his footwork. He certainly appeared to show much greater confidence in February than I saw in him previously. I don't know if he'll ever be great, but he could be really good.

I would still love to have another big on the roster to swap minutes because it gets tough bodying up down low, but don't underestimate this kid.

[Cicero]

Lance, I have one word for you...Milkshakes!

I have two words for Lance: "flaxseed oil."

[Kidding, hopefully obviously.]

[Madrasdukie]

I understand from discussions on this board that we might be interested in the following players:

DeShawn Painter

DaShonte Riley

Terrell Vinson


For those in the know, might there be anymore ?

[_Gary]

Counting from Shel (signed in 2001 for the class of 2002) we've missed on every legit banger we've pursued in the classes of 2002 through '09-'10. I guess that could be said to be 7 years, not 8. The post guys we have signed (Josh, Kyle, Plumlee) have been "high post" finesse guys. Those are great guys to have, but they're a very different animal, imo.

Regardless of the numbers, we've got a problem. Personally I'd be interested to understand it (I don't pretend to) and I'd LOVE to know how to solve it. Ideas?

I agree. People can say Humphries and McRoberts were bigs, but they were not the kind of banger/bruiser bigs we are talking about and I believe it's intellectually dishonest to count them in on this particular discussion. We all know what we mean by "bigs". We aren't talking about inside/outside guys. We are talking about guys that are monsters on the boards and will be offensive and defensive presences in the post. So I can't, in good faith, count those two guys in on this discussion. And Boateng was obviously a major misread on our part. And even if you want to count those three guys, the fact is we have now missed on 4 bigs in a row. That's a huge, huge concern. It's also what I'd call a nasty trend.

I'm really at a loss as to what's going on at this point, but it's hard for me to get real excited about our 5 position for the foreseeable future. We've got guys that can be good in the position, but we don't have a Brand/Boozer/Shel. And while I know we've won with different type bigs in the past (Christian being the best example), I think in this day and age we need that bruiser/banger to be dominant.


Gary

[RelativeWays]

Oh well, lets take a chance on a non McDAA for the post. Low expectations yields higher rate of success, yes?

[wisteria]

I understand from discussions on this board that we might be interested in the following players:

DeShawn Painter

DaShonte Riley

Terrell Vinson


For those in the know, might there be anymore ?

From what I heard, Painter is a 4. more like lance? so maybe Plumlee took his spot.

[Jumbo]

I agree. People can say Humphries and McRoberts were bigs, but they were not the kind of banger/bruiser bigs we are talking about and I believe it's intellectually dishonest to count them in on this particular discussion. We all know what we mean by "bigs". We aren't talking about inside/outside guys. We are talking about guys that are monsters on the boards and will be offensive and defensive presences in the post. So I can't, in good faith, count those two guys in on this discussion. And Boateng was obviously a major misread on our part. And even if you want to count those three guys, the fact is we have now missed on 4 bigs in a row. That's a huge, huge concern. It's also what I'd call a nasty trend.

I'm really at a loss as to what's going on at this point, but it's hard for me to get real excited about our 5 position for the foreseeable future. We've got guys that can be good in the position, but we don't have a Brand/Boozer/Shel. And while I know we've won with different type bigs in the past (Christian being the best example), I think in this day and age we need that bruiser/banger to be dominant.


Gary

There's nothing intellectually dishonest about it at all. For all of his other shortcomings, McRoberts was an excellent rebounder and shot blocker. Yes, Boateng was a bad read, but the point was that we got the guy we wanted. That's different from what's happening now.

I'm also a bit tired of the Brand/Boozer/Shelden thing. You know why we keep mentioning them together? Because in K's time at Duke, they were really the only three "widebody" types we've utilized. Otherwise, our fives have been tall, skilled guys who could play inside and out.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to add someone else in that lineage. But we don't need a widebody to be successful, as long as we can find other types (like a long, lean kid like Plumlee) to handle the interior.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I agree. People can say Humphries and McRoberts were bigs, but they were not the kind of banger/bruiser bigs we are talking about . . .

Just to pick one nit, Hump was, imo, EXACTLY the type of banger we needed. Unfortunately, he was also completely disinterested in college life, involving his teammates, or really anything except auditioning for the NBA. IIRC, he tallied a total of something like 12 assists for the SEASON that he played before jumping to the NBA. We've had a lot of bad results recently, but losing Hump was not, imo, one of them.

[pfrduke]

I agree. People can say Humphries and McRoberts were bigs, but they were not the kind of banger/bruiser bigs we are talking about and I believe it's intellectually dishonest to count them in on this particular discussion. We all know what we mean by "bigs". We aren't talking about inside/outside guys. We are talking about guys that are monsters on the boards and will be offensive and defensive presences in the post. So I can't, in good faith, count those two guys in on this discussion. And Boateng was obviously a major misread on our part. And even if you want to count those three guys, the fact is we have now missed on 4 bigs in a row. That's a huge, huge concern. It's also what I'd call a nasty trend.

I'm curious - have you ever watched Kris Humphries play the game of basketball? He's 6'9", 240, was a stud with his back to the basket in college, recorded 16 double-doubles his freshman year, and averaged 10.1 rebounds a game.

And, by the way, did you watch Josh McRoberts play defense? He was an excellent shot-blocker and a very good defensive rebounder who was strong enough to body up college centers. True, he did not have a very polished back to the basket offensive game. But on defense, he was extremely good in the post.

I'd be hesitant to spout off about "intellectual dishonesty" when your own private perception of players isn't consistent with the way they actually play.

[_Gary]

There's nothing intellectually dishonest about it at all. For all of his other shortcomings, McRoberts was an excellent rebounder and shot blocker. Yes, Boateng was a bad read, but the point was that we got the guy we wanted. That's different from what's happening now.

I'm also a bit tired of the Brand/Boozer/Shelden thing. You know why we keep mentioning them together? Because in K's time at Duke, they were really the only three "widebody" types we've utilized. Otherwise, our fives have been tall, skilled guys who could play inside and out.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to add someone else in that lineage. But we don't need a widebody to be successful, as long as we can find other types (like a long, lean kid like Plumlee) to handle the interior.

I guess my problem with Josh is that he didn't seem predisposed to play inside as much as we needed him too. He wanted to be an inside/outside guy and I while I agree he got some boards and blocked some shots, he just wasn't a banger in the true sense of the word because that's not what he wanted to be. And come on Jumbo, you have to agree we have a nasty trend going on here with missing on 4 straight bigs.

Can we win without the wide body? Yes. But is it better to have a wide body if we are talking about skilled guys like Elton, Carlos and Shelden? Absolutely! And the fact that we have missed on four straight big men that we targeted is very disconcerting to me.


Gary

[TwoDukeTattoos]

It seems that one can now make an argument that we have a difficult time coaching big men, and now it seems to be affecting our recruiting.

I am sure I will leave some out, but lets consider the recent big men (in no particular order):

Shav - didn't perform nearly as well as expected, left school early
Chris Burgess, didn't perform well, transferred to Utah
Jamal Boykin - never saw playing time, transferred
Eric Boateng - never saw playing time, transferred
McBob - didn't perform nearly as well as expected, left school early
Zoubs - struggling some so far

Others with subpar performances based on expectations:

Nick Horvath, Greg Newton, Taymon Domzalski, Matt Christensen, Casey Sanders

Perhaps this is why we have lost very recent recruits such as:

Patrick Patterson, Greg Monroe, Echenique

True, we have had success with recent big men:

Shelden Williams, Elton Brand, Carlos Boozer

But it's been a long time since we've been considered deep in the post or even had legitimate play in the post.

[Exiled_Devil]

I think we disagree on what constitutes a "legit banger" (i.e. not our beloved "point guard on stilts") and what constitutes "landing" (i.e. not sending a headcase to Minnesota or a longterm project to Az. State),

You can't disqualify them as far as recruiting goes - they both signed LOI's, and Boateng arrived and played a year.

You can argue that they aren't bangers as you describe them, but to say that they don't count as "landing" is would lead to the logical conclusion that we didn't land Deng, JWill, Booozer, Dunleavy...anyone who did not spend four years on campus.

Exiled

[hondoheel]

I saw Echenique play against Ed Davis in the St Benedicts/Benedictine game. He bears a striking physical resemblance to Carlos Boozer, but that's where the similarities end. He's not athletic at all, and his "jumper" is launched from the front of his chest. He could have helped Duke down the road, but he wouldn't make a difference his freshman year.

[_Gary]

I'm curious - have you ever watched Kris Humphries play the game of basketball? He's 6'9", 240, was a stud with his back to the basket in college, recorded 16 double-doubles his freshman year, and averaged 10.1 rebounds a game.

And, by the way, did you watch Josh McRoberts play defense? He was an excellent shot-blocker and a very good defensive rebounder who was strong enough to body up college centers. True, he did not have a very polished back to the basket offensive game. But on defense, he was extremely good in the post.

I'd be hesitant to spout off about "intellectual dishonesty" when your own private perception of players isn't consistent with the way they actually play.

Yes, I've watched Humphries play. First off, he didn't come here. That's the biggest point. Secondly, he really didn't care about college very much and I'm not sure that would have helped us. Thirdly, I did feel he wanted to be viewed as an inside/outside guy and wasn't a true banger in the same vein as an Elton Brand. He had his sights set on the NBA and I don't believe he had the disposition to be a true banger in the full sense of the word. But he would have been decent. But I won't haggle over him.

And I'm not backing off my comments on Josh. He absolutely did NOT have a banger disposition. He could do it if he wanted, but I never got the impression he would commit to it 100% on both ends of the floor. I feel he had the same disposition that Humphries had in that he wanted to get to the NBA more than he wanted to help his college team.

And I'm not being intellectually dishonest because those are my honest appraisals and I'm not trying to massage my way around the issues. I feel like we all know what the difference is between a Christian and a Shelden. Both played inside for us, but they were two completely different types of bigs.

And again, why can't anyone just admit that we've missed on four straight bigs that we really wanted and really needed? I'm not sure why we are trying to downplay the fact that we've not had a legit banger since Shelden.

