PDA

View Full Version : How did it happen?



evrdukie
03-15-2007, 11:13 PM
I'm not whining here, but I am interested in an explanation. Given that Duke can reasonably expect to be in the hunt for any recruit in the world, how did we end up with the season we just finished. Omit the "youth" business. That just begs the question.

imagepro
03-15-2007, 11:20 PM
I get jumped on all the time, but I'll give you my explanation. I'm not afraid. While there are several factors, it looks pretty clear "in my opinion".

We played much better in December & January than in February and March. Instead off improving, like most other teams did, we regressed. Why? Well I think it was mainly due to lack of bench development. It's a long season, and kids can't play 36-38 mins per contest and sustain it. Legs get tired.

Think not? Just look at last year with JJ & Shelden. And the year before that, and, the year before that and well, you get my point.

We didn't get worse. We got tired. OK, I'm hiding again now............

Troublemaker
03-15-2007, 11:24 PM
I'm not whining here, but I am interested in an explanation. Given that Duke can reasonably expect to be in the hunt for any recruit in the world, how did we end up with the season we just finished. Omit the "youth" business. That just begs the question.

It would be idiotic to ignore the youth factor. Duke didn't recruit a bunch of players with 1-and-done talent. We have players who will slowly grow into stars. Check out what the Dawkins/Alarie class did their freshman and sophomore years.

dukepsy1963
03-15-2007, 11:25 PM
they wanted it a little bit more than we did I think. Simple as that.

------------
As a psychologist let me say that the answer is, "I haven't the slightest idea...."

BlueDevilBaby
03-15-2007, 11:29 PM
How could we have been tired with a week off? No excuse.

evrdukie
03-15-2007, 11:33 PM
Troublemaker, you say it's idiotic to ignore the youth business. If so, have you ever asked yourself how, given our recruiting advantage, Duke ended up with a team that was too young to compete successfully against a school such as Virginia Commonwealth, not to mention much of the ACC? Surely the youth problem didn't develop because the stars lined up against us. Is there some reason we were too young to compete?

dukeisawesome
03-15-2007, 11:34 PM
I don't think we are recruiting good enough athletes.

Troublemaker
03-15-2007, 11:37 PM
Troublemaker, you say it's idiotic to ignore the youth business. If so, have you ever asked yourself how, given our recruiting advantage, Duke ended up with a team that was too young to compete successfully against a school such as Virginia Commonwealth, not to mention much of the ACC? Surely the youth problem didn't develop because the stars lined up against us. Is there some reason we were too young to compete?

We "competed" just fine. It's not like we were routinely blown out or anything. As for why we're young this year, it happens all the time in college basketball. Usually the result of some combination of graduation and early departures.

evrdukie
03-15-2007, 11:41 PM
I didn't say we didn't "compete." I said we didn't compete successfully--unless you're content to lose to many of the teams you play, lose the first game of the ACC tournament, and get bounced out of the NCAA tournament by an 11 seed. My guess is that most people posting on these boards aren't OK with that. At least I hope they're not. The letters of the jersey say "Duke", not "Clemson."

Troublemaker
03-15-2007, 11:43 PM
This season isn't okay if it becomes the norm. There's no reason to believe it will become the norm. Because as the players get older, they will improve. That is kinda the point.

ehdg
03-15-2007, 11:54 PM
Our problem was the same it was all year. This team had a bad habit of going long stretches like 4 minn without scoring baskets. We lacked a true scorer on this team. Even in tonight's game we went 4 minn in both the first half and again in the second half where we didn't score a basket. This typically either gave our opponents a chance to get back in the game or build a big lead against us and win. We lost many a close game by a basket at the end because of our lack in having a big time scorer. This team really reminded me of the teams Coach K had back in the very early '80's when Dawkins, Bilas, Alaire where Freshman and Sophomores.

evrdukie
03-16-2007, 12:03 AM
Maybe these guys will become like Dawkins, Bilas and Alaire as they get older.

wilko
03-16-2007, 12:03 AM
I think we are where we are because:
Livingston pulled a no-show and Deng left early.

Youth.... while not a blanket excuse, it does speak volumes as to why we couldnt close some games out better. It has ALOT to do with covering up negatives and exploiting positives. Which at times we just could NOT do.

other things I think I think....

I think Markie worked his TAIL off on D and doesnt get enuff credit for what hes HAS done. His legs were gone often late in most games. I think thats affected his FT% Before you attack the guy and say he cant shoot, lets get him some backup on D and turn him loose. Think Chris Duhon before he HAD to be the lock down defender... Now in Chicago hes found his shot again... hummmm

I think Greg responded EXTREMELY well to the early criticism and had a very nice year. I wish he was a step faster. I used to think he was More Wojo than Hurley.. Now I think he could be a guttier Marty Clark. (Which is still pretty good in my book!)

I think Lance will be a keeper and turn into a very nice John Smith type of guy once he learns to use more control and discretion. Lots of energy and hustle. I cant think of a player quite like him that we have had.

I think G has had a very nice Frosh campaign. I think next year begins and ends with his development as a scorer. We need a "go to guy" in the worst way. Think how much this team would have benefitted from Roshawn McLeod or Dahntay Jones on it. I think G is next in line to be that guy.

Jons mom is hot. and hes going to get better and bigger. there were times he just got "out manned" and lost the ball. I look for that to happen less and less and for him to become Mr Clutch.

Marty P. Is starting to find a solid role. I hope that continues and he gains confidence. I think thats all thats lacking for him.

Dave was doing so well early on and mid season but seemed to fade a bit down the stretch. His D is solid. But his O is very sporadic. I'd like to see him get more refined and look to score more.

Zoubek needs to dust off the old "add mass" plan Jay Bilas used in 85. Thats a major thing holding him back. But hes going to be another keeper. Maybe he will evolve into an Ala Abdelnabby (sp?)

Last Is Josh.
I dont know what to think. He brought alot to the table for us this year. No doubt. At times he looked tired, in pain and unhappy. I wish him well in whatever he decides. I just wish we could have had someone for him to play off of. Clearly hes not a traditional power post guy. Hes more Toni Kucoc than anything right now. If this team had a Dahntay Jones or Dan Ewing it would have helped him tremendously to take advantage of his unique gifts. I hope he comes back but if not we'll live.

Im rooting for the laundry.
If college basketball were reduced to 5 guys my age height and weight playing, I'd still be watching as long as Duke was the best at it.

A thanks to the guts and effort of 07 and hopeful optimism for 08....

hurleyfor3
03-16-2007, 12:05 AM
As players get older they will improve? Why do you think that?

Because I watch college basketball.

Lemme tell you a story about this dude, Pervis Ellison was his name.

Troublemaker
03-16-2007, 12:07 AM
Lemme tell you a story about this dude, Pervis Ellison was his name.

??? (what are you getting at?)

Oriole Way
03-16-2007, 12:11 AM
Jons mom is hot. and hes going to get better and bigger. there were times he just got "out manned" and lost the ball. I look for that to happen less and less and for him to become Mr Clutch.

Hilarious... before and after the mom comment, which came out of nowhere, you had serious basketball analysis regarding the players and the season. Well done!

grossbus
03-16-2007, 12:15 AM
"Marty P. Is starting to find a solid role. I hope that continues and he gains confidence. I think thats all thats lacking for him. "

what is lacking is minutes. i don't know how he can find a role on the floor when he can't get on the floor. he has not missed from the floor or the line in two games. i don't think lack of confidence is a problem. he is probably the only true shooter we have.

"Before you attack the guy and say he cant shoot"

markie can't shoot. he has a terrible release and bad judgement. his shot is very flat. he is able to hit the front of the rim on foul shots regardless of when in the game they are taken.

dukies1
03-16-2007, 12:17 AM
Do you really think Josh has a chance to go pro at this point? He had such a terrible year, I can't imagine he would go very high in the draft.

wilko
03-16-2007, 12:20 AM
I don't think we are recruiting good enough athletes.


I'll agree with that to a point... its a philisophical hair splitting (IMHO).

The trend I've noticed is that Duke tends to recruit basketball players more so than athletes who play basketball. And Im ok with that. Its worked out well over the long haul.

But I think the game has changed...

Last year I was watching this thing on Pistol Pete during the finals. In particular, I was noticing the way he was D'ed up... that old school D compared to the "modern" game. It was non existant.

I think the current "key" to stopping basketball players is to to have athletes body up and out physical your more fundamentally sound players. I think if the rules were enforced a bit more closely to focus on game fundamentals than whats currently being done... We may not have to look abroad to Europe for sound players.

I'd go so far as to say this trend has hurt the game for both the college and Pro levels.

That said, we could use some faster guys. Anyone on the track team with a decent J?

evrdukie
03-16-2007, 12:21 AM
I've wondered the same thing. The assumption seems to be that it's up to McRoberts. I don't know whether that's true or not.

wilko
03-16-2007, 12:36 AM
What is lacking is minutes. i don't know how he can find a role on the floor when he can't get on the floor. he has not missed from the floor or the line in two games. i don't think lack of confidence is a problem. he is probably the only true shooter we have.

"Before you attack the guy and say he cant shoot"

markie can't shoot. he has a terrible release and bad judgement. his shot is very flat. he is able to hit the front of the rim on foul shots regardless of when in the game they are taken.

I like Marty too. Why cant he get on the floor? There has to be a reason... I honestly dont know what it could be. I've heard his D was suspect from other posters.... but I've seen him do good things and bad things. What do you think the problem is?

I was trying to defend Markie a bit by making the point he works hard on D and his shot suffers for it.

Lulu
03-16-2007, 12:57 AM
I wish there was somewhere I could express all of my thoughts, but at the risk of being banned, does anyone out there think that Coack K did significantly better with this group than any other coach could have done, or for that matter, that even an average coach could have done? I'm serious. There's a LOT of talent there...

EDIT: Seriously, can we at least discuss some of this without pretending it's sacrilege? Team USA? Times passing by...? Stubborness? It's hard to imagine these guys playing less well as a group if they just met each other on the playground every day. Have we lost the "Duke attitude" due to contrition? or do we just have a couple players with attitudes K couldn't penetrate? I'm tired of giving the opposing team all the credit in the world every time we lost this year, as though they really played beyond their abilities just for us and had played the best games of their lives. I don't think so. I just can't imagine this team having a worse season under any coach. Tremendous underperformance. I am in full agreement with those who say we actually regressed. I really hope the freshmen don't inheirit certain traits from their elders...

Oriole Way
03-16-2007, 01:08 AM
I wish there was somewhere I could express all of my thoughts, but at the risk of being banned, does anyone out there think that Coack K did significantly better with this group than any other coach could have done, or for that matter, that even an average coach could have done? I'm serious. There's a LOT of talent there...

I think Coach K did worse with this team than most elite coaches would have done. I think it's his worst job of coaching in quite some time.

Roy Williams and Gary Williams are two guys in our conference who would have done a better job, but that's just my opinion.

Lulu
03-16-2007, 01:20 AM
I think Coach K did worse with this team than most elite coaches would have done. I think it's his worst job of coaching in quite some time.

Roy Williams and Gary Williams are two guys in our conference who would have done a better job, but that's just my opinion.

... so says a Baltimore fan? Not sure I can trust your loyaties or opinion on Gary, but I agree anyway

Oriole Way
03-16-2007, 01:23 AM
... so says a Baltimore fan? Not sure I can trust your loyaties or opinion on Gary, but I agree anyway

Trust me, I'm not a Maryland fan whatsoever. In fact, I hate them more than the Heels.

Gary can get alot out of his players if the chemistry is right. He has lost some recent teams, but they were littered with selfish, problematic players. I think he would have done better with this team than K. I believe he would have had a similar rough stretch early in ACC play, but would have come out of it very strong, very much like he did with his own team this year.

imagepro
03-16-2007, 07:46 AM
I agreed with you- ie: this quote from you, about Marty...
"what is lacking is minutes. i don't know how he can find a role on the floor when he can't get on the floor. he has not missed from the floor or the line in two games. i don't think lack of confidence is a problem. he is probably the only true shooter we have."

You took the words right out of my mouth!

imagepro
03-16-2007, 07:56 AM
for not "addressing the youth factor", as you say. I'm ok with you calling me or anyone else that. Really I am.

You should consider the fact however there are several teams with a lot of youth (ie- 7 miles down 15-501) that have faired pretty dog gone well with freshmen playing PROMINENT roles this season. A couple of them are #1 seeds.

Youth is important, I'm not denying that. But again, I think bench development, or lack thereof, was our biggest problem. Not effort, not heart. Our biggest enemy was FATIGUE. It was glaringly obvious.