Gary

[NYC Duke Fan]

That's not true. We landed both bigs that we wanted in 2005 (Josh and Boateng). We landed the big we wanted in 2003 (Humphries) ... and then realized we didn't want him. Yes, the last couple of years have been disappointing. But I'm going to hope that Plumlee works out very well (there's no reason why a mobile, long 6'11" kid can't get it done inside in college hoops) and that we find another big from the class of 2009. If not, we still have Zoubek and Thomas for two years and the potential for Czyz to develop into a legit big.

Plumlee father was quoted as saying that if you expect my son to put weight on, play with his back to the basket and be an inside force, then you've got the wrong player. He just is not that kind of a player.

What makes you think that Thomas will ever be a force ? What has he shown you in 2 years that would ever make you think he could be one ? In Zoubek there is a glimmer of hope...maybe he can be another Aaron Gray,

Coach K's recruiting is not up the likes of Roy Williams or, Billy Donovan ( we've already lost Eric Murphy to himill fall short), and I think that unless Coach K starts recruiting like he did previously, Duke will not have the capacity to win the NCAA tournament...they will have very good to excellent seasons but will fall short.

Let's hope that Coach K has a plan B for 2009 recruiting because from what I have seen recently he has not had one this year or for next season. Duke could be in for a long dry spell.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

You can't disqualify them as far as recruiting goes - they both signed LOI's, and Boateng arrived and played a year.

You can argue that they aren't bangers as you describe them, but to say that they don't count as "landing" is would lead to the logical conclusion that we didn't land Deng, JWill, Booozer, Dunleavy...anyone who did not spend four years on campus.

Exiled

I think we're really quibbling here, and I really didn't mean to sidetrack us with discussion about how long we've had a problem. IMO, if they don't suit up, we didn't land them. Kobe wanted to play for us but went to the NBA. We didn't land him. Deng played a major role for 1 season, we did land him. Hump never wore a jersey, so I don't count him. Boat stuck around for 1 season, was a non-factor (as expected for such a project) and left. Define that however you like.

The point is, we've missed on a series of guys who were major priorities for the staff (Brock, Wright, PPat, Monroe, Ech in the last 3-4 seasons) and could have stepped into very solid, perhaps starter's minutes at a program I think of as one of the most high-profile. Why is that? Are we less high-profile than I think? Are we doing something specific that turns guys off? What mistakes are we making, and how can we stop making them?

[Jumbo]

Plumlee father was quoted as saying that if you expect my son to put weight on, play with his back to the basket and be an inside force, then you've got the wrong player. He just is not that kind of a player.

What makes you think that Thomas will ever be a force ? What has he shown you in 2 years that would ever make you think he could be one ? In Zoubek there is a glimmer of hope...maybe he can be another Aaron Gray,

Coach K's recruiting is not up the likes of Roy Williams or, Billy Donovan ( we've already lost Eric Murphy to himill fall short), and I think that unless Coach K starts recruiting like he did previously, Duke will not have the capacity to win the NCAA tournament...they will have very good to excellent seasons but will fall short.

Let's hope that Coach K has a plan B for 2009 recruiting because from what I have seen recently he has not had one this year or for next season. Duke could be in for a long dry spell.

Well, Plumlee was Plan B to Murphy, so...
Despite what Plumlee's dad has said, it's ridiculous to assume that any H.S. junior who is that big WON'T put on weight. He can still play inside out, but that's just part of filling out. And, if he wants to play in the NBA, he'll definitely have to add bulk. So that doesn't worry me.

Billy Donovan didn't even make the NCAA Tourney this year. We're still landing superb guys at the 1-4 spots. We just need a 5.

[jdscrilla]

Yep. That's not a very good ratio. You can even argue that the 3 they've been successful with were can't miss big men. Either someone is not evaluating talent very well, not developing them once they get here or a combination of both. There's been a lot of talk about Wojo. I know some of those guys were here before Wojo was the big man coach.

Here's a question. Who do other schools have as a big man coach? Are they using someone that actually played in the post before? I guess the question is Duke the exception or the norm? Are most quarterback coaches in the NFL former quarterbacks? I doubt that they've got many former quarterbacks serving as linebacker coaches.

So what do you think? Is this a big problem? Is this something you can study and research and become a good big man coach or is it something that you have to have some experience with?

[_Gary]

The point is, we've missed on a series of guys who were major priorities for the staff (Brock, Wright, PPat, Monroe, Ech in the last 3-4 seasons) and could have stepped into very solid, perhaps starter's minutes at a program I think of as one of the most high-profile. Why is that? Are we less high-profile than I think? Are we doing something specific that turns guys off? What mistakes are we making, and how can we stop making them?

Thanks for bringing it back on track. I was just about to post and mention getting "sidetracked" quibbling over Humphries and McRoberts (I think we all agree Boateng was a misread). The point still holds that we have missed out on major bigs that we recruited in the last several years. And heck, I forgot about Brock and was really only going back to Wright. But when you add him, it's even worse. That's five in a row and I just don't see a way to massage this situation into something that's not a big deal.


Gary

[The1Bluedevil]

Well, Plumlee was Plan B to Murphy, so...
Despite what Plumlee's dad has said, it's ridiculous to assume that any H.S. junior who is that big WON'T put on weight. He can still play inside out, but that's just part of filling out. And, if he wants to play in the NBA, he'll definitely have to add bulk. So that doesn't worry me.

Billy Donovan didn't even make the NCAA Tourney this year. We're still landing superb guys at the 1-4 spots. We just need a 5.

Do you mean over the years or superb 1-4 as of now?

[_Gary]

Do you mean over the years or superb 1-4 as of now?

Unless I'm severely mistaken, he means right now.

[HDB]

Jumbo,

You say we've been successful in recruiting #1 - #4. Historically I would agree that we've been very strong at recruiting at the #1 but would say it's been a while since we landed a stud #1. That plus our inability to land a quality #5 is what has us in our current predicament.

HDB

[Jumbo]

Do you mean over the years or superb 1-4 as of now?

Not quite sure what you're asking...

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

You say we've been successful in recruiting #1 - #4. Historically I would agree that we've been very strong at recruiting at the #1 but would say it's been a while since we landed a stud #1. That plus our inability to land a quality #5 is what has us in our current predicament.

HDB

We've landed basically every point guard we really wanted for a while now. If you want to talk about evaluation, that's a different issue. But, as I pointed out in another thread, Paulus' final four schools were Duke, UNC, Florida and Georgetown. If we were wrong about him, so was everyone else.

[weezie]

St. Ben's coach Dan Hurley said: "The combination of it being a quality university, the Big East conference and an opportunity to control his own destiny on the court....makes it a great fit.



What the heck does that mean? Does Greg actually think he's going to call the shots at Rutgers? Is he nuts? Hah!!!! Maybe he'll be looking to transfer to Duke in a year or so.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Let's not bicker over the past. I would think everyone could agree that a power inside player is a major priority for the class of 2009. Based on his build, his style of play, and what he, his family, and his coach have said about the vision for him at Duke, I think it would be very wishful thinking to project Plumlee in that role as a freshman. Thomas and Zoubek will be seniors. Thomas is a good energy player, but it would take a major change for him to be a power inside player. Let's optimistically assume Zoub progresses well. It still would be a major priority to have someone waiting in the wings.

So, enough about Kris Humphries. Who's next on the radar for 2009? Kenny Hall's with Tennessee, Humphries is with Florida, and Ech is with Rutgers. (Not that each of these was a real power player.) I doubt the coaching staff sees waiting until 2010 as a viable option, so what's our next move? We may have to play catch-up, but I have to believe that a lot of prime-time players still would be thrilled to get to know K.

[crote]

To go backwards in the discussion a little bit, Jumbo, I think you've glossed over the importance of having a true "banger" in the post. You're right to say that Duke has really only had three traditional post guys who have starred during K's tenure (Booz, Brand, and Shelden). Isn't it telling, though, that the tenures of those three players coincide with our most successful seasons post-1992?

Certainly low post power isn't the be all end all of basketball success, but I would argue that having a big, strong body who can grab rebounds, get garbage points, take some pressure off the guards and fill up the lane defensively is an essential ingredient for national championship caliber basketball now more than ever. Look at the most recent champions: they all featured at least one big banger down low. It was Noah and Horford in 07/06, May in 05, Okafor in 04, Warrick in 03, Baxter in 02, Boozer in 01. The front runners for this year's title all feature a big time post player as well, be it Love or Lopez or Arthur or the gape mouthed maninfant down the road.

I am excited about Mason Plumlee. I think his game is a great match for Duke and look forward to seeing him suit up in the Good Guy's blue. More talent is always a good thing. I also think, though, that he's more of the same, and isn't quite suited to fill the Noah/May/Love type of role that we really need right now.

[buddy]

was the "big man coach" up through 1995. During that period we went to 7 Final Fours, five national championship games, and won two national championships. Now everyone wants to go to Pete Gaudet's Big Man Camp, er, Pete Gaudet's video camp. Come on, if the "big man coach" was such a deal, why isn't Pete setting the world on fire as such. He did not coach a single prototypical "big man" that I can think of. (All right, Abdelnaby had one good year, but Marty Nessley doesn't count. I dont' think Laettner or Ferry are from the same mold as Brand, Boozer, and Williams--completely different game.) No offense to Pete, but he hasn't seemed to be in such demand as a coach since leaving us. I don't think we can blame Wojo for our seeming inability to recruit "bangers." I also remember a guy named Chris Carrawell and another named Nate James mixing it up under the boards, and neither was your prototypical "big man." Brand, Boozer, and Williams were wonderful, but we won just ONE national championship with the three of them, and that was the year Boozer broke his foot. So I think we may overrate the value of such a player. Give me Carrawell and James to go with Scheyer, Henderson, Paulus, Smith, Singler, King and Pocius and I think we have a winner. (No offense to Zoubek.)

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

I'm sure Echenique has his own good reasons for choosing to stay close to home, but losing out on a top recruit to Rutgers sure does stink and it seems to be a sign of the times for Duke.

wasn't rutgers last in the conference this year too? wow.