Troublemaker
03-16-2007, 08:49 AM
for not "addressing the youth factor", as you say. I'm ok with you calling me or anyone else that. Really I am.

You should consider the fact however there are several teams with a lot of youth (ie- 7 miles down 15-501) that have faired pretty dog gone well with freshmen playing PROMINENT roles this season. A couple of them are #1 seeds.

Youth is important, I'm not denying that. But again, I think bench development, or lack thereof, was our biggest problem. Not effort, not heart. Our biggest enemy was FATIGUE. It was glaringly obvious.

You can think what you want. In fact, I was not thrilled with Pocius' playing time the second half of this season. But, the first post in this thread said to "omit" the youth business as if it had no place in the discussion, which, imo, is an idiotic notion.

Quite frankly, youth is definitely the great majority of the "problem." If it weren't, then Duke wouldn't improve. I remember you predicting that Duke would win the championship next year (I think 2009 is actually our year). Why did you do that? Because you knew these young guys would improve and get better.

Ignore UNC. We don't have a Brandan Wright. We don't have a Ty Lawson. If those two guys leave as some predict they both will, UNC won't be any better than Duke next season.

evrdukie
03-16-2007, 09:44 AM
I'd really like to read some explanations for what happened this year that don't involve the youth rationale. There's always a tension on these boards between happy talk and analysis and I'd like to see more of the latter. I read this stuff every year and enjoy it, mostly because of posters who obviously are pretty knowledgeable about basketball. I'm definitely an amateur and don't pretend otherwise. As such, I'm interested in informed opinions. Postings that focus on complaints about the officials, how everybody hates Duke, the youth and inexperience of our team, and how much better we'll be next year (without really explaining why) just aren't very informative.

It seems to me pretty dubious to claim that the problem this year is something maturity will take care of. The fact is that between last October and this March most of these players didn't progress at all. They became worse, not better. The team went from good to average to what we all witnessed last night. It's not clear to me why anyone expect that between now and next October they will magically improve from players defeated by a number 11 seed to excellent performers? Two things I'd like to see. First, it seems to me that Coach K, who is obviously one of the best coaches in the country, shoud began to focus on Duke basketball and jettison some of the extracurricular activities, the Pillsbury Bakeoff or whatever. Second, it seems to me (and I readily acknowledge I'm not very qualified to address this) that some re-examination of recruiting might be in order. Our team was comprised of players we chose to recruit and yet something went pretty badly awry.

Troublemaker
03-16-2007, 10:01 AM
There's always a tension on these boards between happy talk and analysis and I'd like to see more of the latter.

Here's some good analysis by you:

First, it seems to me that Coach K, who is obviously one of the best coaches in the country, shoud began to focus on Duke basketball and jettison some of the extracurricular activities, the Pillsbury Bakeoff or whatever.

LOL.


Postings that focus on complaints about the officials, how everybody hates Duke, the youth and inexperience of our team, and how much better we'll be next year (without really explaining why) just aren't very informative.

Just keep reading. I'll inform your butt soon enough, as I have a long post planned to explain exactly how Duke will be improved next season. There are some folks like Jumbo who might beat me to it, though. On this board, you won't have to wait long to get some good basketball analysis. Patience...


It seems to me pretty dubious to claim that the problem this year is something maturity will take care of...It's not clear to me why anyone expect that between now and next October they will magically improve from players defeated by a number 11 seed to excellent performers?

Again, examine what the Dawkins/Alarie class did from freshman to senior years. I don't think next year's team will be "excellent" but it will be improved and then it should be excellent two years from now.

vango
03-16-2007, 10:08 AM
Hilarious... before and after the mom comment, which came out of nowhere, you had serious basketball analysis regarding the players and the season. Well done!

That's one of those things you think - but do not say. But since you said it......when you're right you're right. A good analysis also.

JamieC
03-16-2007, 10:41 AM
For those of you who wish to question the effort and/or heart of our Duke team, then I ask only that you view first the video of the players' responses to the post game questions. They may have lost, they have missed some free throws, they may have been beaten off the dribble a few times, but do not ever say that they did not care or that they did not give their best effort. These nineteen year old kids left it all out there on the court, but it was just not good enough. There is no shame in that.

DragonWithMatches
03-16-2007, 10:50 AM
Do you really think Josh has a chance to go pro at this point? He had such a terrible year, I can't imagine he would go very high in the draft.

It's laughable to say Josh had a terrible year. He didn't develop into an AA but he had a good year. Give him credit for his rebounding, interior D, and passing at least.

bhd28
03-16-2007, 10:52 AM
Lulu,

I agree with you to some extent. I wouldn't be able to say who could have done better with this group of guys, but I would say there are some areas where I think Coach didn't do a great job. People always mention a young team, transition year, etc... and they are right, but it is undeniable that the defense got worse as the year went on. Also, our transition defense was poor and people were weak with the ball. Why? Poor communication? Teams figured out how to attack us? People learned we couldn't guard a pick-and-roll or quick guards? There are ways some (most, in fact) of those problems could be overcome (practice, altering the defensive rotations, double teaming to get the ball out of a specific guy's hands, changing where we started to pressure opposing guards, subbing players more often to combat fatigue - maybe fatigue was a problem this year and maybe not, but a LOT of announcers commented on how Duke looked tired at the ends of games)... and the problems weren't overcome. At least some of that blame has to be laid at the coaches feet. There is no way to know things for certain, but I don't think that the team was as prepared as it needed to be coming into games this year. The team allowed other teams to exploit their deficiencies... we didn't do a good job of altering things to overcome those. Offensively, the team did a good job of picking things up late in the year (with the exception of a player or two really dissapearing late)... but defensively, when other teams figured out how to attack us... Duke didn't do a very good job figuring out how to overcome that (take Maynor for example... he hit their last 3 shots to win the game... did they ever consider doubling him at the end of the game at/just after the inbounds to get the ball out of his hands? I was screaming it at the TV). Oh well... maybe things will be better next year. As guys get older, it is easier to 'tweak' things in practice (once they have the basic principles completely down).

xenic
03-16-2007, 10:53 AM
It's a long season, and kids can't play 36-38 mins per contest and sustain it. Legs get tired.

Think not? Just look at last year with JJ & Shelden. And the year before that, and, the year before that and well, you get my point.

We didn't get worse. We got tired. OK, I'm hiding again now............

I don't want to jump on you, but I do want to explore this concept a bit more. Let's say that the team practices for 3 hours/day 5 days a week (I'd guess that is very low) from Mid October through the beginning of April. That's 22 weeks, 180*5*22 = 19,800 minutes of practice. Throw in 35 games with a max of 40 minutes/game = 1400 minutes... So a player averaging 40 minutes/game will spend 21,200 minutes of game and practice time over a season. A player averaging 20 minutes a game will spend 20,500 minutes, and a redshirt player will spend 19,800 minutes. Do you really think that the extra few minutes of game time is significant enough to make someone tired?

xenic
03-16-2007, 11:00 AM
That said, we could use some faster guys. Anyone on the track team with a decent J?

I think his name is Steve Johnson.

thebur
03-16-2007, 11:15 AM
Youth and talent is a volatile combination in college basketball, and it cannot be broken down simply into "We start freshmen, and they start freshmen, so why are theirs performing better?"

If you look at the teams where freshmen are playing a lot and they are doing well, you will likely see those freshman players very high on this year's NBA Draft board. Brandan Wright, who is a talent but has shown nothing in the way of face up moves and the jumper he will have to have to be a successful pro, is predicting out to the 3rd or 4th pick in this year's draft. His buddy and primary feeder, Ty Lawson, has had his draft projection shoot up from in the late second round to missing the draft to being nearly a first round lock if he were to declare. The danger of recruiting the HUGE impact freshmen like those guys, or a Durant or Oden, is that they are likely gone very soon. We learned this when we lost Deng, the top player in his class to attend college, and Livinsgton.

Coach K seems to be going after guys who are a little more likely to stick around 2-3 years at least, if not 4. Now that doesn't mean that you don't go stop by Kevin Durant's HS games, but you are building under a different model. So if the new adaptation that K has made (and he has shown himself able to adapt to his college bball environs) is to get a bunch of good foundational guys that will be around, and sprinkle in a Luol Deng type talent to give them the extra push, I actually thing that is sound philosophy, and "doing it the right way."

Who knows, maybe we won't go to every other final four for the next twenty years? But maybe you will never see dominance like that again, and we are doing the best we can to stay as strong as possible. As in anything, you gotta set a plan and stick with ti to be successful, and I think that is what we are doing, the plan is just still in a phase of infancy, as this really just started to affect us in 1999.

Let's go Devils!

jimsumner
03-16-2007, 12:13 PM
Certainly there were some misjudgments in recruiting. Duke signed potential supers Luol Deng, Kris Humphries, and Shaun Livingston and got a combined one season. There were recruiting misses-Sasha Kaun, Jon Bockman, Geoff McDermott, Brandan Wright. There were the injuries that held back Nelson and McClure.

I think K probably should have cast a broader net in the h.s. class of '03. He only went after Deng, Humphries, and Ebi and none of these guys stuck around very long. A McClure-type recruit in that class would have meant a senior this season, which would have been nice. Of course, Duke had brought in six players the previous season so some scaling back made sense.

Deng was a huge loss. Absolutely every indicator suggested that he would around for at least three seasons. Duke got blindsinded a bit here.

But I the implication that Mike Krzyzewski can pick and choose is a bit much. Recruiting isn't a science it's an art and it's an art that deals with teenagers, so there's going to be some variability. If we're here next season discussing an 8-9 ACC season and a first-round NCAA exit, then I'll agree there are some concerns. But right now, I think we're looking at a one-year bump in the road.

Time will tell.

evrdukie
03-16-2007, 12:20 PM
Fair enough response. I'm hoping you're right.

duke03
03-16-2007, 12:35 PM
If Duke and VCU played 20 more games, does anyone think we would win more than 10 of those games? I guess what I'm saying is that last night's game did not appear to be a fluke by any stretch of the imagination.

Could we reasonably expect that Paulus would do a better job against the pressure defense? Or that Duke would do a better job of stopping their dribble penetration? I think that they exposed Duke's weaknesses, and they did it quite well.

mapei
03-16-2007, 12:40 PM
If you look at the teams where freshmen are playing a lot and they are doing well, you will likely see those freshman players very high on this year's NBA Draft board. . . . We learned this when we lost Deng, the top player in his class to attend college, and Livinsgton.

Coach K seems to be going after guys who are a little more likely to stick around 2-3 years at least, if not 4. Now that doesn't mean that you don't go stop by Kevin Durant's HS games, but you are building under a different model. So if the new adaptation that K has made (and he has shown himself able to adapt to his college bball environs) is to get a bunch of good foundational guys that will be around, and sprinkle in a Luol Deng type talent to give them the extra push, I actually thing that is sound philosophy, and "doing it the right way."

I hope that those of you who hold this view are proven right. But I also think there's a chance that the UNC/Texas/Ohio State model will prove to be the more successful one on the basketball court in the 21st century. I take Trouble's word when he points out how much the Dawkins-Alarie class improved (I wasn't paying attention then), but almost everyone was following the 4-year model in those days. (Only the Jordans and Worthys and Magics came out.) Now, the model for success may be changing, and the question is whether the less-talented-but-time-to-improve model can compete successfully against the NBA-ready model in the current millennium. I think the jury is out on that one.

phaedrus
03-16-2007, 01:25 PM
That said, we could use some faster guys. Anyone on the track team with a decent J?

funny you should ask. i was on the track team and my senior year we put together a championship intramural team. unfortunately, the team is mostly long-distance oriented - meaning we have a lot of 5'10, 145 pounders with 99% slow-twitch muscle fibers.

on the other hand, walk-on steve johnson was a top-notch high jumper who was on the track team before he decided to sit on duke's bench instead. probably would have been an all-acc guy in the high jump.

Mal
03-16-2007, 01:30 PM
This isn't particularly responsive to any of the various points and lines of discussion above, but seemed as good a place as any to vent some general disappointment in the season overall. I rarely contribute to the hoops board, but just need to commiserate over here today.

To add something of substance, I'll say that the big issues for this team were the lack of a guy with superior one on one skills who could be turned to when we were desperate for a bucket, and a very rare for a Krzyzewski team inability to handle late game situations. I don't think fatigue or depth were a factor - we played more guys than the last couple seasons, and played a low tempo style. As always, effort and desire are not the problem, either. Inexperience was certainly an issue, I guess. As was what I perceive (and someone noted upthread) as getting caught in the bottom of a recruiting cycle while changing recruiting style. I sense a shift toward getting highly rated yet not immediate impact (i.e., threat to go NBA after 1 season, or 0, for that matter) players, and letting them develop for a while. That's fine, but when it comes after you've just lost a big senior class with no upcoming seniors, that new class of low immediate impact guys is going to struggle.

That's all perfectly acceptable, but I don't think it should become an excuse for this season, which became painful to follow. Like others, I've been concerned about the apparent regression of this team (or perhaps not regression, really, so much as stagnation while everyone else gelled). This is a squad that was beating all comers early, and in the end, no disrespect to VCU or the guys Capel put together there, but we just lost to an 11 seed and finished on a 4-8 meltdown. Combined with the prior two seasons, in which the team clearly played its best ball in early February and then slid downhill to ignominious yet totally forseeable losses in the Sweet 16, despite having two of the best players to ever put on our uniform, it makes for a trend worth examining. I don't know what the answer is, but I don't think anyone's out of order for saying that it's quite frustrating.

Granted, we've all been spoiled, and I'm fully aware of that and not dismissive or unappreciative of the ridiculous amount of success this team had over the past decade. It was unprecedented and a great ride.

Maybe in the end the only lesson is simply that Coach K is not, in fact, a deity, but rather a human being. Who knew? Maybe it's just statistics catching up with us - eventually we had to start losing games we shouldn't have, given the extraordinary success we had earlier. I don't know.

All I know is I have about the same feeling I had the morning after the Austin Croshere whipping a decade ago. Disappointment. Not that we lost a winnable game. Not that we didn't make the Final Four, which couldn't reasonably be expected. No. Disappointment that we fell short of reaching our potential. Disappointment that I knew, deep down, that we were going to lose before tipoff, and then we did just that. Disappointment that we were up 8 and the only jugular we were gripping was our own. Disappointed that with 2 minutes to play and their biggest starter fouled out, I still had no confidence. Disappointed that we let a guy who averaged 14 points a game in the CAA torch us at game's end like he was Randolph Childress. This kind of loss is harder for me to stomach than losing to Emeka Okafor or even Scott Padgett.

Combined with all the apparent pleasure our first round loss has spread to millions of haters out there, this is hard to take today. Incidentally, how can so many people with no real connection to Duke or Virginia Commonwealth spend so much energy hating us, that to see this mild upset makes their day? It is time for my annual vow to stop caring about sports so much when I see these people, in their mostly Big Ten school sweatshirts, going ape over every whistle and screaming curses at televisions in front of total strangers every time Duke scores. What a spectacle these people make of themselves. I don't act that way when Maryland or Carolina wins, even national championships, and they're actual rivals of my alma mater. The level of hatred our program engenders these days is both mystifying and sad. I realize it is symptomatic of Duke's great success, but I can't help but notice how generally unhealthy it is, and note that it's tied to total strangers' perceptions of me as a Duke alum. That's sad.

Let's get 'em back next year.

captmojo
03-16-2007, 01:34 PM
This Duke team committed 17 turnovers to VCU's 11, shot .625 at the free throw line. The floor game was really good enough to win but far too many points were left off the scoreboard from the line. 12 missed free throws is unacceptable for a team looking to be a champion. how many misses were front ends of 1 and 1? John Thompson Sr. says you can't teach a kid how to shoot. I disagree. this coaching staff needs to get on the ball with free throw acumen of it's players or it will be doomed to similar fates in future. This team, in order to become championship material, needs to be at least at a free throw level of 75%. Remember former champs, at the end of games, the opponent would have to take pause and ask themselves who to foul? WHEN THESE DAYS RETURN, ALL WILL BE WELL.

mapei
03-16-2007, 01:35 PM
Great post, Mal. And I share your frustration with the Duke hatred.

When was the last time we lived up to our seed in the NCAAs? How many times have we done so in the last 10 years? (I don't know the answers, I'm just wondering.)

AnotherNYCDukeFan
03-16-2007, 02:00 PM
I hope that those of you who hold this view are proven right. But I also think there's a chance that the UNC/Texas/Ohio State model will prove to be the more successful one on the basketball court in the 21st century.

I think that the UNC/Texas/OSU model may prove sucessful in the regular season, but I don't see where it has been proved to work. It seems to me that the criteria would be a clear, upperclassman leader and a solid, balanced supporting cast are required to win.

1999: Rip Hamilton, Khalid El-Amin, Voskuhl
2000: Mateen Cleaves, can't remember the rest but I remember them being juniors or seniors
2001: Battier, Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon
2002: Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, etc.
2003: Carmelo Anthony, Mcnamarra. - This is the outlier.
2004: Okafor, Gordon, Brown, Anderson
2005: May, Felton, McCants
2006: Noah, Horford, Brewer, etc. - Not sure where this fits.

I think that this sets us up for success, if not this year, than the next. What I feel is most important is for the alpha-dog leader to step up. Leadership by committee clearly doesn't work (see the previous three years, Duhon was the last true leader) and I think that it'll have to come from Paulus. Nelson seems to be two quiet (not a bad thing) and from watching games on TV, it seems like McBob doesn't show the determination/emotion to be that guy.

So here's to hoping that everyone falls in behind Greg!

duke03
03-16-2007, 02:20 PM
Mal -- fantastic post -- I think you really made some wonderful points.

I wanted to throw out one more observation that was made to me and with which I wholeheartedly agree:

When is the last time that you could look back at a season at not find one great win? Duke's best win this year was probably at BC. Second best was probably and Indiana. That's it? That's all we had? Two wins against teams near the bottom of the top 25 -- teams that both went on to be 7 seeds? Meanwhile, we're nearly blowing games that we should have won more handily (Clemson), losing to teams at home that we have no business losing to (Florida State), and getting killed by good teams (Carolina, Maryland).

To phrase this differently, this year's Duke team underachieved in numerous games, while overachieving not once. THAT is what made this such a disappointing season.

CMS2478
03-16-2007, 02:22 PM
[QUOTE=duke03;7651]Mal

When is the last time that you could look back at a season at not find one great win? Duke's best win this year was probably at BC. Second best was probably and Indiana. That's it? That's all we had? Two wins against teams near the bottom of the top 25 -- teams that both went on to be 7 seeds?


Georgetown wasn't too shabby.......;)

duke03
03-16-2007, 02:26 PM
[QUOTE=duke03;7651]Mal

When is the last time that you could look back at a season at not find one great win? Duke's best win this year was probably at BC. Second best was probably and Indiana. That's it? That's all we had? Two wins against teams near the bottom of the top 25 -- teams that both went on to be 7 seeds?


Georgetown wasn't too shabby.......;)

Georgetown did pan out to be a great team, but at the time we beat them, the were ranked 23rd and had already lost to ODU and Oregon. The Georgetown team that Duke beat was good, but nothing like the incarnation that exists right now.

wiscodevil
03-16-2007, 02:41 PM
Disappointment that I knew, deep down, that we were going to lose before tipoff, and then we did just that. Disappointment that we were up 8 and the only jugular we were gripping was our own. Disappointed that with 2 minutes to play and their biggest starter fouled out, I still had no confidence. Disappointed that we let a guy who averaged 14 points a game in the CAA torch us at game's end like he was Randolph Childress. This kind of loss is harder for me to stomach than losing to Emeka Okafor or even Scott Padgett.

Let's get 'em back next year.

great post. the game really was a microcosm of our season. great stretches, sloppy passing and ball handling, porous defense at critical times, mediocore ft shooting, blown leads and an inability to get over the hump at the end. you could see it coming from a mile away. i think more than anything it was a lack of confidence (knowing you could win) that did them in all year.

i like our chances as these guys mature.

Mal
03-16-2007, 02:53 PM
Mapei -

Well:

'98 was Kentucky - I seem to recall them as a 2 to our 1 in the Regional Final, so I wouldn't call it not living up to the seed. Technically, yes, but you can't expect the #1 seed to make the Final Four every time. They won it all, anyway.

'99 - again, I'd say making the championship game can't be called not living up to your seed, even if you should have won and cemented your position as one of the greatest teams of all time. We still made the final game.

'00 - loss to Florida in Sweet 16 as a 1 seed but probably shouldn't have been a 1 seed. Freshman years for Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy (and mono, too). Florida was fresh and playing well at the right time, as evidenced by making the championship game. Nevertheless, I'd call losing to a 5 seed in the Sweet 16 when you're the top seed a slight disappointment.

'01 - I think it's fair to say we lived up to our seed :^)

'02 - Loss to another 5 seed in Sweet 16, springing them to the championship game. IU was less of a team than Florida in 2000, and Williams, Boozer and Dunleavy were juniors and defending national champions. Definitely a disappointing loss.

'03 - Lost as 3 seed to 2 seed Kansas on a terrible shooting night for JJ. No harm, no foul.

'04 - Made Final Four. Can't be called a disappointment.

'05 - Overachieved to get a 1 seed when we probably weren't that good without Duhon. Nevertheless, near loss to Ole Miss or whoever, followed by a general spanking by 5 seed Michigan State. Not defending the seed.

'06 - Carbon copy of '05, but with Redick and Williams as seniors.

'07 - maybe Vegas had us as an even call, but we still lost to an 11 seed.

So, I count 5 out of the last 10 years. To be fair, though, we've played in three final fours and won a title in the other 5 years. Part of the problem is that we've typically been seeded so highly that it's impossible to exceed expectations, so there's no corresponding years in which we made a surprising run unless you go all the way back to '94. Nevertheless, I'm more concerned about the fact that it's now three years in a row that we've kind of flopped. Two years ago I knew Michigan State would beat us. 51 weeks ago I remember thinking "that was the worst game I've ever seen a Duke team play in the tournemant." Now this. I'm patient. I'm not entitled to anything. And it's just a game played by a bunch of kids. But another meltdown next year will have me expressing some definite frustration and potentially acting like a spoiled baby. We've played at or near our potential in, imho, one of our last 7 NCAA tournament games (GW last year). That's a pattern that rose-colored glasses can't obscure for me.

On the issue of no real "big" wins this year, I guess I count Georgetown as a good one, even though they've come a long way since then, and winning at BC was pretty good, too. What's more concerning to me is going 1-3 against the State of Virginia, and a failure to bounce back from tough losses with more focused efforts the next game occurring a number of times.

xenic
03-16-2007, 03:08 PM
funny you should ask. i was on the track team and my senior year we put together a championship intramural team. unfortunately, the team is mostly long-distance oriented - meaning we have a lot of 5'10, 145 pounders with 99% slow-twitch muscle fibers.

on the other hand, walk-on steve johnson was a top-notch high jumper who was on the track team before he decided to sit on duke's bench instead. probably would have been an all-acc guy in the high jump.

It seems like there's an echo in here.

jimsumner
03-16-2007, 03:18 PM
"When was the last time we lived up to our seed in the NCAAs?"

Well, when you're a number one seed, living up to the seed means FF. So 1999, 2001, 2004.

The last time Duke exceeded expectations? We have to go back to 1994, I'm afraid.

Patrick Yates
03-16-2007, 03:56 PM
I think that the UNC/Texas/OSU model may prove sucessful in the regular season, but I don't see where it has been proved to work. It seems to me that the criteria would be a clear, upperclassman leader and a solid, balanced supporting cast are required to win.

1999: Rip Hamilton, Khalid El-Amin, Voskuhl
2000: Mateen Cleaves, can't remember the rest but I remember them being juniors or seniors
2001: Battier, Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon
2002: Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, etc.
2003: Carmelo Anthony, Mcnamarra. - This is the outlier.
2004: Okafor, Gordon, Brown, Anderson
2005: May, Felton, McCants
2006: Noah, Horford, Brewer, etc. - Not sure where this fits.

I think that this sets us up for success, if not this year, than the next. What I feel is most important is for the alpha-dog leader to step up. Leadership by committee clearly doesn't work (see the previous three years, Duhon was the last true leader) and I think that it'll have to come from Paulus. Nelson seems to be two quiet (not a bad thing) and from watching games on TV, it seems like McBob doesn't show the determination/emotion to be that guy.

So here's to hoping that everyone falls in behind Greg!


A rebuttal:
You are absolutely right about the above teams. With one exception. A small, trifling thing. High School Seniors now have to go to school. In each of those years above, all the best high school talent, the kids who would have had a Durant like impact, were in the pros. Of all those kids, how many were we in line for? 2, maybe. Livingston for sure, and Kobe, who says he would have gone to Duke.

None of the classes you mentioned had the inate ability of the top notch straight to the pros kids. The May class at UNC was at the time called one of the best of the year, along with Duke. It might have been the 4th or 5th best in last years rankings. The model has changed. I forsee supergroups of one-and-done players who want to make a run in the tourney and go pro. I fear these groups will not choose Duke due to class work, the community, etc.