[hughgs]

Yep. That's not a very good ratio. You can even argue that the 3 they've been successful with were can't miss big men. Either someone is not evaluating talent very well, not developing them once they get here or a combination of both. There's been a lot of talk about Wojo. I know some of those guys were here before Wojo was the big man coach.

Here's a question. Who do other schools have as a big man coach? Are they using someone that actually played in the post before? I guess the question is Duke the exception or the norm? Are most quarterback coaches in the NFL former quarterbacks? I doubt that they've got many former quarterbacks serving as linebacker coaches.

So what do you think? Is this a big problem? Is this something you can study and research and become a good big man coach or is it something that you have to have some experience with?

Who is the pre-eminent big man's coach in basketball? Once you find out his name (it starts with an "Ne") find out what position he played. Then, please resubmit your argument as to why Wojo must be a bad big man coach.

I anxiously await your response.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

What kind of implication will this have on Singler? It is looking more likely that he will be stuck playing a lot further in the post then he probably ever wanted to, for a lot longer then he ever wanted to.

[grossbus]

I would be willing to take bets on anyone thinking LT is going to put on 30 lbs of muscle.

"What kind of implication will this have on Singler? It is looking more likely that he will be stuck playing a lot further in the post then he probably ever wanted to, for a lot longer then he ever wanted to."

yeah, he might leave early to avoid getting the **** beat out of him for another year. :) that's sort of a joke.


"Once you find out his name (it starts with an "Ne")... "

i need better hint. that is no joke.

[buddy]

Pete Newell, who is about 93 years old now. Used to coach at Cal-Berkeley. Always goes to the Maui Tournament. Runs (or used to run) a famous "big man" camp every summer. Even some "big" women, i.e. Alison Bales, have attended.

BTW, the women's camp is officially the "Pete Newell Tall Women's Camp." Not polite to refer to women as "big". The women don't like it, and most of them could hurt you big time.

Saw him at Maui--not as spry as he used to be, but still sharp.

[brevity]

I'm sure Mr. Echenique's decision was difficult, and I hope he's made the right choice for him.

Consider the possibility that some high school players might prefer to join a program that they perceive is on an upswing, where every victory is appreciated and any postseason success feels like a godsend. Maybe the local school looks like it might be more fun.

Part of the steady (perhaps unparalleled) success of Duke is the knowledge that even the newest players will have to deal with a bullseye on their backs. Some enjoy that challenge, and others see it as a negative.

You can start to see why various 18-year-olds might logically choose other schools. I'm sure Duke's coaching staff already knows this, but recruiting must still be an uphill battle. Wish them the best.

[pfrduke]

And I'm not being intellectually dishonest because those are my honest appraisals and I'm not trying to massage my way around the issues. I feel like we all know what the difference is between a Christian and a Shelden. Both played inside for us, but they were two completely different types of bigs.

No one called you intellectually dishonest. All I said was that you shouldn't be so quick to call everyone else intellectually dishonest for discussing players who don't fit your subjective view of what you want in a big man (particularly when one of the two players we were discussing is built like a linebacker and averaged a double-double in his only season in college basketball). Just because people are discussing things on terms that aren't 100% yours doesn't mean we're being intellectually dishonest - don't throw the term around so loosely.

[chrisheery]

there have to be 10 more guys that have decent size and height out there who could qualify to get in to duke. look, will avery got in. we don't even need huge guys, we need guys who can rebound. we don't need post scoring as much as we need rebounders and defenders. it is hard to be a three point shooting team when you know you will never get an offensive rebound and you can't get a defensive rebound so the other team will always score.

we could target guys 6-7 or 6-8 who are athletic, can catch in traffic and dunk. guys who can get up and grab boards. we don't need a huge guy. it would be nice, but it isn't necessary. when you have guys as skilled as ours, you just need complimentary inside guys. the issue with lance has been (don't get me wrong, i love his hustle and commitment) that he can't catch and finish. that stems from his lack of vertical leap and quickness. UCLA seems to have about 10 of the type of guys i am talking about. they aren't all top tier recruits. we just need to focus on what we need. we don't need complete players. we need athletic rebounders and finishers. in that regard, olek may be perfect for this team and he isn't highly ranked. we just need 3 more of him.

[Jumbo]

What kind of implication will this have on Singler? It is looking more likely that he will be stuck playing a lot further in the post then he probably ever wanted to, for a lot longer then he ever wanted to.

Why? Kyle was always going to be a 4 at Duke. He'll have Zoubek and Lance to play the 5 the next two years, with Plumlee joining the mix in the second year. The big thing was when Kyle played the 5 with Markie, Gerald, Jon and Greg this year. That small lineup was terrific for us, but it was a grind on Kyle. I don't expect to see as much of it next year, because neither Nolan nor Elliot Williams will have the strength and toughness of Markie to battle frontcourt players.

[Capn Poptart]

We don't seem to have had a lot of success over the years with highly-ranked back-to-the-basket power players. Maybe it's K's "players-not-positions" offense, although that rep has garnered many commitments from tall mobile all-stars.

I'd love to have a Hansbrough/Brand/Boozer somewhere on our recruiting radar. When I scan our targets through 2010 over at Scout, Echenique seems to be the last bulky power player we were pursuing.

[bfree]

Just for the record, Plumlee is only a junior in high school and he's already been moved out of position. He said the reason he came to Duke was to play in Kyle Singler's role. He isn't a five, he's a tall and lanky four.


Why? Kyle was always going to be a 4 at Duke. He'll have Zoubek and Lance to play the 5 the next two years, with Plumlee joining the mix in the second year. The big thing was when Kyle played the 5 with Markie, Gerald, Jon and Greg this year. That small lineup was terrific for us, but it was a grind on Kyle. I don't expect to see as much of it next year, because neither Nolan nor Elliot Williams will have the strength and toughness of Markie to battle frontcourt players.

[NYC Duke Fan]

Well, Plumlee was Plan B to Murphy, so...
Despite what Plumlee's dad has said, it's ridiculous to assume that any H.S. junior who is that big WON'T put on weight. He can still play inside out, but that's just part of filling out. And, if he wants to play in the NBA, he'll definitely have to add bulk. So that doesn't worry me.

Billy Donovan didn't even make the NCAA Tourney this year. We're still landing superb guys at the 1-4 spots. We just need a 5.

Where are we getting a 5 ? What is plan B to Echenique ? Didn't most of the players who fit this mold already make committments ? If not could you name them

[Jumbo]

there have to be 10 more guys that have decent size and height out there who could qualify to get in to duke. look, will avery got in. we don't even need huge guys, we need guys who can rebound. we don't need post scoring as much as we need rebounders and defenders. it is hard to be a three point shooting team when you know you will never get an offensive rebound and you can't get a defensive rebound so the other team will always score.

we could target guys 6-7 or 6-8 who are athletic, can catch in traffic and dunk. guys who can get up and grab boards. we don't need a huge guy. it would be nice, but it isn't necessary. when you have guys as skilled as ours, you just need complimentary inside guys. the issue with lance has been (don't get me wrong, i love his hustle and commitment) that he can't catch and finish. that stems from his lack of vertical leap and quickness. UCLA seems to have about 10 of the type of guys i am talking about. they aren't all top tier recruits. we just need to focus on what we need. we don't need complete players. we need athletic rebounders and finishers. in that regard, olek may be perfect for this team and he isn't highly ranked. we just need 3 more of him.

I was about to say that it sounds like we can hold out some hope for Czyz, based on what you're looking for, and then you got to him at the end of your post. But whey do we need "three more of him?"

[Jumbo]

Just for the record, Plumlee is only a junior in high school and he's already been moved out of position. He said the reason he came to Duke was to play in Kyle Singler's role. He isn't a five, he's a tall and lanky four.

That's why I said he'd be joining Kyle the second year of the next two (Kyle's junior year). I'm well aware that he's a tall lanky 4, but the fact is that he's 6'11". And while he might want to play Kyle's position at Duke, there's no reason they can't play together. He has the length at 6'11" to be productive in the post. And, as I said, if he's going to be a pro, he's going to have to get stronger. There's no reason why he can't play the 5 at Duke and still get to face the basket. It seemed to work for a guy named Laettner...

[chrisheery]

he doesn't work out, gets in foul trouble, etc. you know, you can't just have one guy to play each role. like how we have 6 guys who can handle, shoot and penetrate. i'm greedy i guess.

[bfree]

I'm not sure I follow your argument then...

Is the goal of the 2009 class to reduce Kyle's minutes, compliment him by allowing him to play his more natural position, or is it to play Kyle and Mason together and have two 4's and no real 5?

Not that a Kyle and Mason frontcourt can't work, it just doesn't seem to be the plan for Kyle, Mason, or K. Maybe it is the best we can do.

EDIT: Assuming Z hasn't locked down the position by that time, which would amazing and incredibly helpful... and possible but by no means a sure thing.


That's why I said he'd be joining Kyle the second year of the next two (Kyle's junior year). I'm well aware that he's a tall lanky 4, but the fact is that he's 6'11". And while he might want to play Kyle's position at Duke, there's no reason they can't play together. He has the length at 6'11" to be productive in the post. And, as I said, if he's going to be a pro, he's going to have to get stronger. There's no reason why he can't play the 5 at Duke and still get to face the basket. It seemed to work for a guy named Laettner...

[dcarp23]

Can anyone name the "big man" coach at any other school? I am honestly curious, because I sure can't.

I think one of the bigger mistakes (in terms of getting fans riled up) Duke has made in recent years was telling anyone that Wojo was in charge of coaching the post players. Had that information never been made public, I am not sure this issue ever would have gained any traction. Judging by the latter portion of the season, I would be a lot more interested in hiring a "box out the opposing point guard" or "making sure your sharpshooters hit the open three" coach.

[miramar]

Some people indicated that Echenique stayed close to home when he chose Rutgers, but I read somewhere that his family is from Caracas, Venezuela.

If he wanted to stay close to home, he would have chosen Miami. If he turns out to be any good, maybe it's good that he chose Rutgers instead. That's from someone who had to witness first hand Duke going down by 20 in the second half to UM, although Duke came back to lose by 1.