My point is, that even if you let a class of 2-4 year players develop, in their projected "good year" they can still be beaten by a group of supertalented frosh/sophs. Many are projecting that Duke will be good in 08-09. Maybe, if we get Monroe and PP. Look at OSU. Next years class is strong. The one after that is also. On paper, their team will obliterate us. They are bringing in athletes, and two stud 7-footers. Not to mention a USC team that will add Jennings from Oak Hill. Beleive me, some good players will follow that jet quick assist machine to LA for a year or two.

Maryland is a good example of the built around experience model. The Terps are loaded with experienced seniors this year, and juniors. They are a middling team that will be decimated by graduation. What do they have to show for it? Nothing. (Yes, they won a conf title a few years ago. When I refer to "something to show for it" I mean at least a FF)

I think you are right re: UNC, OSU, and KU and the losses they will suffer. They loaded up for bear, and they have a chance to bring it home in the form of a NC this year. I think that a down year, (or not) next year is a small price to pay for glory this year.

I think the days of being compeitive for a FF year in and year out are over. There is the chance of being good for 1-2 years followed by a down year. But in those 1-2 years you have to go for the FF. Flaming out in the sweet sixteen is not a good year.

On that note, the two faced-ness on the board needs to stop. We cannot bemoan the loss of Livingston and Deng and then declare that we lost two of the best Devils of all time in the same argument.

If Livingston comes and Deng sticks arround, JJ is maybe the third or fourth scorring option. Shel is likewise third or fourth. JJ would not be the all-time scoring leader. He might not have started his sophmore year, because I think K would have played Ewing for his superiour D and athleticism that would have blended better with a running team. Shel might never have become a dominant low post scorer because with Deng he would not have needed to score. He would have lived on put-backs and easy dishes from Livingston, with 10-12 ppg and strong D and Rebounding.

This is not to say that JJ and Shel were not great. They were. But be realistic. Their roles would have been dramatically different with Livingston and Deng on Campus. Last year we probably would have won a title, or the year before more likely, and lost everybody. This year would have played out the same, but we would have had last year to cling to. In the current climate, Livingston would have had to spend a year in school, whereas he did not earlier.

I fear that there are not many true studs who are Duke Kids, ie coacable, family oriented kids who at least entertain the notion of spending a few years in school. Also, many on this board, incl. me, are clamoring for GM to commit to duke. If he is as good as advertised, he may be a one-and-done. If we get an NC, isn't that OK?

Musings on the Brave New World of College Hoops

Patrick Yates

aro24
03-16-2007, 04:06 PM
Great post. Well thought out analysis....and I can't say that I don't agree.
I got a kick out of the Jon's mom is hot.....
That may need to be a new thread with a poll....whose mom is hotter, Jon or Josh hahahaha
Thanks again for the great post.

ARo24

mapei
03-16-2007, 04:09 PM
I think that the UNC/Texas/OSU model may prove sucessful in the regular season, but I don't see where it has been proved to work. It seems to me that the criteria would be a clear, upperclassman leader and a solid, balanced supporting cast are required to win.

1999: Rip Hamilton, Khalid El-Amin, Voskuhl
2000: Mateen Cleaves, can't remember the rest but I remember them being juniors or seniors
2001: Battier, Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon
2002: Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, etc.
2003: Carmelo Anthony, Mcnamarra. - This is the outlier.
2004: Okafor, Gordon, Brown, Anderson
2005: May, Felton, McCants
2006: Noah, Horford, Brewer, etc. - Not sure where this fits.


Hmmm, you give me hope on the generic point re upperclassmen, but what I mostly see when I look over that list is that you also need truly great players, not just complementary guys. Among the kinds of players I don't see on this Duke team are Hamilton, Cleaves, Battier, J Williams (heck, that whole starting 5 in '01), Dixon, Anthony, Okafor, Noah, Horford . . . I'm not sure any of our current guys has that kind of potential.

Also, Patrick's point about the NBA age-19 rule is a good one. There is a heck of a lot more stud freshman talent in college now, but on other teams.

fogey
03-16-2007, 04:47 PM
our team has limited offensive skill, lacks quickness, and does not play well when winded. Quickest guy, Marty P, was for reasons unknown left to languish on the bench all year while starters became obviously tired. Does anyone think our consistent ability to do well in the first half of both halves (including last night) was just a coincidence and unrelated to our kids getting worn out? If you believe that, I have a Chapel I want to sell you.

chrisM
03-16-2007, 05:10 PM
Historical Duke Performance Relative to Seed since Gaudet left:

1996: Duke was an 8 seed. 8 seeds average 0.69 wins. Duke 0 wins. -0.69

1997: Duke was a 2 seed. 2 Seeds average 2.40 wins. Duke had 1 win. -1.40 wins.

1998: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 3 wins. -0.32 wins.

1999: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 5 wins. + 1.68 wins

2000: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 2 wins. -1.32 wins

2001: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 6 wins. +2.68 wins

2002: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 2 wins. -1.32 wins

2003: Duke was a 3 seed. 3 seeds average 1.77 wins. Duke had 2 wins. +0.23 wins

2004: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 4 wins. +0.68 wins

2005: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 2 wins. -1.32 wins

2006: Duke was a 1 seed. 1 Seeds average 3.32 wins. Duke had 2 wins. -1.32 wins

2007: Duke was a 6 seed. 6 Seeds average 1.28 wins. Duke 0 wins. -1.28 wins

Total, over 11 seasons: -3.7 wins

Meaning Duke has performed between three and four games worse than average for teams seeded where they were each year. Note, however, that this is seriously dragged down by the last three years. If you exclude them, Duke performed almost exactly average for their seed (0.22 wins above average).

This might well mean that the selection committee has inflated Duke's seed the past few years.

(By way of comparison, over the same period UNC is 2.85 games above their seeding average, but that comes with the caveat of the two years they missed the NCAA tournament, in 2002 and 2003.)

Chris M

evrdukie
03-16-2007, 06:00 PM
I enjoyed reading Mal's earlier posts and believe I learned something from what he had to say. I hope he'll contribute more often.

AnotherNYCDukeFan
03-16-2007, 06:39 PM
Mapei,

I agree with you. To say at this point that the current roster compares to those teams is a bit aggressive. However, what I wonder is how the fans of those other teams felt while that talent was suffering their growing pains. We were extremely lucky that Williams, Boozer, and Dunleavy came in at a high level. I wish I knew what UConn fans were saying during Okafor and Gordon's freshman year.

Ultimately, while everyone says that youth should not be an excuse on this post, I feel strongly after watching every game this season, that inexperience played a huge part in the team not living up to everyone else's expectations. I think that as they grow to know the roles that everyone will take, they will perform much better. They are talented, bright players who show great effort but didn't produce the desired results.

Patrick,

I also hear you on all your points. It will be really interesting as fans of not just Duke but college basketball to see how freshman "supergroups" might perform. My hope is that it ends up like Michigan in 1992... with Duke winning the championship!

jimsumner
03-16-2007, 06:41 PM
"On that note, the two faced-ness on the board needs to stop. We cannot bemoan the loss of Livingston and Deng and then declare that we lost two of the best Devils of all time in the same argument.
If Livingston comes and Deng sticks arround, JJ is maybe the third or fourth scorring option"

Beg pardon? Maybe I'm being dense but what's two-faced here? The term implies some level of dishonesty or deception. What's dishonest about lamenting the absence of Deng and Livingston but appreciating what Redick and Williams accomplished in their absence.

I don't know anyone who's suggested that Redick would have averaged 26 points per game last year had Deng and Livingston been on the roster. So what's the beef?

BTW, the one season that Redick and Deng played together, Redick averaged about one point per game higher than Deng and Livingston would probably not have been a super scorer. Redick and Deng would probably have been options 1 and 1A in '05, scoring in the 17-19 ppg range. If Dawkins and Alarie, Laettner and Hill, Hurley and Hill, Langdon and Brand, Battier and Carrawell, Battier and Williams, and others could achieve star status in tandem, why couldn't Deng and Redick? Laettner, Hurley and Hill, and Williams, Boozer, and Dunleavy were pretty good trios. Shel, btw, averaged over 12 ppg in '04 on a team that also started Redick, Deng, Duhon, and Ewing, so I don't think he would have disappeared either.

FWIW, all three of Duke's NCAA title teams had five guys scoring in double figures so it's not like K hasn't had some success with teams of that nature. Check out the scoring stats in 1992; 21.5, 14.6, 14.0, 13.2, and 11.2. 2001?
21.6, 19.9, 13.3, 12.6, and 12.3. This is a program that has had two different players win national POY awards in the same year, three players make first-team All-ACC in the same year for the only time in ACC history, and multiple All-Americans numerous times.

The implication that Redick and Williams only became top players in the absence of Deng and Livingston just doesn't make any sense to me.

imagepro
03-16-2007, 07:37 PM
If I did, I was drunk. And I don't drink! I think your recollection fails you.

imagepro
03-16-2007, 07:55 PM
I knew you were referring to the first post, and not mine. While you may be right about youth being MORE important, I too agreed it is a factor. I just think it's not as important as some other things. Now early in the year, it is more important. But we handled it better early as opposed to late. And late, we were MUCH more experienced. Why you just won't consider fatigue is baffling to me. You and some on DBR who you claim give good analysis, are the only ones who don't see it.

Don't downplay fatigue Trouble, just because you think it was more youth. We admit it could be both, but you, for some unknown reason, refuse to admit our 4-8 finish could have anything at all to do with fatigue.

You just blame it on youth. Let me say this, our YOUTH did very well against G-Town, Gonzaga (when they had Heytvelt & everyone else) and many more teams, BEFORE they got experience. If youth was so important, how did we beat them? And why did we struggle AFTER our kids got more experience? Common sense says fatigue. I and many others "think", it was fatigue. Youth served us well when we were fresh early on. In fact, we were in the top 10. It failed us as the season progressed and we got tired.

I know, you say the DBR members you mentioned will finally post good basketball knowledge, and to be patient.

WEll Trouble, we think we're the knowledgable fans. Not them....

Wheat/"/"/"
03-16-2007, 08:50 PM
I'll offer my $.02 cents.....
Duke's problem this year was not at the point. Paulus showed solid leadership, certainly toughness, adequate scoring and good enough D.
He was outquicked much the time, which caused a lot of problems on the defensive end, but the lack of help from teammates with quickness was as much to blame for Dukes sometimes struggling on defense as was his difficulty staying with his man.
Bottom line, PG was OK, and about average for the ACC, which was good this year at point.
2guard was OK. Scheyer is a player. But again the recurring theme... a lack of quickness. Still he was not your problem. He's crafty, plays hard, scores, sound fundamentals, adequate D. He'll be all ACC as a junior, if not sooner. Everyone on the floor does not have to be a super quick athlete to be good.
The 3 spot was also not your problem, if you consider that McRoberts was your 3. I know he played inside, but he's a big, talented 3 all day long and should have been playing there all the time...he was forced to play inside...Henderson played the 3 OK, as did Nelson...even McClure, they were all solid, contributing players...and not a problem. Pocious was on the bench with some skills as well. In fact the 3 was Duke's deepest position by far.
Which leads me to your problem. The 4? The 5? No-one on the roster could fill those spots, at least to coach K's satisfacton for PT... McRoberts was in there by default. Thomas was the only player with size to bang, and he has talent that will only improve, but as a freshman he was a not quite ready as a prime time player in the ACC. Zoubek? Not sure why he ever signed with Duke. I don't think I've ever seen K play a kid with that skill set any serious minutes. And he has some talent, just doesn't seem to fit the motion K demands on both ends. I'm betting somethings up with his lack of PT when there was such an obvious need. I'll leave it at that.
So now you're out of options.....and there was your problem for '07.
I think they actually played about the best you could reasonably expect from their combined talent level by position. It was a team with glaring weakness inside and overall quickness.
Critics of K for not playing the bench more are only somewhat reasonable, IMO. He's hardly ever gone deep to his bench and he's been pretty darn successful with that strategy. It's just not his style. Everyone knew what the deal was going in. Coach K has never been known as a developer of talent, and I don't mean that as a putdown, even tho I'm sure some of you will think it is. He obviously gets his players to improve, but its those you EXPECT to improve that do. Has he ever brought in a dimond in the rough type kid, worked him in the line up a little each year untill he began to stand out as a Jr and blew up as a Sr? Just one under the radar recruit that blew up under his reign? There are probably some you can argue, but I can't think of one off hand.
I could name quite a few from other ACC coaches...with Gary Williams leading the crowd.
At any rate, Duke '07 still played hard and never quit or had any sportsmanship issues. They were competitive in every game they played, which is about all a fan can ask of a team. Every year can't be a championship year....