There is no question that Duke came up short this year in the 4 and 5 position, particularly towards the end of the season when Singler wore down, but I don't think it's all bad recruiting. Instead, I think that it is much harder to predict how well the big guys will do. Let's not forget that McRoberts was rivals.com's #1 rated big man coming out of HS in 2005 and #2 overall (Hansborough was #5 and #10), and Boateng was a McDonald's All American the same year (although way down at #82 overall). McRoberts would have helped this team tremendously (at least with a major attitude check), but he clearly was not the player everyone expected. Boateng scored 3 points a game this year at ASU, so he was not what everyone thought either.

Lance Thomas was a McDonald's All American in 2006 (Rivals #42), and Kyle Singler in 2007 (Rivals #5), so I don't think you can complain about recruiting when you get four McD big men in three years.

We can also look at it another way and examine what would have to be the best recruiting class since the UCLA glory days: Florida's 2004 high school class, who won two NCAA championships in three years at the school.

I guess you would imagine that everybody rated them as the #1 recruiting class, right? Wrong.

Rivals.com rated the individual players as follows: Corey Brewer (31), Al Horford (36), Joakin Noah (75), and Taurean Green (105). Rivals had them as the #12 recruiting class in the country, yet the #1 class was none other than Kentucky. Needless to say, Tubby Smith left town the same year UF won their second title, so there really is no way to predict how much and how fast these players will develop.

And speaking of Rivals, here is there ranking and comments on next year's senior class:

2. Duke – The Blue Devil recruiting machine continues to roll this year highlighted by the 2rd best player in the country power forward Josh McRoberts and perhaps the top floor general Greg Paulus both five-star prospects. To go along with their inside-outside duo, Duke also signed 4-star center Eric Boateng and small forward Jamal Boykin. The wildcard could be Martynas Pocius who was one of the fastest risers in the last few months.

Who would have expected that only two of the five would still be around?

[chrisheery]

i would say the thing that really made elton better than boozer better than sheldon on offense was each one's understanding of interior spacing, where defenders would be on penetration and rotations. each had amazing power, but how they used it is what distinguishes them (and hasborough for that matter). brand always knew how to seal on reversals, and how to use the defender's attempt to lean on one side or the other to his advantage. boozer was excellent at this as well. when his man fronted him, he would tell the wings to reverse the ball and seal the man and just change sides. he was incredible at playing off the ball. sheldon clearly was the least gifted at this, but he got better. also didn't help that he didn't have the point guard the others had.

anyway, i say all this to point out that kyle is amazing at this. he just "gets it." he always knows where to be, he reads the situation so well. the only issue is that he isn't strong enough to hold off huge guys unless the pass is perfect. as we develop as a team, he will score a ton inside because the guards will know when to find him. if plumlee has "it" as well, he will score inside plenty too. you don't need to be huge, but being strong enough, understanding the lanes and the angles, and having teammates that know when and where to find you when take advantage of the defense can turn a guy who would be terrible in a "post up" situation into a potent inside scorer. i don't see any reason we can't get guys like that. davidson even seems to get them.

[Jumbo]

I'm not sure I follow your argument then...

Is the goal of the 2009 class to reduce Kyle's minutes, compliment him by allowing him to play his more natural position, or is it to play Kyle and Mason together and have two 4's and no real 5?

Not that a Kyle and Mason frontcourt can't work, it just doesn't seem to be the plan for Kyle, Mason, or K. Maybe it is the best we can do.

EDIT: Assuming Z hasn't locked down the position by that time, which would amazing and incredibly helpful... and possible but by no means a sure thing.

I'm saying that just because Mason and his dad call him a "4" as a junior in high school doesn't mean that's where he'll play at Duke. Players don't get to pick their positions, and there's no reason why he can't play the five in Duke's system. He's three inches taller than Singler. That's a big difference.

That said, I hardly expect him to start as a freshman. I will continue to hold out hope that Zoubek will progress as the staff envisioned when they signed him, and that Lance can continue to improve and be able to handle and undersized 5 role.

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

Why? Kyle was always going to be a 4 at Duke. He'll have Zoubek and Lance to play the 5 the next two years, with Plumlee joining the mix in the second year. The big thing was when Kyle played the 5 with Markie, Gerald, Jon and Greg this year. That small lineup was terrific for us, but it was a grind on Kyle. I don't expect to see as much of it next year, because neither Nolan nor Elliot Williams will have the strength and toughness of Markie to battle frontcourt players.

I know he knew he was going to get a fair amount of burn at the 4 - but if I stand corrected he was always looked at as a true 3 coming into Duke. I'm guessing he thought Z and LT were going to do a substantial amount more of the dirty work than they actually did. It really wore on him towards the end of the season and his draft stock dropped some. It's not to say that he doesn't have more than a fair chance to improve it.

He was listed as a SF coming out of high school - he ended up being our #1 post presence. I just think its likely he expected us to land a quality big man a little sooner to help him get away from the block a little more. That is all.

[DangerDevil]

Regardless of any recruiting successes or failures, Z and Lance’s continued development/health are the most important keys to our success the next 2 years. If they are able to provide a more serviceable inside defensive and rebounding presence that will more than fill our needs and make us that much stronger at the 1-4.

Although it would be nice to add a more traditional inside banger think about the matchup problems that a lineup with another athletic big man (Plumlee) will cause for most teams when he fills out the line up with what we have at the 1-4.

I also don’t buy the argument about our lack of a big man coach. The overwhelming majority of coaches that I can think of were guards (usually PGs). The comparison to football and their use of specialized position coaches is not applicable.

[Blueequalslife23]

now that Greg is gone what about Terrell Vinson i mean the kid is a stud he is listed at 6-7 post player just what we need and he would compliment mason Plumlee he has visited duke and the most important thing unlike Greg is that he doesn't have like 13 schools he's intrested in he has like 5-6

[Kewlswim]

Hi,

I am as distraught over our losing out on big men and recruiting in general as anyone who roots for the right shade of blue. HOWEVER, people are in some instances acting like Coach K does not know what he is doing or worse does not really want a good big man. As painful as it is for me to write, because I wish it wasn't true since I love the Devil's so much, one team can't always get the best players. It may seem like the Tar Holes are getting all the players, but that goes in cycles. A few years ago it seemed like the Devil's were getting all the players. I don't think that Zoub or Lance or any players we are getting in the next class or two will help that much in the interior and if we don't give the keys to Nolan I think we will have an early exit from the tournament like this year, but I have been wrong before.

IN K I TRUST (Not blindly, I think it is OK to question)

GO DUKE!

[ForeverBlowingBubbles]

now that Greg is gone what about Terrell Vinson i mean the kid is a stud he is listed at 6-7 post player just what we need and he would compliment mason Plumlee he has visited duke and the most important thing unlike Greg is that he doesn't have like 13 schools he's intrested in he has like 5-6

Rivals has him at 6'5 190... Wouldn't say thats just what the doctor ordered.

[wisteria]

Rutgers fans said that JWill oral-committed to Rutgers. Somehow his mom really wanted him to take a look at Duke. And he ended up in Duke. Was this true? Maybe Greg will have a change of heart too~~( dreaming...)

[SilkyJ]

Why? Kyle was always going to be a 4 at Duke. He'll have Zoubek and Lance to play the 5 the next two years, with Plumlee joining the mix in the second year.

2 things:

1) Kyle guarded the 5 most of the time this year, even with Lance in the game, so I don't see Lance providing much of a respite for him while they are in the game together. Zoub yes, but he's still a work in progress. Throughout the season he should help lighten the overall load, but come Feb/March, I won't be surprised to see Kyle playing 35mpg and guarding the 5 again.

2) Who knows if kyle will be here for 2 more years...

[Bob Green]

Rivals has him at 6'5 190... Wouldn't say thats just what the doctor ordered.

6'7" 205 pounds is an accurate measurement for Terrell Vinson. Major sites such as Rivals and Scout post player sizes early and are not always aggressive in updating information.

[mgtr]

I wouldn't give up on Zoubs just yet. If he has a whole summer to work on stuff, he could turn into a solid, if not great, player. In fact, if he never took a shot (other than a simple put back) he could make a real contribution as a defender and rebounder.
And I think that King has super potential. He is sturdy, tough, and can shoot the ball. Maybe both these guys belong in a zone defense. There are many reasons to run a zone -- maybe a 3-2, with those two guys inside.

[barely]

I am glad that someone (mgtr) finally mentioned King. He often showed off this long arms this year in blocking shots and rebounding. IF he can figure out where he is supposed to be on the court and understand K's deny, help and recover defense, he could really, really help us on defense. His arms are deceptively long as witnessed by how many blocks he got this year without really jumping and his pretty decent job rebounding.

The other overlooked option is McClure. If you watched the WVA game closely, you would see McClure playing great defense on Alexander, while giving up two inches, and pulling down some nice boards. McClure is already our best post defender and a very good rebounder, but he does not play because he is a huge liability on O. I don't understand this as I remember him making some nice moves and hitting some shots as a frosh. If the coaches could get this confidence back on O, he could really help.

[johnb]

Echenique implied a while back that he wanted a school with a strong Hispanic presence, and it sounds he is now saying that he wants to be clearly a starter (or at least that is what I'm reading from his comments about controlling his destiny). Durham doesn't have the former, and he wouldn't necessarily have started here.

The board continues to get histrionic about this recruiting stuff. For one thing (from what I can tell), Ech was not Monroe--he might have started, but he would be unlikely to have penetrated the Brand, Boozer, Williams holy trinity.

Maybe some of the recruits don't want to become part of the Duke thing--and that is reasonable since the Duke image (and to a lesser extent, the Duke reality) is far different from the world of almost all elite players. Maybe they don't want to be vilified by opponents, though that'll happen everywhere). But as impt, they may not want to get online and see that many Duke fans are spoiled, whiny babies who cry that the sky is falling when the team doesn't mow over the competition like it did in '99.

[Duke79UNLV77]

Brick Oettinger and the ACC Sports Journal have him listed as a claimed Duke offer. He would seem to be a beast. If not Favors, someone else?

Again, I would think we could all agree that we need a power inside player from the 09 class. We know whom we've missed. I assume we don't just give up on a power player from that class at this point, particularly when we heard that missing on Monroe wasn't that big of a deal because the 09 class was so loaded.

[Dukiedevil]

To go backwards in the discussion a little bit, Jumbo, I think you've glossed over the importance of having a true "banger" in the post. You're right to say that Duke has really only had three traditional post guys who have starred during K's tenure (Booz, Brand, and Shelden). Isn't it telling, though, that the tenures of those three players coincide with our most successful seasons post-1992?

Certainly low post power isn't the be all end all of basketball success, but I would argue that having a big, strong body who can grab rebounds, get garbage points, take some pressure off the guards and fill up the lane defensively is an essential ingredient for national championship caliber basketball now more than ever. Look at the most recent champions: they all featured at least one big banger down low. It was Noah and Horford in 07/06, May in 05, Okafor in 04, Warrick in 03, Baxter in 02, Boozer in 01. The front runners for this year's title all feature a big time post player as well, be it Love or Lopez or Arthur or the gape mouthed maninfant down the road.

I am excited about Mason Plumlee. I think his game is a great match for Duke and look forward to seeing him suit up in the Good Guy's blue. More talent is always a good thing. I also think, though, that he's more of the same, and isn't quite suited to fill the Noah/May/Love type of role that we really need right now.

Warrick in '03? Have you seen Warrick?

[_Gary]

To go backwards in the discussion a little bit, Jumbo, I think you've glossed over the importance of having a true "banger" in the post. You're right to say that Duke has really only had three traditional post guys who have starred during K's tenure (Booz, Brand, and Shelden). Isn't it telling, though, that the tenures of those three players coincide with our most successful seasons post-1992?

Certainly low post power isn't the be all end all of basketball success, but I would argue that having a big, strong body who can grab rebounds, get garbage points, take some pressure off the guards and fill up the lane defensively is an essential ingredient for national championship caliber basketball now more than ever. Look at the most recent champions: they all featured at least one big banger down low. It was Noah and Horford in 07/06, May in 05, Okafor in 04, Warrick in 03, Baxter in 02, Boozer in 01. The front runners for this year's title all feature a big time post player as well, be it Love or Lopez or Arthur or the gape mouthed maninfant down the road.

Since no one responded to your post, let me say "Amen" right now. You expressed my feelings better than I did. Whether we like it or not, the modern template for Duke Basketball success in the NCAA's is a big man in the mold of Brand/Boozer/Shel. Until a Duke team comes back and dominates without this particular element I think it's foolish to try and sweep it under the carpet or hail back to the "good old days" before Elton. This is the modern template until we break it up by winning without a big bruiser. And by winning I mean winning in the Big Dance (which is getting to the FF - nothing less), not the regular season!

Just my two cents.


Gary

[freedevil]

My two cents: I want guys coming to Duke that WANT to be at Duke.

For all the criticism I lay at the staff's evaluations of prospects and even some of the players' performances, it DOES take a special type of person to want to come to Duke: all the pressure, half the country hating you, and lots of expectations. Kudos to all the guys along the years that accepted this challenge.

[wiscodevil]

now that Greg is gone what about Terrell Vinson i mean the kid is a stud he is listed at 6-7 post player just what we need and he would compliment mason Plumlee he has visited duke and the most important thing unlike Greg is that he doesn't have like 13 schools he's intrested in he has like 5-6

How many times have you seen Vinson play in person?
How well does he do in school?
What is his demeanor like?
What has he told you about his hopes and dreams and what he'd like to do after college?
Does he like Durham? The Duke student body? The weather?

Sorry, I really don't mean to single your post out, but the idea that so-and-so should come here or we should go after so-an-so, and if those two don't perfectly align "something is wrong with duke" are just dumb.

[NCSU&UNCgrad]

Has Duke looked at any of these recruits? None of them have committed anywhere else yet, and all may turn into good post players?

Keith Gallon
Daniel Orton
Dante Taylor
Stephen Van Treese
Colin Borchart

Also, Earnest Ross is a very powerful guard?

Any insight on these recruits?

Thanks!

[yancem]

Brick Oettinger and the ACC Sports Journal have him listed as a claimed Duke offer. He would seem to be a beast. If not Favors, someone else?

Again, I would think we could all agree that we need a power inside player from the 09 class. We know whom we've missed. I assume we don't just give up on a power player from that class at this point, particularly when we heard that missing on Monroe wasn't that big of a deal because the 09 class was so loaded.

From what I have read there doesn't seem to be much interest from Duke to Favors or Favors to Duke. If Duke has offered, that would be very interesting news.

[BD80]

Exactly how has Duke "failed" in big man recruiting? In this period of "failure," Duke has recruited top rated big men - Zoubek, McRoberts, Boateng and Humphries. No, we haven't hit on every kid we wanted, but isn't that a bit much to expect?

Zoubek is exactly what many are saying we need - a back to the basket banger that grabs rebounds. We knew that he was thin for his build and would not contribute much his first year. He broke a foot this year and his progress was significantly stymied - AND YET HE STILL MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS. Will he be the national player of the year next year? No. But it wouldn't surprise me if he started and continued to improve throughout the year. I will bet that he makes one of the All-ACC teams his senior year. How is that a failure?

What is the standard for success? How about Sasha Kaun? He was a BIG "miss". He is now running rampant for the Jayhawks in his senior year, scoring 7.1 points per game to bring his career total above 6, and dominating the boards to the tune of 3.9 rebounds per game, his career average. Why o why did we miss on Sasha?

How about 6'10" Luke Zeller, Indiana player of the year over McRoberts? He averages 2.5 rebounds and 4 points in his junior year. And 2/3 of his shot attempts have been threes! My Notre Dame buddies will trade Zeller for a used towel. To bad we were eliminated so early in the process!

Where are the players we "missed"? Patterson was certainly one that would have worked out, and it seems that Monroe would too (the #1 recruit usually, but not always, does). Other than that, it is clear that nearly everyone misses on big guys.

The examples that have been cited, such as UCLA's crop of big men, are UPPERCLASSMEN. Give Lance and Zoubs that luxury before labeling them failures. We FINALLY have some upperclass big men next year, let us enjoy the experience!

Someone said there must be a dozen "decent" big men that are academically qualified for Duke. WHO ARE THEY? I have maintained before that the rarity of big men has led to the reality that a greater percentage of big men would not be academically qualified. Kids over 6'8" are rare in high school (most high school teams don't have anyone over 6'5") and those big kids soon find out that there are many people willing to let them slide academically. Thus, I submit that there aren't likely to be many "big" men who qualify for Duke. You subtract the ones who consider themselves one-and-done but aren't worth the time for Duke, there is a VERY small pool to recruit from.

Yes, I would have celebrated Monroe or Patterson coming to Duke, but to suggest things should change is ludicrous. Those that point the blame at Lance and Singler for the "lack" of rebounding should consider Markie, G and Scheyer. Early in the season, those guys were crashing the boards to make up for the "lack" of an interior presence. Where was their rebounding against WVU? They COMBINED for 5 rebounds (Paulus had 3 and McClure had 4 in just 14 minutes). WVU's guards had 20 rebounds, our guards had a total of 9 rebounds in 21 more minutes of PT. Our demise was more an issue of Markie being unable to compete at his earlier level than because of could have had some "decent" stiff in the middle. We haven't won the NC in a few years, but we are still near the top of the heap and just a piece away from having it all again. Let's get a better attitude.

[johnb]

the modern template for Duke Basketball success in the NCAA's is a big man in the mold of Brand/Boozer/Shel....by winning I mean winning in the Big Dance (which is getting to the FF - nothing less), Gary

To rephrase, we win more often when our players are 1st team All Americans and/or future NBA starters.

Agree with BD80.

[Classof06]

I agree that landing Plumlee, whether he wants to play in the post or on the perimeter, greatly mitigates the loss of Echenique. Wherever Plumlee plays on the floor, he'll be asked to rebound and that is what Duke is sorely missing right now. As far as Echenique goes, I don't think it's that big of a loss in the sense that he wasn't coming next year anyway and in '09 I think we'll be good enough to compete for a NC without him.

Our recruiting isn't going down the drain whatsoever. That being said, it's hard to ignore the recent misses on post players. Even you eternal optimists have to admit that or you're just not being realistic. For the past 4-5 years, we've struggled to land post player recruits and/or seen many of the ones we've had (Boateng, Humphries, McRoberts) slip away earlier than expected for whatever reason. It is now a trend. I don't think the sky is falling but it is a legitimate concern.

No offense to Zoubek or Lance, but at this point any decent HS post player has to know that if he goes to Duke, he's going to play...for one of the all-time bluebloods in the sport and a chance to play in the biggest rivalry in college basketball (among several other things--like a world-class education). The fact that Patterson and Monroe we're staring all but guaranteed starting spots in the face and still decided not to come is probably what scares me the most. Whether you want to believe it or not, that's saying something. Now if the kids don't want to be at Duke then we don't want them. But why don't they want to be at Duke? That's the question I'm trying to figure out and I'm beginning to think that "I just didn't click with the players" won't suffice. Just my $0.02.

[CenOhioDukeFan]

Losing out on Echenrique hurts....it hurts bad!!! We've now lost out on almost every banger we've gone after and we're losing them to less than top notch basketball schools.

Brockman to Washington
Griffen to Oklahoma
Patterson to Kentucky
now Echenrique to Rutgers!!!

You'd think with th success Elton brand, Carlos Boozer and Shelden Williams had at Duke and on the NBA, players like this would look seriously at Duke!!!

And to you that think Zoubek is the answer, I feel he won't be unless we change the way we play defense. Otherwise, teams like Belmont just pull him 15-25 ft from the basket and go around him creating easy baskets. Zoubek is 7'1" and 260+lbs, he should never, EVER stray more than 5-10 ft from the basket and then he can use his strengths to help rebound and alter inside shots. Yet everytime he's in the game, there he is chasing his man out by the 3pt line.