Wheat/"/"/"

evrdukie
03-16-2007, 09:25 PM
Sorta weird analysis. Sounds like everybody did a good job. I'm surprised there's not a more congratulatory flavor to the various posts.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-16-2007, 09:45 PM
A simpler analysis -
Duke had 3 players and some backups in '07. They needed more.
Wheat/"/"/"

bluebear
03-16-2007, 09:46 PM
Wheat..I agree with part of what you say..While I would argue whether Josh was a 3 or 4..the fact is that he was not a Brand or Boozer or Williams and was forced to serve that role this year. He is obviously a great defender down low but I think he prefers to play further from the basket offensively to exploit his speed. The lack of a stronger inside presence was clear during many of our scoring droughts this year. Our best teams have had strong inside players, good shooters and then an athletic 3/4 who could shoot mid range shots and also drive inside..Grant, Battier Dunleavy, Deng..We had the in josh this year but he also had to play down low ..Henderson and Nelson could also fill this role (though smaller) but again I think we missed that big body underneath as a compliment.

I haven't given up on LT or Zoub at this point to develop into a solid inside presence. I also would argue about K not developing talent. I think it depends on your definition. Battier and Carrawell, though great recruits, were far different players as Srs compared to the first years.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-16-2007, 10:16 PM
Blue...
Wasn't Battier HS NPOY? And Carrawell highly ranked? Their talent was pretty obvious going in. Don't think either could be considerd under the radar types who were developed into good players. They matured, I'd say.
They certainly did improve, as was expected of them.
You're right, McRoberts could have fit easily as a 4, if you had a really good quick/slashing scorer with some handle to take some pressure off the wings.
His passing ability...especially with his entry passes, cried out for a low post scorer.
Still IMO, lack of quickness and inside play on both ends was the issue this year.
Wheat/"/"/"

phaedrus
03-16-2007, 11:38 PM
duke generally doesn't have recruits that are allowed to fly "under-the-radar". they're on the radar by virtue of being duke recruits.

Boswell
03-16-2007, 11:57 PM
Blue...
Wasn't Battier HS NPOY? And Carrawell highly ranked? Their talent was pretty obvious going in. Don't think either could be considerd under the radar types who were developed into good players. They matured, I'd say.
They certainly did improve, as was expected of them.
You're right, McRoberts could have fit easily as a 4, if you had a really good quick/slashing scorer with some handle to take some pressure off the wings.
His passing ability...especially with his entry passes, cried out for a low post scorer.
Still IMO, lack of quickness and inside play on both ends was the issue this year.
Wheat/"/"/"


Welcome back, Wheat! Missed you guy! Talk about going back a long time! Thrilled to see you here again.

gep
03-17-2007, 12:04 AM
Coach K seems to be going after guys who are a little more likely to stick around 2-3 years at least, if not 4. Now that doesn't mean that you don't go stop by Kevin Durant's HS games, but you are building under a different model. So if the new adaptation that K has made (and he has shown himself able to adapt to his college bball environs) is to get a bunch of good foundational guys that will be around, and sprinkle in a Luol Deng type talent to give them the extra push, I actually thing that is sound philosophy, and "doing it the right way."

Who knows, maybe we won't go to every other final four for the next twenty years? But maybe you will never see dominance like that again, and we are doing the best we can to stay as strong as possible. As in anything, you gotta set a plan and stick with ti to be successful, and I think that is what we are doing, the plan is just still in a phase of infancy, as this really just started to affect us in 1999.
Let's go Devils!

I totally agree with this... and couldn't have said it better. I think Coach K had to change, and he's probably putting a new vision in place... a strategic plan... which builds a foundation first. I think that started a couple of years ago, but with JJ and Shel, we never saw it, or needed it, or cared... but this year, it was obvious. As with any new strategic plan, it takes some time... but these current freshmen appear to be that foundation, given what little I've read and understood about the next few classes coming in.

Constantstrain 81
03-17-2007, 12:35 AM
Why did we play so well early and so poorly late? Fatigue. Not physical, but mental. The college season does that to a player.

You are excited about playing early on. You are learning your teammates and the college game. There are lots on non-conference games - some easy and some hard. Christmas/New Years is a chance to practice and recuperate. January and February brings the bulk of the conference schedule, 2nd semester classes (after a refreshing month off from school), the most depressing time of the year in terms of weather and light. It is a tough time for anyone.

Put DUKE on the jersey and you have added pressures. Expectations - from your fans and coaches and yourself - can make those shots come up short all by themselves. Where the level of team play and "mystique" played into our favor several years ago, for this young team it is a burden. There are no "off" opponents. There are no "down" games in February. Everyone wants to beat Duke. A few close losses and you are looking for answers, second-guessing, etc.

Now comes an even more complicating issue - who takes charge? You have a team full of successful leaders from high school. However, they are all so young. Our offense struggled throughout the year anyway. However, the last 12 games it really struggled with good execution, particularly in the second halfs of games. Did you notice that we seemed to run good sets early, built leads, then reverted to something incomprehensible in the second half. It became a weird game of high school stars struggling to decide if they should take charge or not. Usually it was like taking turns. Josh would demand the ball and take some shots. If he missed one, then he stopped shooting. Jon would take a shot or two. If he missed one, then he stopped shooting. Etc, etc. We stopped passing, we stopped the weave, we stopped exploiting anything. Heck, if we were pressed, we broke the press and then stopped. Players, perhaps, didn't feel sure of their roles at times.

That will be the challenge for the coaching staff - that and integrating three (or four) new freshmen into the mix.

Greg Paulus - don't change a thing. Heart and a good shooting stroke.

Josh - already a great all-around player and an anchor to our defense. Develop some consistent mid-range shots and get stronger.

Markie - Mid-range game. He can get the 12 footer almost anytime. Can he consistently make it? Defense and rebounding are already there.

Jon - Sure, a little strength. He needs to take charge offensively. Shoot the dang ball. long-range, short-range, drives. Shoot it. It is okay to be the man. He is a good all-around player. His value to us is his intangible leadership (that was his value to his HS team).

Gerald - Slow start this year. However, he has the athletic talent. Go ahead and use it. It is okay if you miss a shot, big guy. Don't stop taking charge (see "Jon" above).

Lance - Needs to gain strength, sure. Offensively - be confident. Shoot, take it to the hole. Post up. We saw glimpses, but he seemed to be afraid to do too much. Be a threat. I assure you if you power up a move and miss, then Josh will clean it up. But not if you don't shoot.

Marty - Gaining confidence. His drives to the hoop do help to open things up. He doesn't fit in with the regular offense so well, it seems. Needs to work on that. However, instant offense and aggressive moves - great. His defense is better, too.

Dave - Rebounding, defense - great. Offense - where did the shot go? Early on, Dave took shots. Then, he stopped. I think the utter lack of any confidence on the offensive end effected his playing time and the team's efficiency the last 12 games. I don't understand why, though, I had confidence in his offensive abilities.

Zoubek - Strength. He'll be great (like Abdelnaby his senior year) when he gets the entry pass and moves immediately into an offensive move. That will take time. So, too, will learning how to play in K's defense. He will have trouble with the pick and roll until he masters that.

The pressures of the season got to this team. We contribute to that. We can contribute to their improvement, too. I'm a high school principal. Trust me, the team will not improve if you just point out how inadequate they are.

The 91-92 championship teams? I gotta tell you. We had Grant Hill - but we were not that athletic. We did have a lock-down defensive team. Even so - we did give up over 100 points to Kentucky. Our team will be good defensively next year - we just need our offense to catch up.

I'm proud and I'm optimistic. This year was hard, but it was a necessary bridge to where we are going.

crimsondevil
03-17-2007, 02:30 AM
Total, over 11 seasons: -3.7 wins

Meaning Duke has performed between three and four games worse than average for teams seeded where they were each year.

FWIW, that's only a third of game per year - not that much. I like the analysis though. Where'd you get the seed stats?

Lulu
03-17-2007, 05:06 AM
Did anyone else read the ESPN article about what factors most contribute to a team outperforming their seed expectations? I think the #1 factor was being a team coached by Pitino, and number two was being Duke/Coack K. (Granted, a lot of it seemed like kinda junk math, especially when they started combining factors...) I was really glad you took the time to look up those numbers though because I was wondering myself how they would have looked if we were examining the more recent Coack K/Duke. 7 FF in 9 years was amazing, but it skews the more recent stats...

I don't know. I love Duke. But I feel like in a lot of the games we lose we're losing to guys most of whom would be riding the bench in our program. Is this not true? I don't know.

Unrelated, but I also agree with whoever made the point about Paulus not getting the ball to people at quite the right time. Yes, he became an awesome shooter (I was hoping he'd jack a few more up last night), and reigned in the turnovers, but we just never got enough easy buckets this season (aside from the first few minutes last night, which were great for some reason). Is it the other guys not making secondary passes that they should? or what? maybe just not taking the shots they should (Scheyer for one)? One thing I've been telling my significant other all season is that every time things started getting a little hectic on the floor we'd pull the ball and reset, which I actually thought was a mistake many times because usually the D was more out of position than we were and as long as the ball was under control I felt like maintaining the attack would have produced better results than allowing the D to reset. I suppose the answer to all this might boil down to that one word, "communication", which even Coack K has thrown out a few times. Maybe we just didn't read each other very well, and for whatever reason it's a big problem for one or two guys. Did I mention how much I miss Battier yet? As great as I knew he was, I still underappreciated that guy.

Edit: One more thought. Is there really a chance that our guys were too "out of shape"? Are we just naturally slower? Reddick sure got a lot faster after trimming up for his senior year. Obviously this thought excludes a couple guys, but there's a few I've been concerned about, too. I'd never think the coaching staff would let this happen though (despite the obvious conclusion with Reddick). We really need to be in the absolute best physical condition though if our guys have to play more minutes than those on the other team. Just a thought... one the announcers have put in my head a few times, and one that arises whenever we slow down and stop getting those easy dunks.

Anyway, today was a better day, the road to recovery might not be too long this year.

Bob Green
03-17-2007, 05:17 AM
You are probably correct.

Several posters have stated quite frequently this year that the problem with our interior offense is related to the guards inability to give the bigs the ball at the right time. Hopefully, we will work on this issue.

I had a better day today than yesterday but I watched very little basketball. I plan on watching the games tomorrow morning (remember my clock is different from yours as it is already Saturday evening here in Japan). I'm hoping the ACC teams all survive and advance to the Sweet 16.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

YmoBeThere
03-17-2007, 08:34 AM
Historical Duke Performance Relative to Seed since Gaudet left:

Meaning Duke has performed between three and four games worse than average for teams seeded where they were each year. Note, however, that this is seriously dragged down by the last three years. If you exclude them, Duke performed almost exactly average for their seed (0.22 wins above average).

Chris M

Chris, an interesting take, but your conclusion is a bit off regarding three or four games worse than average. As another poster did, you should average the total relative performance(-3.7) over the time period. I think the conclusion that on several occasions we underperformed our seed is definitely appropriate.

Troublemaker
03-17-2007, 10:00 AM
I knew you were referring to the first post, and not mine. While you may be right about youth being MORE important, I too agreed it is a factor. I just think it's not as important as some other things. Now early in the year, it is more important. But we handled it better early as opposed to late. And late, we were MUCH more experienced. Why you just won't consider fatigue is baffling to me. You and some on DBR who you claim give good analysis, are the only ones who don't see it.

Don't downplay fatigue Trouble, just because you think it was more youth. We admit it could be both, but you, for some unknown reason, refuse to admit our 4-8 finish could have anything at all to do with fatigue.

You just blame it on youth. Let me say this, our YOUTH did very well against G-Town, Gonzaga (when they had Heytvelt & everyone else) and many more teams, BEFORE they got experience. If youth was so important, how did we beat them? And why did we struggle AFTER our kids got more experience? Common sense says fatigue. I and many others "think", it was fatigue. Youth served us well when we were fresh early on. In fact, we were in the top 10. It failed us as the season progressed and we got tired.

I know, you say the DBR members you mentioned will finally post good basketball knowledge, and to be patient.

WEll Trouble, we think we're the knowledgable fans. Not them....

I don't see anyone arguing that fatigue didn't play a part in the late season slide since Coach K outright said that it did. But even the fatigue that this group experienced falls under the larger umbrella of youth.

BTW, on the temporary board, you predicted a championship in 2008. If I had access to those posts, I would link you. You may have been joking, but it happened.