[Constantstrain 81]

In the "old" days (as an '81 grad, I qualify), a player could come in and work his way up. If he was an extremely talented player (Laettner, Ferry), he got minutes and contributed even as a freshman. If he was a project, he took a little more time (Abdelnaby, Tony Lang, Cherokee Park). In today's fast-moving atmosphere, that won't cut it. Lance Thomas, Brian Zoubek - labeled clear failures after two years when they still have marvelous potential.

Our big man situation next year:

Forward: - Kyle Singler. Great rookie season. Immense talent. Perhaps fell in love too much with the 3 point shot after a nice stretch of shooting in mid-season. His misses deflated him, deflated him, and took him out of rebounding position - not a great combination. Can guard anyone from centers to point guards and understands team defense. 3rd team ACC, ACC Rookie of the Year. Will have a great season.

Forward: Dave McClure. Good comeback season. Seems much more relaxed and conditioned now. Tenacious defender, good rebounder, cool and calm. K seems to pull him early when he appears hesitant to take his shot. He is a good shooter - just needs to regain that trust in him shot. Will come off the bench to spell the 4 or the 5. Will have a strong senior season - not with the total numbers, but on the court, on the bench, and in the locker room.

Forward: Lance Thomas. Two years now. He is 6'8". He is not strong enough yet to bang (often grabs rebounds and then has them knocked away), he is not quick enough to play a tall 3 position. He can fill in for the 5, but is still not skilled enough at positioning or team defense to be truly effective again a very good player. He probably makes shots all day long in practice, but is very hesitant to put up anything but a layup. To be more effective - he needs strength (off-season work) and several consistent moves/shots. He has them - he just needs to have the courage and confidence to take them.

Center: Brian Zoubek. If he is talented enough to come in and play some good minutes after an absolute zero off-season, imagine what he can do with conditioning, strength, footwork, etc. This was a player who mentally carried his high school team despite double and triple teams. He has the stature and the size. He has the mentality. He needs conditioning, strength, and footwork. God, please grant him the opportunity to get it and don't let him get hurt again. Zoubek will be a quality 20 minutes plus next year, maybe even a starter.

Those are four good talents. They won't block tons of shots - but they can score, get rebounds, and play defense. Conditioning, strength, and footwork is key for two of them, confidence for all.

Let's celebrate who we have - it is a good group. If Lebron James decides to come to Duke, then we'll work him in. Until then -- go Devils.

[wiscodevil]

Plumlee father was quoted as saying that if you expect my son to put weight on, play with his back to the basket and be an inside force, then you've got the wrong player. He just is not that kind of a player.

What makes you think that Thomas will ever be a force ? What has he shown you in 2 years that would ever make you think he could be one ? In Zoubek there is a glimmer of hope...maybe he can be another Aaron Gray,

Coach K's recruiting is not up the likes of Roy Williams or, Billy Donovan ( we've already lost Eric Murphy to himill fall short), and I think that unless Coach K starts recruiting like he did previously, Duke will not have the capacity to win the NCAA tournament...they will have very good to excellent seasons but will fall short.

Let's hope that Coach K has a plan B for 2009 recruiting because from what I have seen recently he has not had one this year or for next season. Duke could be in for a long dry spell.

OK, there are probably about 300 Division I hoops teams. Please name the ones you think have recruited better than Duke over the past 5-10 years and provide some evidence to back up the claim. I'm guessing at best you can name 4-5. Probably not that many. Don't forget to include Deng, Livingston, McRoberts, Humphries, etc. They all were recruited by Duke and agreed/wanted to come to Duke.

Now, consider the players these other schools took and whether those players were recruited by Duke, could have been recruited by Duke, wanted to come to Duke, etc. Don't forget to consider how many roster spots we have each year. Consider whether you know what the game plan is, what the backup plan is, what the recruiting effort entails, etc. I am guessing that for 95% of the people on this board, their "information" is limited to internet chats.

Many (almost all) of the arguments here have almost zero factual basis. You have a coach that is consistently one of the best recruiters in the game, going on 15-20 years and has brought in dozens and dozens of kids who by and large have represented the school extremely well, and you're still not satisfied. Can he do better? Sure. Recruiting (somewhat like the tournament) can be a crapshoot. Not everyone want to come to Duke. Not everyone can come to Duke.


Maybe if we recruited like Wisconsin or Michigan State or West Virginia or Davidson or W. Ky, we'd do better? - how have their recruiting classes ranked lately? Any idea? What players did they miss out on? For that matter should we recruit like John Calipari or Bruce Pearl or Bob Huggins?

P.S. I also find it comical that people think K's involvement in the Olympics is a net negative. You've got millions of kids around the world who idolize American basketball, specifically players like Lebron, Kobe, Carmelo, etc. Think it hurts when those players are singing the praises of the Duke coach? Please. One of these days you're gonna get some 6'2 Filipino whiz who credits hearing Kobe speak so highly of Duke as part of his decision making process.

I know I'll be accused of wearing "the blue glasses" but I really think this obsession with figuring out "what's wrong with Duke" is a silly media meme that a lot of you are buying into.

I'm not saying there aren't legitimate criticisms, but those have been in the minority here. just a lot of baseless rumors and whining.

Rant over.

Duke gets great kids with great talent, year in and year out.

BTW, hopefully Zoubek can become at least as good as that stiff Aaron Gray.

While at Pitt, Gray was named an Associated Press Third Team All-American, after helping lead the University of Pittsburgh to the Sweet 16 in the 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament in March 2007. At Pitt, Gray's seemingly effortless offensive game from 16 feet in earned him the moniker "Gravy," a homage to his impressive paint and baseline scoring moves and the likeness of his surname, Gray, to the popular sauce, gravy.

Professional career
In 2007, Gray announced his intention to enter the 2007 NBA Draft. At the NBA's 2007 pre-draft camp, Gray was the only player whose height measured at least seven feet without shoes, and he had the highest body-fat measurement at 15%. He is 7'1" and weighs 271 pounds.

He graduated from the University of Pittsburgh and was selected by the Chicago Bulls with the 49th overall selection.

[dkbaseball]

And to you that think Zoubek is the answer, I feel he won't be unless we change the way we play defense. Otherwise, teams like Belmont just pull him 15-25 ft from the basket and go around him creating easy baskets. Zoubek is 7'1" and 260+lbs, he should never, EVER stray more than 5-10 ft from the basket and then he can use his strengths to help rebound and alter inside shots. Yet everytime he's in the game, there he is chasing his man out by the 3pt line.

I've been pounding on this point for a while. I'm not sure the Duke defensive scheme that calls for pulling the bigs far away from the basket and having them aggressively contest the passing lanes is well conceptualized. You need really mobile bigs to pull it off.

When you saw Olek Czyz play, did it strike you, as it did me, that he would be ideal for this sort of defense? He's got excellent lateral quickness for his size and can really get in somebody's grill on the perimeter. He can also change direction very quickly and get back underneath to take a charge or maybe block a shot.

[Duke79UNLV77]

we all know duke has an excellent track record or recruiting. we also all know that duke has missed on several inside power players recently and has a real need for these players.

it's not reasonable to argue the coaches are clueless and incompetent at recruiting/developing big men. at the same time, it's not reasonable to "straw man" attack every question about recruiting as making such an argument and then fall back on the "duke has a great record, the coaches know what they're doing, you've never even seen these recruits, carawell guarded duncan (on a team that flamed out in the tournament), so shut up" mantra.

can't we all get along? any coach will tell you players win games. recruits become players. it's an exact science, but there's a definite correlation.

i assume we will go after another power player from the class of 09, but, having heard nothing to the contrary, i assume no one here knows what our next move is yet. i think people on a discussion board should be able to inquire rationally about our next move.

[Troublemaker]

I am glad that someone (mgtr) finally mentioned King. He often showed off this long arms this year in blocking shots and rebounding. IF he can figure out where he is supposed to be on the court and understand K's deny, help and recover defense, he could really, really help us on defense. His arms are deceptively long as witnessed by how many blocks he got this year without really jumping and his pretty decent job rebounding.


I agree with you guys. I just want to get this opinion down on paper in case it somehow comes to fruition in the future, and then I can point back to this post and brag :) , but I continue to have a gut feeling that Taylor King could be a good option for Duke at the 5. Obviously, he is not a traditional center. But I agree with you that for his size, he is a good rebounder and pretty good shotblocker, and his long arms are definitely an asset. He is also currently the second-heaviest player on the roster (heavier than LT), and playing him at the 5 would help alleviate any quickness issues he may have.

Would he usually get outsized? Sure. But I don't think he would be awful; I think he has some instincts for the post, and I think he would surprise us with his defense and rebounding from the 5. And if he got consistent minutes, he would shoot consistently. He HAS to be one of the best long-distance shooters in the country, but even the great shooters need to get into a rhythm, which he wasn't able to do in limited minutes this season. If he got 20-25 min/gm at the 5, it would just become a battle of who could take advantage of whom more -- the opposing center or King? I bet King would win more often than not. I don't think 5s want to be guarding his quick release 25 ft from the basket.

I also relish the thought of the court being completely spread with 5 very good shooters. The driving lanes would really open up for G, Nolan, Jon, etc. Kyle could also start to take his man off the dribble more often if he doesn't have to be the only big on the court spreading the defense with his shooting ability. I could see this working. I really could. I also actually think King could score occasionally in the post when guarded by a small 5.

Right now, my guess is the plan for King is to get him to become quicker and svelter and probably reduce his weight to the 215-220 area. I would be disappointed by this. I think I'd rather see the opposite happen; have him bulk up to 235-240 and give him a chance to compete with LT and Z for a starting spot at the 5.

[dkbaseball]

I agree with you guys. I just want to get this opinion down on paper in case it somehow comes to fruition in the future, and then I can point back to this post and brag :) , but I continue to have a gut feeling that Taylor King could be a good option for Duke at the 5. Obviously, he is not a traditional center. But I agree with you that for his size, he is a good rebounder and pretty good shotblocker, and his long arms are definitely an asset. He is also currently the second-heaviest player on the roster (heavier than LT), and playing him at the 5 would help alleviate any quickness issues he may have.

Would he usually get outsized? Sure. But I don't think he would be awful; I think he has some instincts for the post, and I think he would surprise us with his defense and rebounding from the 5. And if he got consistent minutes, he would shoot consistently. He HAS to be one of the best long-distance shooters in the country, but even the great shooters need to get into a rhythm, which he wasn't able to do in limited minutes this season. If he got 20-25 min/gm at the 5, it would just become a battle of who could take advantage of whom more -- the opposing center or King? I bet King would win more often than not. I don't think 5s want to be guarding his quick release 25 ft from the basket.

I also relish the thought of the court being completely spread with 5 very good shooters. The driving lanes would really open up for G, Nolan, Jon, etc. Kyle could also start to take his man off the dribble more often if he doesn't have to be the only big on the court spreading the defense with his shooting ability. I could see this working. I really could. I also actually think King could score occasionally in the post when guarded by a small 5.

Right now, my guess is the plan for King is to get him to become quicker and svelter and probably reduce his weight to the 215-220 area. I would be disappointed by this. I think I'd rather see the opposite happen; have him bulk up to 235-240 and give him a chance to compete with LT and Z for a starting spot at the 5.

Interesting theory. Makes us even softer on defense, but one of the all-time nightmare match-ups on offense. Loyola-Marymount, anyone? You've sold me -- I'd like to see Taylor come in heavier and stronger, and give it a whirl. It's worth a gamble, since I think efforts to turn him into a mobile wing are procrustean.

[pfrduke]

I agree with you guys. I just want to get this opinion down on paper in case it somehow comes to fruition in the future, and then I can point back to this post and brag :) , but I continue to have a gut feeling that Taylor King could be a good option for Duke at the 5. Obviously, he is not a traditional center. But I agree with you that for his size, he is a good rebounder and pretty good shotblocker, and his long arms are definitely an asset. He is also currently the second-heaviest player on the roster (heavier than LT), and playing him at the 5 would help alleviate any quickness issues he may have.

Would he usually get outsized? Sure. But I don't think he would be awful; I think he has some instincts for the post, and I think he would surprise us with his defense and rebounding from the 5. And if he got consistent minutes, he would shoot consistently. He HAS to be one of the best long-distance shooters in the country, but even the great shooters need to get into a rhythm, which he wasn't able to do in limited minutes this season. If he got 20-25 min/gm at the 5, it would just become a battle of who could take advantage of whom more -- the opposing center or King? I bet King would win more often than not. I don't think 5s want to be guarding his quick release 25 ft from the basket.

I also relish the thought of the court being completely spread with 5 very good shooters. The driving lanes would really open up for G, Nolan, Jon, etc. Kyle could also start to take his man off the dribble more often if he doesn't have to be the only big on the court spreading the defense with his shooting ability. I could see this working. I really could. I also actually think King could score occasionally in the post when guarded by a small 5.

Right now, my guess is the plan for King is to get him to become quicker and svelter and probably reduce his weight to the 215-220 area. I would be disappointed by this. I think I'd rather see the opposite happen; have him bulk up to 235-240 and give him a chance to compete with LT and Z for a starting spot at the 5.

FWIW, King was a pretty good back-to-the-basket scorer in high school.

And I agree with the posters who think he will be a helpful post presence next year.

[kydevil]

I agree with you guys. I just want to get this opinion down on paper in case it somehow comes to fruition in the future, and then I can point back to this post and brag :) , but I continue to have a gut feeling that Taylor King could be a good option for Duke at the 5. Obviously, he is not a traditional center. But I agree with you that for his size, he is a good rebounder and pretty good shotblocker, and his long arms are definitely an asset. He is also currently the second-heaviest player on the roster (heavier than LT), and playing him at the 5 would help alleviate any quickness issues he may have.

Would he usually get outsized? Sure. But I don't think he would be awful; I think he has some instincts for the post, and I think he would surprise us with his defense and rebounding from the 5. And if he got consistent minutes, he would shoot consistently. He HAS to be one of the best long-distance shooters in the country, but even the great shooters need to get into a rhythm, which he wasn't able to do in limited minutes this season. If he got 20-25 min/gm at the 5, it would just become a battle of who could take advantage of whom more -- the opposing center or King? I bet King would win more often than not. I don't think 5s want to be guarding his quick release 25 ft from the basket.

I also relish the thought of the court being completely spread with 5 very good shooters. The driving lanes would really open up for G, Nolan, Jon, etc. Kyle could also start to take his man off the dribble more often if he doesn't have to be the only big on the court spreading the defense with his shooting ability. I could see this working. I really could. I also actually think King could score occasionally in the post when guarded by a small 5.

Right now, my guess is the plan for King is to get him to become quicker and svelter and probably reduce his weight to the 215-220 area. I would be disappointed by this. I think I'd rather see the opposite happen; have him bulk up to 235-240 and give him a chance to compete with LT and Z for a starting spot at the 5.

How would we score inside if King was our "5"? I'm sure he has a decent post up game but how many points do you see coming from the lane with King being guarded downlow by an ACC caliber big men? I like the idea of having 5 great shooters, but at the same time it could be our downfall. It was evident late in the year (WVU/NC/Belmont) that our offense is too relient on outside shots. We need to be able to score in the paint.

However, this would open up driving lanes for our guards and wing players, but I don't think that would overcome the negatives. But what the heck why not give it a try.

[kramerbr]

So who else is in this wider net?

Haven't heard any insight from watzone lately? Having a premium site you think this would be a good place and time to showcase a little bit of what you know to entice subscriptions.....

[Troublemaker]

Interesting theory. Makes us even softer on defense, but one of the all-time nightmare match-ups on offense. Loyola-Marymount, anyone? You've sold me -- I'd like to see Taylor come in heavier and stronger, and give it a whirl. It's worth a gamble, since I think efforts to turn him into a mobile wing are procrustean.

I know what you mean. Watching him this season attempt to drive-and-kick on offense like his teammates, I thought to myself, "Hmm, this could take awhile" regarding his development. Yet I think he could already be a very useful player just by drawing opposing 5s away from the basket and opening up driving lanes. It'd be like our small lineup this season, with the difference being Kyle wouldn't have to guard the 5 and Taylor would be drawing one defender faaaar away from the basket because they'd have to respect his range beyond the 3-pt line. Hypothetically. There could be reasons this lineup wouldn't work, too.

[Troublemaker]

How would we score inside if King was our "5"? I'm sure he has a decent post up game but how many points do you see coming from the lane with King being guarded downlow by an ACC caliber big men? I like the idea of having 5 great shooters, but at the same time it could be our downfall. It was evident late in the year (WVU/NC/Belmont) that our offense is too relient on outside shots. We need to be able to score in the paint.

However, this would open up driving lanes for our guards and wing players, but I don't think that would overcome the negatives. But what the heck why not give it a try.

Yeah, my first choice for next season would be to have Z or LT give us some good, consistent post play inside. But if their development doesn't go as we wish, my alternative plan would be to have Taylor play the 5 and stretch the defense and have him win his mythical individual battle with the opposing center in his own fashion, which is to outbomb him. What I'm saying is I think there's a good chance Taylor can be a net positive at the 5 if Z or LT can't be, and part of that net positive is that he can make his teammates better by opening up driving lanes for them.

[Troublemaker]

FWIW, King was a pretty good back-to-the-basket scorer in high school.

And I agree with the posters who think he will be a helpful post presence next year.

Yeah, to me, he looks comfortable around the basket, rebounding, and when he's spotting up / shooting. He doesn't look comfortable driving.

[kydevil]

Yeah, my first choice for next season would be to have Z or LT give us some good, consistent post play inside. But if their development doesn't go as we wish, my alternative plan would be to have Taylor play the 5 and stretch the defense and have him win his mythical individual battle with the opposing center in his own fashion, which is to outbomb him. What I'm saying is I think there's a good chance Taylor can be a net positive at the 5 if Z or LT can't be, and part of that net positive is that he can make his teammates better by opening up driving lanes for them.

Well If Lance and Z aren't getting it done I think we will have to turn to Taylor, that is unless Dave gets his offense going (which im really hoping.) I would have liked to try Taylor out at the 5 against WVU in the second half. Our offense was really slow and a lot of standing around. I definitely think he could be a good mix; however, I don't know if him being the 5 would work as a permanent thing. I believe it would work in spurts, hopefully?

[novablue4]

Brick Oettinger and the ACC Sports Journal have him listed as a claimed Duke offer. He would seem to be a beast. If not Favors, someone else?

Again, I would think we could all agree that we need a power inside player from the 09 class. We know whom we've missed. I assume we don't just give up on a power player from that class at this point, particularly when we heard that missing on Monroe wasn't that big of a deal because the 09 class was so loaded.

Duke's problem right now is that have have alienated Painter, who now says in newspapers that he has no interest in Duke. Von Treese some time ago listed his final 5 or 6 schools and he dropped Duke. Richard Howell of Georgia has also dropped Duke from his wish list because despite expressing great interset in Duke intially, Duke did not recepocate. DeShonte Riley might be willing to listen to a pitch and possibly Dante Taylor (although the DC area is not a place that many youngsters like Duke, they like UNC, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, etc.).

I feel right now that Duke stills has a chance to find a back up plan for Eche but it is very shaky and getting someone as good as Greg will be very difficult.

I cannot think of anyone to offer except Vinson, maybe try and see if someone like Karron Johnson is interested in staying in Durham as he plays at Mt. Zion.

[dkbaseball]

the DC area is not a place that many youngsters like Duke, they like UNC, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, etc.).

My, how times have changed. The D.C. area was K's main recruiting turf when he started at Duke, perhaps because he began his coaching career there at Fort Belvoir. His first NCAA champ in '91 had five players from the area, as did the '86 squad, and well into the '90s I don't think there were ever fewer than three on the team.

[GopherBlue]

...that is unless Dave gets his offense going (which im really hoping.)...

I think you touched on something here. Dave McClure, while not a natural 5 by any stretch, is positioned to take a significant step forward in terms of giving the team some positive "post" minutes next year. Dave does well on the D end and can adequately guard the 4/5 positions, but he vanishes on the O end (other than an occasional swing pass on the perimeter). If Dave can force the other team to at least acknowledge him on the offensive end, or make them pay when they don't - a consistent 10-15 ft jumper, drive and dish/finish when available, and even a post move or two - it would make a huge difference. I don't think we need Dave to be a top-3 option on offense, but if he can at least be an option (be it 4th or 5th) while he's on the floor, it will open things up for his teammates.