YmoBeThere
03-17-2007, 11:01 AM
But even the fatigue that this group experienced falls under the larger umbrella of youth.

Fatigue is a function of youth???? I would have thought it was a function of playing certain players too much...

Troublemaker
03-17-2007, 11:10 AM
Fatigue is a function of youth???? I would have thought it was a function of playing certain players too much...

That's certainly one explanation. However, I think xenic did a good job explaining how game minutes are dwarfed by practice minutes over the course of a season.

Another explanation is that these are young players who have young bodies. As they continue to hit the weight room and treadmill, their stamina will increase as they get older. Also, their "mental stamina" for dealing with a tough conference schedule will improve as well.

That's not to say that I wouldn't have liked to have seen more Pocius in the second half of this season. I would have, but that has more to do with the fact that he's an athletic player that I love more than to serve the purpose of giving someone a breather.

YmoBeThere
03-17-2007, 11:23 AM
However, I think xenic did a good job explaining how game minutes are dwarfed by practice minutes over the course of a season.

Just curious, do you think that a practice minute is any where near the true intensity of a game minute? My athletic endeavors didn't go beyond high school track so I don't know how basketball goes, but that 50.8 second 400 that you do in practice is a different world than the 49.8 second 400 that you did during a meet.

Zeke
03-17-2007, 11:36 AM
Just finished watching Coach K's TV show. The one shown here was after the ACC Tourney but before the NCAA. In it he said that the team was tired and related it to the losses they had in the last part of the season. I was trying to say the same thing earlier during the 4 game losing streak and was castigated here as a troll etc. I feel vindicated, but I really think that if there isn't more bench playing time this will be a (and has been for some years) achronic problem. I'm all in favor of earning playing time but how high do you set the bar when your wearing out your team with a 7-8 man rotation, a hard schedual, an agressive defense, an offense based on a lot of cuts. This has to lead to 2nd half screw ups such as 3point air balls, missed free throws, point guards getting free up the middle, reach if fouls instead on moving feet. I remember an interview with Christian Laettner (is that spelling correct Jumbo?) in which he said that he was just so tired that he didn't want to do anything at all connected with basketball for a long while - and that was after winning that NCAA.

Troublemaker
03-17-2007, 11:38 AM
Just curious, do you think that a practice minute is any where near the true intensity of a game minute? My athletic endeavors didn't go beyond high school track so I don't know how basketball goes, but that 50.8 second 400 that you do in practice is a different world than the 49.8 second 400 that you did during a meet.

Well yes, it is painfully obvious that games are more intense than practices. However, the sheer magnitude in which the amount of practice minutes dwarf the amount of game minutes is a factor here. Put simply, if players are becoming fatigued over the course of the season, it would likely be due to how they are handled during practice minutes (accounting for 90% of total minutes in xenic's example) rather than the extra 5 minutes a game folks would like to see shaved from a player's playing time. That, or they are becoming fatigued due to their lack of stamina, which they are developing, being young players and all.

mapei
03-17-2007, 12:14 PM
This is turning into a great thread, lots of good stuff in here.

I don't know if it's possible to do a meaningful statistical analysis on late-game fades, but the casual impression is that it has become a bit of a signature of ours. I'd be willing to bet that we held a substantial second-half lead in the great majority of our losses. I'm not saying that's fatigue (mental or physical), necessarily, but it sure is frustrating.

jimsumner
03-17-2007, 12:37 PM
I think there can be a correlation between youth and fatigue. More experienced players tend to be better at pacing themselves, both through the season and in a game. Younger players tend to waste more emotional energy through overly-excited starts, nervousness, whatever. This leads to late-game fatigue.

mapei
03-17-2007, 12:48 PM
Here's another way of looking at it. The 10-year record:


1998: 1 seed, lost to 2 seed (KY) in regional final
1999: 1 seed, made final four, lost to 1 seed (CT) in NC final
2000: 1 seed, lost to 5 seed (FL) in round of 16
2001: 1 seed, made final four, won NC 
2002: 1 seed, lost to 5 seed (IN) in round of 16
2003: 3 seed, lost to 2 seed (KS) in round of 16
2004: 1 seed, made final four, lost to 2 seed (CT) in national semifinal
2005: 1 seed, lost to 5 seed (Mich. St.) in round of 16
2006: 1 seed, lost to 4 seed (LSU) in round of 16
2007: 6 seed, lost to 11 seed (VCU) in opening round


Several things jump out, I think. First, we were a 1 seed 8 out of 10 years! That confirms that, over the last decade, we have been a phenomenal regular-season team. (We also dominated the ACC tournament during that stretch, so I'd say we are a phenomenal ACC tourney team.)

Second, three final fours in 10 years isn't chopped liver. Very impressive. And we won it all once.

When we didn't get there, we lost once to a 2 seed, hardly a major underperformance.

But, when we do undeperform we underperform by a lot: 5 times as a number 1 seed we went out in the round of 16 to 4 and 5 seeds, and once we went out in the opening round to an 11 seed. Disappointment at tourney time is pretty understandable when this seems to happen, not as a fluke, but as a recurrence.

YmoBeThere
03-17-2007, 03:53 PM
Well yes, it is painfully obvious that games are more intense than practices. However, the sheer magnitude in which the amount of practice minutes dwarf the amount of game minutes is a factor here. Put simply, if players are becoming fatigued over the course of the season, it would likely be due to how they are handled during practice minutes (accounting for 90% of total minutes in xenic's example) rather than the extra 5 minutes a game folks would like to see shaved from a player's playing time. That, or they are becoming fatigued due to their lack of stamina, which they are developing, being young players and all.

So, on another issue, if the intensity of a game is much greater than practice doesn't that suggest you should get more players more time to understand and play at that intensity level and get used to it and mitigate stamina issues?

Another point:

1 week off between ACC and NCAA games, a much bigger issue than just age in my opinion.

Troublemaker
03-17-2007, 04:06 PM
So, on another issue, if the intensity of a game is much greater than practice doesn't that suggest you should get more players more time to understand and play at that intensity level and get used to it and mitigate stamina issues?

Another point:

1 week off between ACC and NCAA games, a much bigger issue than just age in my opinion.

Well, I think the biggest issue with the VCU game was VCU's quickness advantage in the backcourt in a game where the officials were calling it tight and allowing guards that could penetrate to get buckets or free throws virtually at will. That's why I thought Coach K should've played Pocius more and emphasized Henderson more. Not for fatigue reasons, but for their explosive penetrating abilities and better footspeed on defense. That was an athlete's game to win and we didn't have the athletes in the backcourt to counter VCU's.

YmoBeThere
03-17-2007, 04:11 PM
Well, I think the biggest issue with the VCU game was VCU's quickness advantage in the backcourt in a game where the officials were calling it tight and allowing guards that could penetrate to get buckets or free throws virtually at will. That's why I thought Coach K should've played Pocius more and emphasized Henderson more. Not for fatigue reasons, but for their explosive penetrating abilities and better footspeed on defense. That was an athlete's game to win and we didn't have the athletes in the backcourt to counter VCU's.
Agreed - Athlete's game to win

And we only have one stud athlete, GH, who is still learning.

chrisM
03-17-2007, 04:45 PM
Chris, an interesting take, but your conclusion is a bit off regarding three or four games worse than average. As another poster did, you should average the total relative performance(-3.7) over the time period. I think the conclusion that on several occasions we underperformed our seed is definitely appropriate.

I don't think that dividing by 11 is the appropriate measure. As I pointed out- it's the past three years that Duke has significantly underperformed their seed. They are slightly above average over the other 8 seasons. So, the problem is the last three years Duke has underperformed by more than a game a season. Is that a trend? Or a fluke? Or a minor correction?

I think that that is what a lot of people on this board are reacting to when they think the game has passed K by.

Oh, and I got the average seed performance results from George Harris on rsbc.

See
The link via tinyurl (http://tinyurl.com/yqms29)

Chris M

YmoBeThere
03-17-2007, 06:38 PM
I am no mathematician nor did I play one during my 4 years in Durham. However, I will suggest the following: your data set presents averages, i.e. average wins per tournament by a given seed. These averages are bounded
by two real values, the fewest and most(0 and 6 respectively) wins a team can have in the tournament. You compare the average seed performance versus Duke's performance and come up with a single discreet value for each year. The total is then added together. This number unto itself contains no meaning until it is averaged. Over the 11 year time period Duke underperformed its seed by 0.336 games. As you note, taking out the most recent three years creates a very different outcome as it outperformed its seed by +0.22 wins per tournament.

Wheat/"/"/"
03-17-2007, 09:13 PM
Bos...
Been extremely busy the past couple of years and haven't had time to get involved on the boards. I didn't ever leave...just got out of the habit of posting much. I admire they way you guys have stuck with this obvious labor of love...keep it up. It's still the best site on the net for ACC hoops, once you get past the Duke bias;)
Wheat/"/"/"

Duke76
03-17-2007, 09:40 PM
how about this, plain and simple until Greg or someone else can start plays at the top of the key instead of 10 feet from the top, usually on the wings we will not be competing for national championships. We waste 10 seconds once we get to half court trying to get in position to start plays. Plus our plays are pretty unimaginative imo.

But the bottom line is we need at least two quick guards on the floor to compete in todays environment. Look at the games today most of the guards are faster than ours. We couldn't stop them from getting into the paint and we can't get past opposing guards down the middle. its always to the wings and I don't know how many times this year I saw someone on the left hand side of the court that could not dribble with his left hand to make an aggressive move to the basket.

Hurley, Williams and Amaker could all penetrate the middle, diss or finish the play. Until we find someone in that mold or Greg makes the transition we will continue to have problems on the offensive end.

Troublemaker
03-17-2007, 09:51 PM
how about this, plain and simple until Greg or someone else can start plays at the top of the key instead of 10 feet from the top, usually on the wings we will not be competing for national championships. We waste 10 seconds once we get to half court trying to get in position to start plays. Plus our plays are pretty unimaginative imo.

But the bottom line is we need at least two quick guards on the floor to compete in todays environment. Look at the games today most of the guards are faster than ours. We couldn't stop them from getting into the paint and we can't get past opposing guards down the middle. its always to the wings and I don't know how many times this year I saw someone on the left hand side of the court that could not dribble with his left hand to make an aggressive move to the basket.

Hurley, Williams and Amaker could all penetrate the middle, diss or finish the play. Until we find someone in that mold or Greg makes the transition we will continue to have problems on the offensive end.

Good points. I think as Henderson matures, he will help a lot. And I hope to see Scheyer start to show more of an all-around game next season. He was basically just a shooter this season.

Duke76
03-17-2007, 10:04 PM
kids that quick we don't have and they break the defense down all the time

DukeDevilDeb
03-17-2007, 10:13 PM
Your key word is chemistry here... this team had none. I think some of that blame should be put at the feet of the coaching staff, but man, the coaches can't go out and shoot and defend for these guys. You have to LOVE defense and LOVE tradition and LOVE Duke basketball... and frankly, I've seen very little of that on the floor this year.

Greg has come the closest toward the end of the season. But increasing the LOVE and decreasing the number of turnovers would help.

evrdukie
03-17-2007, 10:19 PM
Drillling down?

Troublemaker
03-17-2007, 10:26 PM
Meaning analyze the roster for me. If someone asked you to clarify "Our players this year, for the most part, weren't as talented as our opponents'"... how would you do it?

Remember, I don't necessarily disagree. I would just like to see some basketball analysis from you since you're so quick to call other people's analysis "weak."

evrdukie
03-17-2007, 10:36 PM
Duke had one player on the All ACC second team. None on the first team and none on the third team. One honorable mention. That pretty much says it all.

jimsumner
03-17-2007, 10:44 PM
RE: Getting better with age.

From the get-go I expected Duke to struggle early but get better as the season progressed. That certainly was true up to the UVA game and maybe up to the St. John's game. But the end of the season was hitting a wall and going splat. Interesting that pretty much the same thing applied to Georgia Tech.

The things that sank Duke v. VCU--poor foul shooting, an inability to extend or even maintain early leads, dribble penetration by the other guys, and unfocused play down the stretch in a close game--were concerns much of the season and Duke's inability to solve these problems concerns me.

But I do think the general premise that players improve with experience holds true. Don't think of it as an in-season thing but rather a season-to-season thing. It's an axiom that championships are won in the off-season. If Duke's youngsters take that to heart, learn from their mistakes, work on their weaknesses, build on their strengths, improve their bodies, then they'll be better players next season and better players translate to a better team.

This really was a very young team and I don't think we should downplay that reality. I remain very optimistic about the future of this team and this program and I don't think we're going to have to wait any longer than next season to see a significant upward trend.

GMR
03-18-2007, 01:15 AM
I really liked what Jim Sumner said in his Post #111. He stated that Duke hit a wall at the end of the season, and I think that's been evident in NCAA play for the past several seasons.

Jim mentioned that poor foul shooting, an inability to extend or maintain leads at the end of close games, allowing a lot of penetration driving, and unfocused play in a close game were concerns of his throughout much of the season. Finally he stated that Duke's inability to solve these problems bothers him. I concur on all of these points.

I think there are three keys to success in 2008:

1. Hard work and improvement by every player returning next year, whoever that may be. We have had hundreds if not thousands of suggestions about strengths and weaknesses of each player, so I won't repeat those ideas. The key is to pinpoint them, then have each player work very hard to improve them between now and the next season. We saw very little improvement over this stretch last year (I assume some will put up the injured argument, but that's part of the game, folks...injuries happen to every team). We may have one of the best, if not the best, group of freshmen coming in, but in my opinion, we must couple that with significant improvement by the returnees for Duke to return to championship potential.

2. I believe it's a must to have either Josh or PP in the pivot, and having both would be great. I don't think we will be championship calibre with Zoubek in the pivot next year.

3. Some degree of flexibility in thinking and strategy by the coaching staff. The game is an ever-changing one, and if the Duke leaders are not willing to modify their thinking towards the game, then I believe we will be another also-ran again next year. This would include working the squad towards peaking in March, not December. This would include using the bench more even if it brings a couple of additional losses to the ledger. Our guys give all the appearances of running on an empty tank at or near a season's end. This means working and using different strategies in the final minutes of a half or at the end of a game...what we did this year did not work, and we didn't see much variation in an approach to solve this issue. We do not try to take advantages of "2 for 1" situations at the end of a half or at the end of a game..this was virtually no-existant all year, and we had many, many opportunities to make this our advantage. We again tried using the "delay game", without good execution, although we did use it less at season's end (One big reason being we were not in the lead as much at season's end).

I'm not sure why Duke's defense weakened so much as the season wore on, but it's sure frustrating to see a team's primary strength for much of the season turn into a significant weakness. I'm confident one of the reasons was both physical and mental tiring as the season got into mid to late February and beyond.

It's my strong belief that considerable improvement by returning players coupled with a strong player in the post position, all enhanced by at least some give in habits and thinking by the coaching staff are all needed for Duke to return to a team of strength next year

GMR

3rd Dukie
03-18-2007, 01:33 AM
Certainly there were some misjudgments in recruiting. Duke signed potential supers Luol Deng, Kris Humphries, and Shaun Livingston and got a combined one season. There were recruiting misses-Sasha Kaun, Jon Bockman, Geoff McDermott, Brandan Wright. There were the injuries that held back Nelson and McClure.

I think K probably should have cast a broader net in the h.s. class of '03. He only went after Deng, Humphries, and Ebi and none of these guys stuck around very long. A McClure-type recruit in that class would have meant a senior this season, which would have been nice. Of course, Duke had brought in six players the previous season so some scaling back made sense.

Deng was a huge loss. Absolutely every indicator suggested that he would around for at least three seasons. Duke got blindsinded a bit here.

But I the implication that Mike Krzyzewski can pick and choose is a bit much. Recruiting isn't a science it's an art and it's an art that deals with teenagers, so there's going to be some variability. If we're here next season discussing an 8-9 ACC season and a first-round NCAA exit, then I'll agree there are some concerns. But right now, I think we're looking at a one-year bump in the road.

Time will tell.


Jim,

"I think we're looking at a one-year bump in the road."

I think that is a very good analysis. Very rational. Thanks.

evrdukie
03-18-2007, 10:58 AM
When I began this thread several days ago, I was interested in explanations for the way Duke’s season turned out. This year was obviously a disappointment to Duke fans, even, I suspect, those fans who aren’t comfortable with the notion that the Duke basketball program ever deserves criticism. In any case, my question was intended for the knowledgeable members, not the cheerleaders. There’s nothing wrong with cheerleading. It’s just not what I was mainly interested in stirring up. Anyway, replies came rolling in from both categories of members.

I’m not an expert and would guess that I’m even less knowledgeable than most of the people posting. I’ve watched college basketball a long time, since I was a student at Duke, first in grad school, then in the law school, but I can’t say it’s an overriding aspect of my life. In any event, I recognized this year that I must have been missing something fairly important. I didn’t understand how a team with six McDonald’s All Americans, all of them highly regarded by the various recruiting-related publications, could have been beaten pretty regularly by teams that lacked anything resembling Duke’s credentials. An occasional upset, sure, but a whole season characterized by such losses seemed hard to explain. Some of the subsequent explanations in this thread have seemed to me very informative. Others basically a mishmash of basketball jargon and clichés. That’s not surprising and there’s nothing wrong with it.

As many of the people posting have recognized, some of the participants in these discussions provide comments that are of consistently high quality. Jumbo seems to be an example. Watzone too, with an important qualification, one I’ll mention because it bears directly on the overall quality of the board and illustrates a point I believe is worth making. There seem to be some members posting who are very, very knowledgeable about basketball in general, and Duke’s program in particular, but who are so invested in Duke that they’re unwilling, or at least very reluctant, to apply their critical faculties to Duke. I recognize that this board is a place for Duke supporters and that’s reasonable. Nevertheless, from my perspective the board would be more interesting (and, frankly, more genuinely supportive of Duke) if those members who are most qualified would assess Duke basketball the way they might examine, say, UNC or Virginia Tech, and share their analysis with the rest of us. That depends, of course, on what the members regard as the primary objective of the board. I believe it would be good if critical analysis were elevated to the same level of importance as supporting the basketball team. The result would make this board unique among similar online discussions, not just a fan club, but a fitting reflection of Duke’s extraordinary basketball tradition. Anyway, it’s a thought.

Finally, a note directed particularly to one of the regular posters. Troublemaker, I actually understand that youth and inexperience could be a factor in this team’s lackluster performance. I’m not as convinced as you are about that with regard to these particular players, but you could very well be right. Anyway, I’ve been messing with you a little bit, to be honest, and I apologize for it. I decided a while ago that you were too quick tell a poster or two to shut up, call their posts idiotic, or otherwise get in their faces. Everybody is a big boy or girl, so I guess that’s actually fairly harmless. I shouldn’t have let it bother me. Apology offered.

Troublemaker
03-18-2007, 12:05 PM
Apology offered.

As a long-time poster on this board, everyone pretty much knows me as someone who is polite and tries to offer knowledgeable insight. If I ever show disdain towards anyone, it is because they deserve it. I don't much care about the 5% of the board who may have a problem with me. I think 95% of the board respects me and my opinions. To try to paint me as someone who can't respect others is frankly foolish and hypocritical when you examine your own posts. I get along fine with the 95%, and everyone knows that.

Apology accepted. If you improve the quality of your posts, you won't have to apologize to anyone in the future.

evrdukie
03-18-2007, 12:17 PM
You really throw off some bad vibes, Troublemaker.

SoCalDukeFan
03-19-2007, 11:39 AM
First of all the fact that we follow Duke basketball does not mean that we have a right to expect a Final Four team every year. We are spoiled. What K has done is truly remarkable and all have many many great memories.

However I am very disappointed that the team did not improve during the season. I think they lost their last 4 games. They were also a tired team.

Coach K has generally played a short lineup. Its his style and it has worked well. However in the era of Sunday games, increased travel, more good team, maybe you need to go deeper on the bench.

With the recruits coming in even losing McRoberts (which will be a big loss in my opinion) will still leave us with more ACC quality players than this year so maybe K will go deeper. If he does not then I think we will be disappointed next year as well.

MikeBinDC
03-19-2007, 12:52 PM
I actually thought Coach K would be forced to go deeper this season, having lost JJ and Shelden to graduation, but that didn't seem to happen. I think fatigue is something that grows over time, and so even with a week off before the VCU game, the minutes built up over the season by basically the same seven guys playing well over 30 minutes per game makes it easier for them to wear down over the course of the game. I felt going into this season that I'd rather sacrifice some early losses in order to develop our bench. As it was, we ended up with a short bench (again!) and a 22-11 record. I can't imagine if we had played guys like Thomas, Zoubek, and Pocius more during Nov/Dec that we could have done any worse than 11 losses. More likely, we wouldn't have worn down as much late in games if no one averaged more than, say, 25 minutes per game, and we could have brought in fresh bodies more often with some playing experience.

The other thing I get sick of hearing is how young we were. We started one senior, two sophomores, and two freshman for most of the year. Going into the tournament this weekend, Carolina started one senior, one sophomore, and *three* freshman. How is that any older than us? Yet, they've been kicking *** lately and, oh, by the way, playing 10-15 people per game! It's not the youth, it's how they're brought along during the season. If this short bench approach isn't changed, I see no better outcome to next season.

SoCalDukeFan
03-19-2007, 01:04 PM
.

The other thing I get sick of hearing is how young we were. We started one senior, two sophomores, and two freshman for most of the year. Going into the tournament this weekend, Carolina started one senior, one sophomore, and *three* freshman. How is that any older than us? Yet, they've been kicking *** lately and, oh, by the way, playing 10-15 people per game! It's not the youth, it's how they're brought along during the season. If this short bench approach isn't changed, I see no better outcome to next season.

While I agree with your sentiment, Nelson is a junior. We had one senior, a non-scholarship player who rarely played.

JBDuke
03-19-2007, 01:20 PM
<snip>

The other thing I get sick of hearing is how young we were. We started one senior, two sophomores, and two freshman for most of the year. Going into the tournament this weekend, Carolina started one senior, one sophomore, and *three* freshman. How is that any older than us?

Yes, Duke was profoundly young this year. Someone else has already noted that DeMarcus is a junior, not a senior. I would add that he's a junior whose contributions in previous years have been significantly limited by injury.

As to your assertions about Carolina, UNC has seniors Reyshawn Terry and Wes Miller in the rotation, along with junior Quentin Thomas. Additionally, UNC's sophomores had to play much more significant leadership roles on last year's team. Guys like Ginyard, Green, Frasor, and, of course, Hansbrough, played key roles on the 2006 Heels - TH's being most prominent. None of Duke's sophomores had anything near as significant a role as Hansbrough did for the Heels last year.

Duvall
03-19-2007, 01:24 PM
Yes, Duke was profoundly young this year. Someone else has already noted that DeMarcus is a junior, not a senior. I would add that he's a junior whose contributions in previous years have been significantly limited by injury.

As to your assertions about Carolina, UNC has seniors Reyshawn Terry and Wes Miller in the rotation, along with junior Quentin Thomas. Additionally, UNC's sophomores had to play much more significant leadership roles on last year's team. Guys like Ginyard, Green, Frasor, and, of course, Hansbrough, played key roles on the 2006 Heels - TH's being most prominent. None of Duke's sophomores had anything near as significant a role as Hansbrough did for the Heels last year.

Also, they're just more talented than Duke's young players - natural ability makes up for a lot of mistakes. And it still showed at times - no way would an older team have been swept by Virginia Tech.

mapei
03-19-2007, 01:58 PM
>None of Duke's sophomores had anything near as significant a role as Hansbrough did for the Heels last year.

Point guard is pretty significant?

MikeBinDC
03-19-2007, 02:01 PM
Which was part of my point: why is Carolina able to recruit more talented players than us. Wright could leave right now and probably be a top-5 pick. None of ou freshman could leave now and be drafted in the first round.

siestadogz
03-19-2007, 02:22 PM
Most of us agree that this was not a great year for our team. Many reasons have been suggested as to why. This is probably to be expected , and yes we might be a little spoiled.
But this is not the end of the line for our program. We would have won the last 2 games if we had made our foul shots. In both tournaments we could have advanced this year with current personnel.
Next year we bring in more scoring options. If McRoberts stays or Patterson arrives to hold down the post, we will be in great shape. Coach K sounds like he wants a little redemption.

phaedrus
03-19-2007, 02:32 PM
how many national POY has carolina had since 1990? is it more or less than 5? so they outrecruited us last year. this year they have NO ONE coming in while we pull in the 2nd-rated class in the country.

rwooduke
03-19-2007, 03:10 PM
Just curious, do you think that a practice minute is any where near the true intensity of a game minute? My athletic endeavors didn't go beyond high school track so I don't know how basketball goes, but that 50.8 second 400 that you do in practice is a different world than the 49.8 second 400 that you did during a meet.