Dave will never be the post "monster" we all pine for, but he can be a key to patching some of our holes next year.

[kydevil]

It seems Dave's problem on offense is more confidence than skill set? Like stated we don't need Dave to be a scoring machine or a "monster" in the post (thats too much wishful thinking.) We just need enough that opposing defenses will respect him.
I seem to recall some games this year when Dave actually looked solid on offense-- Knocked down a deep two point jumper, made a few nice drives. Likewise, there was the occasional catch the ball and just freeze and wait for someone to get open. This could almost be it's own thread, here's to a great offseason to Dave!

[yancem]

Duke's problem right now is that have have alienated Painter, who now says in newspapers that he has no interest in Duke. Von Treese some time ago listed his final 5 or 6 schools and he dropped Duke. Richard Howell of Georgia has also dropped Duke from his wish list because despite expressing great interset in Duke intially, Duke did not recepocate. DeShonte Riley might be willing to listen to a pitch and possibly Dante Taylor (although the DC area is not a place that many youngsters like Duke, they like UNC, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, etc.).

I feel right now that Duke stills has a chance to find a back up plan for Eche but it is very shaky and getting someone as good as Greg will be very difficult.

I cannot think of anyone to offer except Vinson, maybe try and see if someone like Karron Johnson is interested in staying in Durham as he plays at Mt. Zion.

I think that you hit on my one gripe about how Duke goes about recruiting. I know that K likes to target a small group and offer only scholarships to his first choices. When a first choice goes elsewhere, he offers plan b. I'm sure that this makes the first choice recruits feel special but it tends to alienate plan b, c and d. And lets face it, as good as K is, he doesn't always land his first choice. Now, I'm also not of the belief that you offer 10 kids for 1 scholarship spot. To me, that not only seems a bit sleazy but also you run the risk of your 10th priority deciding first.

Given the current recruiting environment it seems like a middle ground would be most effective. I think that gone are the days when a legendary coach from a top program can walk in to a top recruit's living room and simply say "sign here". There are a lot of good programs out there and some of the mid majors are starting to not only make noise but do it consistently. I think that the top programs still hold some cache but players don't seem to hold the traditional powers in awe now a days and there seem to many that want to blaze their own path. Also, players are getting more media savvy and it is getting more difficult to read your chances with any given recruit.

So long story short, I would like to see K offer his top 2 (or maybe 3 depending on the situation) priorities and let them know that he thinks they both/are all wanted at Duke but he only has 1 slot available. I can understand how a recruit might be turned off by being a 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice. If guys like Plumlee, Painter and Riley are "Duke kind of guys" then why not give them a little more love up front. Some times offering 1 player at a time works fine (we offered Murphy and when he went elsewhere, we offered Plumlee who said yes) but it seems to also backfire quite a bit. I am no recruiting experts but from what information I have, I would be just as happy with Painter or Riley as I would have been with Echenique. A month ago it looked like we had a shot at one of those two. Maybe we still do, but I would be much more confident if we had shown them a similar amount of attention as Echenique.

[Ignatius07]

I wonder if Coach K might experiment with his theory of not offering multiple scholarships for one spot. For instance, he probably does not want to do this with Boynton, since we are loaded at guard, have a good shot with him, and do not want to alienate him.

But what about sending out multiple scholarships offers (first to the finish line style) to PFs/Cs? We do not seem to be as involved with them, so we need to simply make up ground. A possible scenario would be offering Riley, Painter, et al. and knowing you'll get a good player no matter who you land.

I don't have a problem with us not getting a top-10 (or even top-20) big man. I feel that with great guards you can excel with serviceable-to-good big men.

[kramerbr]

This deals more with the class of 2010, but I think it would help tremendously to land a talented point guard such as Brandon Knight. He is the type of player that a big man would want to play with.

[hondoheel]

Duke's problem right now is that have have alienated Painter, who now says in newspapers that he has no interest in Duke. Von Treese some time ago listed his final 5 or 6 schools and he dropped Duke. Richard Howell of Georgia has also dropped Duke from his wish list because despite expressing great interset in Duke intially, Duke did not recepocate. DeShonte Riley might be willing to listen to a pitch and possibly Dante Taylor (although the DC area is not a place that many youngsters like Duke, they like UNC, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, etc.).

I feel right now that Duke stills has a chance to find a back up plan for Eche but it is very shaky and getting someone as good as Greg will be very difficult.

I cannot think of anyone to offer except Vinson, maybe try and see if someone like Karron Johnson is interested in staying in Durham as he plays at Mt. Zion.

http://northcarolina.scout.com/a.z?s=78&p=8&c=1&nid=3073045

[Troublemaker]

http://northcarolina.scout.com/a.z?s=78&p=8&c=1&nid=3073045

Not a center.

Neither is Vinson. If Vinson is offered, it'll be on his own merits, not as a backup plan for Echenique, since Vinson is a 3/4.

[Franzez]

Duke's problem right now is that have have alienated Painter, who now says in newspapers that he has no interest in Duke. Von Treese some time ago listed his final 5 or 6 schools and he dropped Duke. Richard Howell of Georgia has also dropped Duke from his wish list because despite expressing great interset in Duke intially, Duke did not recepocate. DeShonte Riley might be willing to listen to a pitch and possibly Dante Taylor (although the DC area is not a place that many youngsters like Duke, they like UNC, Maryland, G'Town, Villanova, etc.).

I feel right now that Duke stills has a chance to find a back up plan for Eche but it is very shaky and getting someone as good as Greg will be very difficult.

I cannot think of anyone to offer except Vinson, maybe try and see if someone like Karron Johnson is interested in staying in Durham as he plays at Mt. Zion.
Listen to me,Karron Johnson is a headcase and Mt.Zion is really a prep school.

Notice his teams for example,there is a reason why UNC and Duke have not tried to recruit him.

Karron Johnson also is from Richmond,Virginia.

Johnson is likely a 1 and done player and I wouldnt be surprised if he heads to Memphis or UVA

[Franzez]

Not a center.

Neither is Vinson. If Vinson is offered, it'll be on his own merits, not as a backup plan for Echenique, since Vinson is a 3/4.
I live in the Baltimore/DC metro area,my sources have said that Vinson is a Georgetown lean.

[Franzez]

Although typically im very optimistic on recruiting I dont think we have a chance with Dashonte Riley who's been on Michigan State's radar for years.If Duke eventually is dropped from his list I'd hope he goes to Michigan State or Minnesota rather than any other school he has listed.

[Franzez]

Of guys who I think we should be looking at the first name that comes to my head is Ring Ayeul.

Hes a guy who if he has a big senior season and once word spreads about how big he is could possibly shoot up the rankings

If you dont know who he is,hes a 7ft6 C who runs the court like something I've never seen before of prospects who've came here from Africa.His stamina is questionable but when hes on the court hes up and down the court like a wing player.

[Jumbo]

Of guys who I think we should be looking at the first name that comes to my head is Ring Ayeul.

Hes a guy who if he has a big senior season and once word spreads about how big he is could possibly shoot up the rankings

If you dont know who he is,hes a 7ft6 C who runs the court like something I've never seen before of prospects who've came here from Africa.His stamina is questionable but when hes on the court hes up and down the court like a wing player.

Yeah, incredibly raw, two-star 7'3" (I've seen him listed as tall as 7'5") centers would really fit well into Duke's system.

People, please stop throwing out names of kids when you know little about them beyond what Scout or Rivals says. Geez.

[Franzez]

Yeah, incredibly raw, two-star 7'3" (I've seen him listed as tall as 7'5") centers would really fit well into Duke's system.

People, please stop throwing out names of kids when you know little about them beyond what Scout or Rivals says. Geez.
We could accomodate Ring,but its funny because we were actually recruiting John Riek at some point.:rolleyes:

And your right he wouldnt fit into the system,but we wanted him.

Your opinion of what Duke should do isnt exactly what Duke is doing,if Duke wouldnt mind bringing in a John Riek at C then why wouldnt they bring in a Ring Ayuel for the class of 2009.

[kydevil]

We could accomodate Ring,but its funny because we were actually recruiting John Riek at some point.:rolleyes:

And your right he wouldnt fit into the system,but we wanted him.

Your opinion of what Duke should do isnt exactly what Duke is doing,if Duke wouldnt mind bringing in a John Riek at C then why wouldnt they bring in a Ring Ayuel for the class of 2009.

I don't think comparing Riek and Ayuel is a fair comparison. Riek was much more complete of a player not just all size and potential. However, I don't believe Duke went after Riek very hard.

[Franzez]

I don't think comparing Riek and Ayuel is a fair comparison. Riek was much more complete of a player not just all size and potential. However, I don't believe Duke went after Riek very hard.
I dont know what we each are thinking bringing in a guy like Ayuel but I certainly wouldnt expect him to provide any more than 8 PPG in his first year or two and possibly raise it to double figures with some work heading into his junior and senior year(if he even stays that long)

I do believe we should bring him in for his ability on the boards and for blocking shots,hes 7'5 so he should be able to pull down boards although he may not be too entirely keen on contact.

As I've said before this guy can run the court better than a lot of C's his size.

[kydevil]

I dont know what we each are thinking bringing in a guy like Ayuel but I certainly wouldnt expect him to provide any more than 8 PPG in his first year or two and possibly raise it to double figures with some work heading into his junior and senior year(if he even stays that long)

I do believe we should bring him in for his ability on the boards and for blocking shots,hes 7'5 so he should be able to pull down boards although he may not be too entirely keen on contact.

As I've said before this guy can run the court better than a lot of C's his size.

When I think of a guy like Ayuel I think of Shagari Alleyne at UK, anyone remember that? It worked out well for Tubby, one of the reasons UK fans really started to turn on him. Shargari was huge and could run the floor but about the whole thing he was good for was some laughs in the crowd. Not saying Ayuel will turn out like that but it's a big risk. And with our current situation with big men we can't afford to lose on a player like this.