This was a good start to rebutting the practice vs. game minutes analysis. Unfortunately the practice minutes analysis, though it sounds good is really irrelevant. All top schools are going to have good conditioning programs and consequently well-conditioned athletes. It is about training for peak performance and when your body is in shape to do it's best. It is not necessarily at the end of the season if you have overtrained previously. Conversely, it can and will be at the end of the season if you train properly. Any good cross-country or long-distance coach could give you a ton of details on this, but in short, elite runners don't get elite by running a ton of races, and then saying it won't affect me. They practice a lot and then gradually build up...throwing in more speed work and races over time. They don't run race after race after race. They also don't exert themselves in an early-season race in the same way they would at an end-of season race. They could, but they'd pay the price in their ability to build and get stronger by season's end.

Anyway, I won't get into all the details because running schedules isn't the topic here, but there are some applicable parallels. Those extra 5-10 minutes a night, game after game DO add up, and do matter. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you try to say they're 18 year old kids, it doesn't matter; they practice a lot it doesn't matter; they have long TV timeouts, it doesn't matter. As if looking at the late season breakdowns from Trajan Langdon to Redick to Scheyer and many others in between isn't enough, you're completely ignoring the way professional endurance athletes train...and the years of experience, research, and time that coaches have put into figuring out the best way to build to peak performance at the END of a season...not in the middle.

bird
03-19-2007, 03:24 PM
This was a good start to rebutting the practice vs. game minutes analysis. Unfortunately the practice minutes analysis, though it sounds good is really irrelevant. All top schools are going to have good conditioning programs and consequently well-conditioned athletes. It is about training for peak performance and when your body is in shape to do it's best. It is not necessarily at the end of the season if you have overtrained previously. Conversely, it can and will be at the end of the season if you train properly. Any good cross-country or long-distance coach could give you a ton of details on this, but in short, elite runners don't get elite by running a ton of races, and then saying it won't affect me. They practice a lot and then gradually build up...throwing in more speed work and races over time. They don't run race after race after race. They also don't exert themselves in an early-season race in the same way they would at an end-of season race. They could, but they'd pay the price in their ability to build and get stronger by season's end.

Anyway, I won't get into all the details because running schedules isn't the topic here, but there are some applicable parallels. Those extra 5-10 minutes a night, game after game DO add up, and do matter. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you try to say they're 18 year old kids, it doesn't matter; they practice a lot it doesn't matter; they have long TV timeouts, it doesn't matter. As if looking at the late season breakdowns from Trajan Langdon to Redick to Scheyer and many others in between isn't enough, you're completely ignoring the way professional endurance athletes train...and the years of experience, research, and time that coaches have put into figuring out the best way to build to peak performance at the END of a season...not in the middle.

I'll go with Coach K's analysis (as stated in last week's TV show):

1. Fatigue is cumulative over the course of a season
2. Fatigue is the product of scheduling
3. This year Duke had a brutal February, with the players not having even one day off during the month. He repeated his oft-repeated complaint about Sunday evening games in particular.
4. This year's team was fatigued at the end of the season

He saw the same things posters here have seen, and attributes it to scheduling. While minutes played was not mentioned, I would assume he would say it was a secondary factor, if any.

SoCalDukeFan
03-19-2007, 03:37 PM
I am convinced that K wants to win as much as any coach in the country.

He generally adjusts when he needs to.

In my opinion we did not play well at the end of the season as we did earlier. We were healthy and except for GH vs NC State at full strength. So something went wrong.

walras
03-19-2007, 03:46 PM
I wonder whether more knowledgeable posters might suggest how one is to think about Duke's recruiting in past years in the context of the new NBA rules. The NYTimes (Select -- no links possible) today argues that the Texas/Ohio State stuff really changed the world of NCAA bball. In that case, are we likely to see fewer immediate impact recruits at Duke if that might lead to lower probabilities of staying around for a while? It seems to this unsophisticated poster that for each recruit, if you score them on a 1-10 scale of impact in year X, X+1, X+2, X+3, you have to in effect "multiply" by probabilities of their even being there in year X+j. So a number 75 recruit who would stay and develop over four years, as he gets better each year, may offset the top five recruit who is likely (P>.50) to leave after year 1 say. Would Grant Hill have stayed more than two years in the current world? Or Laettner? Or Jason Williams? How will "building a team" differ in the future? Roy Williams seems to have hit on the strategy of bringing in bigger and bigger classes each year, while we seem to target "spots" to "fit the current mix of players." Or am I imagining things?

rwooduke
03-19-2007, 04:11 PM
I'll go with Coach K's analysis (as stated in last week's TV show):

1. Fatigue is cumulative over the course of a season
2. Fatigue is the product of scheduling
3. This year Duke had a brutal February, with the players not having even one day off during the month. He repeated his oft-repeated complaint about Sunday evening games in particular.
4. This year's team was fatigued at the end of the season

He saw the same things posters here have seen, and attributes it to scheduling. While minutes played was not mentioned, I would assume he would say it was a secondary factor, if any.

He probably would say that, and I don't dispute that, because he's also essentially said in the past that it doesn't matter because they're young kids and they get long TV timeouts. The point of my post was to disagree with that whole logic of ignoring the cumulative effect of intense minutes played in a game.

It may not sound logical to some that 5-10 minutes per game could matter, but there's really no debating it from the experts in that area. You have years of experience, research, and time that coaches of endurance athletes (that are the wizards in their profession just like Coach K is in his) have put into figuring out the best way to build to peak performance at the END of a season and avoiding the perils of overtraining during the season. It is difficult to explain the full analogy w/o getting into more detail, but simply put going at peak intensity (which for a basketball player is 35-40 minutes a night) game after game in Jan. and Feb. is going to matter when you need to do it in late Feb. and March. Endurance experts would tell you that and we certainly have plenty of emprical evidence (Langdon, Redick, Scheyer, etc.) to support it in Duke's case.

feldspar
03-19-2007, 04:14 PM
why is Carolina able to recruit more talented players than us.

Some years you get 'em, some years you don't. I doubt you were making this complaint back in '99 when four of our guys went in the first round of the NBA draft, or when we had four future NBA'ers on the '01 team, or for '03-'06 when we had future POYs JJ and Shelden.

Take a chill pill. We missed 'em this time around. We'll get 'em again.

mapei
03-19-2007, 04:34 PM
One thing I'm curious about is, since the Roy Williams era began at UNC, how have we done head-to-head against players we both wanted? If we're winning those, I think the argument is closed.

devildownunder
03-19-2007, 05:13 PM
One thing I'm curious about is, since the Roy Williams era began at UNC, how have we done head-to-head against players we both wanted? If we're winning those, I think the argument is closed.

but i think Roy has topped us since he arrived, if not in the rankings of the players then certainly in the ability they have demonstrated once they arrived. For example, McRoberts was rated off the charts. And he has been a good player but hansbrough, who was also rated very high but not as high as mcbob, has had a much better career to this point by any measuring stick.

This year our recruiting class is expected to have a huge impact. If it doesn't, then I think there is cause for concern about a disconnect between our recruits' rankings and their performance.

But, if Singler, Smith and King come in and make a strong positive impact, then I think we can all relax about the recruiting -- even a worry wort like me. ;)

throatybeard
03-19-2007, 10:32 PM
The thing about Deng is, even had he stayed three years, those three would have been up in 2006. Maybe that makes 2005 and 2006 even better than they were, but it has no bearing on personnel for 2007. And no one really thinks Humphries or Livingston would have stayed four years, right?

dukie8
03-19-2007, 11:27 PM
The thing about Deng is, even had he stayed three years, those three would have been up in 2006. Maybe that makes 2005 and 2006 even better than they were, but it has no bearing on personnel for 2007. And no one really thinks Humphries or Livingston would have stayed four years, right?

why do people keep on saying that deng, humphries and livingston all left k in the dark and are largely responsible for the holes in the roster? none of those guys every was going to be playing for duke in 2007. the fact that they left when they did actually gave k MORE time to go out and find replacements.

dukie8
03-19-2007, 11:52 PM
Yes, Duke was profoundly young this year. Someone else has already noted that DeMarcus is a junior, not a senior. I would add that he's a junior whose contributions in previous years have been significantly limited by injury.

As to your assertions about Carolina, UNC has seniors Reyshawn Terry and Wes Miller in the rotation, along with junior Quentin Thomas. Additionally, UNC's sophomores had to play much more significant leadership roles on last year's team. Guys like Ginyard, Green, Frasor, and, of course, Hansbrough, played key roles on the 2006 Heels - TH's being most prominent. None of Duke's sophomores had anything near as significant a role as Hansbrough did for the Heels last year.

this another example of a poster providing misleading information that attempts to support mistaken belief that unc somehow had a lot more experience this year than duke. let's take a little closer look at your "experienced" unc players.

wes miller -- didn't even play at unc his freshman year (jmu). he then sat out a year and then played a grand total of 92 minutes of mop-up time for the 2005 nc team. last year he did play and got 711 minutes. in my book, that is 1 season (in any event, it is 803 total at unc). however, this year, with all the stud frosh, his minutes have fallen dramatically to 380 minutes because his primary job is to come in and give the starters a little rest. his role has has absolutely nothing to do with the success they have had this year.

terry -- he is a senior but he played a grand total of 106 minutes in 2004 and 143 minutes in 2005. last year he did play and got 750 minutes. once again, that's basically 1 year of actually playing in games other than mop-up duty (999 total).

thomas -- he is a junior and played a grand total of 234 minutes in 2005 and 337 minutes last year despite the fact that all 5 starting positions were available (that's 571 total). his minutes this year have been cut all the way down to 159 as he basically has become a mop-up extraordinaire this year. to give you some idea how few 159 minutes are, zoubek easily beat him out in that category by logging 235 minutes this year (i know that it seemed like it was closer to 15 or 20).

hansbrough -- played 943 minutes last year.

now let's look at our 3 guys with experience.

paulus -- played 1163 minutes last year.
mcroberts -- played 883 minutes last year
nelson -- played 634 minutes in 2005 and 517 minutes in 2006 (1151 total)

so paulus and nelson had played MORE minutes coming into this season than ANYONE on unc and mcroberts had logged almost as many minutes as hansbrough and terry. of course lawson, ellington and wright all are frosh and never had played college ball before this year (and start and play critical roles this year). the key point is that our players had had every bit (probably more) experience as the unc guys coming into this year so that excuse rings very hollow if you look into the numbers.

devildownunder
03-20-2007, 12:24 AM
this another example of a poster providing misleading information that attempts to support mistaken belief that unc somehow had a lot more experience this year than duke. let's take a little closer look at your "experienced" unc players.

wes miller -- didn't even play at unc his freshman year (jmu). he then sat out a year and then played a grand total of 92 minutes of mop-up time for the 2005 nc team. last year he did play and got 711 minutes. in my book, that is 1 season (in any event, it is 803 total at unc). however, this year, with all the stud frosh, his minutes have fallen dramatically to 380 minutes because his primary job is to come in and give the starters a little rest. his role has has absolutely nothing to do with the success they have had this year.

terry -- he is a senior but he played a grand total of 106 minutes in 2004 and 143 minutes in 2005. last year he did play and got 750 minutes. once again, that's basically 1 year of actually playing in games other than mop-up duty (999 total).

thomas -- he is a junior and played a grand total of 234 minutes in 2005 and 337 minutes last year despite the fact that all 5 starting positions were available (that's 571 total). his minutes this year have been cut all the way down to 159 as he basically has become a mop-up extraordinaire this year. to give you some idea how few 159 minutes are, zoubek easily beat him out in that category by logging 235 minutes this year (i know that it seemed like it was closer to 15 or 20).

hansbrough -- played 943 minutes last year.

now let's look at our 3 guys with experience.

paulus -- played 1163 minutes last year.
mcroberts -- played 883 minutes last year
nelson -- played 634 minutes in 2005 and 517 minutes in 2006 (1151 total)

so paulus and nelson had played MORE minutes coming into this season than ANYONE on unc and mcroberts had logged more minutes than hansbrough and almost as many as terry. of course lawson, ellington and wright all are frosh and never had played college ball before this year (and start and play critical roles this year). the key point is that our players had had every bit (probably more) experience as the unc guys coming into this year so that excuse rings very hollow if you look into the numbers.

Damn that's a strong post Dukie8! One small quibble, based on the numbers you posted, your assertion that mcroberts had more minutes that hansbrough or terry is off; but that's really just a minor note. Your case is extremely well made. I do think that carolina does benefit from having a senior who plays a lot now. Not so much because he was a huge factor in years before but just because he has to be helpful in getting guys to embrace how things are done around there. But you make a strong case for the idea that if guys are good enough, they contribute as freshmen and youth doesn't necessarily have to prevent them from doing that.