Coach K and Recruiting

[NYC Duke Fan]

While I do not think that anyone here is that close to Coach K to know what he is actually thinking can anyone surmise or speculate as to what Coach K might have been thinking when he recruited.

He had 2 first team All Americans stay for 4 years and while it did not happen there were expectations that Duke could win the NCAA tournament while they were there.

Coach K does not recruit to put a ," nice", team on the floor. He recruits talent to win the NCAA tournament as does all of the top coaches in the top college programs.

What were his thoughts when he recruited last year's class and the one coming in next year ? I am sure that he felt that this year's team was not talented enough to win it all, but do you think that he feels that next year's class can; or is he holding out for 2008-09 when he will have senior leadership and juniors and sophmore's who are experienced ?

[Bob Green]

here is my opinion:

Coach K is still actively pursuing PP for an inside presence. Likewise, he is pursuing Greg Monroe (and others) for the 08-09 season. We have a great class coming in. Kyle Singler has unlimited potential and will replace McRoberts (yep, he's gone!) in the starting line-up. Nolan Smith will provide additional depth at guard and possibly provide the dribble penetration we lacked this year. Taylor King is a 6'8" wing guard/small forward with lots of potential. He may be forced to play inside and is capable of playing there. His rebounding ability is real even though it is not emphasized.

Now, the real deal for next season is these returning players:

1. Paulus has proven his toughness and has a great shot. He is a leader.
2. Nelson is healthy and will improve his game over the summer. He is on the brink of being a great player. Hopefully, next year is his year.
3. Scheyer was awesome as a freshman and will come back stronger and better. He is a scorer but needs to work on becoming a pure shooter.
4. Henderson came on strong and will be much improved next year.
5. Pocius has the potential to light it up. He has to solve some type of chemistry issue, which is limiting his playing time.

Where we need substantial improvement:

1. Lance Thomas must solve his foul problem issue and become much stronger.
2. McClure must solve his offensive woes. His scrappiness is inspiring but he must learn to put the ball through the hoop.
3. Zoubek must become stronger and more decisive. He can score in double digits every game with just a little improvement.

We are in good shape! If a couple of recruiting decisions go our way, we are in great shape. Relax guys (and gals), it is not 1974!

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[duke74]

Bob, as always you are spot on and a breath of reason (I know -- a mixed metaphor).

Having graduated in 1974, I realize how accustomed the "new generation" has become to sweet sixteens, elite eights, final fours, etc. I remember the "Springfield rifle", Larry Saunders, Randy Denton, DD, and Gary M. At best, we were OK.

Thanks for the perspective (although last night still hurts).

[Indoor66]

Bob, as always you are spot on and a breath of reason (I know -- a mixed metaphor).

Having graduated in 1974, I realize how accustomed the "new generation" has become to sweet sixteens, elite eights, final fours, etc. I remember the "Springfield rifle", Larry Saunders, Randy Denton, DD, and Gary M. At best, we were OK.

Thanks for the perspective (although last night still hurts).

Remember that Denton et al ran the table as a freshman unit and then never reached a truly high level thereafter. They were touted as the "Fab Five" of their era and were going to take Duke to the Promised Land. It didn't happen. They were very good - but never had the chemistry or performing talent to get over the hump. In that instance the sum of the parts did not exceed the value of the individual parts.

I think this team has performed in much the same way. They never reached a point where the sum of their individual talents exceeded their individual talents. They never became free flowing. Their interplay was always somewhat strained. They never developed the chemistry that creates a free flowing machine.

I don't see "tired" or "lack of playing time" or "lack of talent" as the issue. I see lack of chemistry - that indefinable element of a good team. Some of that chemistry can be instant among a group and some of it is developed over time. Also, the addition of next year's class may inject the exact chemistry we need.

As painful as it is, we have got to give time time.

[duke74]

Good points. Whatever the definition of "chemistry," this team sure didn't have it. Question: is it a function of the players' personalities or is it coaching to overcome same?

Thanks for the perspective.

[Troublemaker]

Good points. Whatever the definition of "chemistry," this team sure didn't have it. Question: is it a function of the players' personalities or is it coaching to overcome same?

Thanks for the perspective.

I would say it's a function of player talent and skill. It's difficult to look like you have chemistry when it's a chore for you to just advance the ball, pass and catch, and dribble in some cases.

[MulletMan]

The answer to this question is relatively simple. Duke is in a transition. We got burnt by early defections to the NBA, and consequently have begun to recruit 3-4 year players at multiple positions. While these players may not be talented enough to carry a team to a NC as freshman, by thier junior and senior years they will be able to serioulsy contend for an NC. K is trying to build this PROGRAM (again, in a new college basketball landscape) into one that contends every year. For those who don't get what I mean... how do you think OSU, Texas and UNC will look next year if they get hit hard with defections to the pro ranks? I think that K is trying to avoid a situation like that. Having a contender every year is very difficult. Perhaps we should wait until we have bridged this gap before we condemn the recruiting eyes that have produced so many great teams.

[Troublemaker]

Good post, MulletMan. K has talked all season long about not having enough upperclassmen to transfer knowledge about the Duke culture down to the underclassmen. I think you're right that he's building the program right now and that in the future, he intends to always have enough old guys around to transfer knowledge.

[JasonEvans]

The notion that we had a bad season because of recruiting mistakes is ludicrous. This is a team filled -- FILLED -- with McDonald's All-Americans and kids who were all rated in the top 50 in their recruiting class. There are no more than a few other teams in the land with as much recruiting clout as Duke.

I think, as some have said, we are just now feeling the effect of some tough NBA decisions that really set us back. There is no way K wanted a roster with zeros seniors on it and only one significant junior (a kid who has been largely injured in his career anyway) this season. He wants more balance between older and younger guys -- more experience -- but that is the one thing recruiting and in-season coaching cannot solve.

I have every reason to think that next season will see Duke return to its longtime place near the top of college basketball. When you lose two legends like JJ and Shel, a down year the following season is not at all surprising. Look across the landscape of college hoops, no one -- NO ONE -- stays on top every year. We come closer to it than anyone else. In our down year, we were ranked in the top ten much of the season, beat a lot of very good teams, and made the dance as a #6 seed. Now, look at other recent down years for the elite teams and you will see that they quite often fall much harder than we did.

-Jason "Duke will be back next year-- bank on it!" Evans

[MulletMan]

Good post, MulletMan. K has talked all season long about not having enough upperclassmen to transfer knowledge about the Duke culture down to the underclassmen. I think you're right that he's building the program right now and that in the future, he intends to always have enough old guys around to transfer knowledge.

Bingo.

This is also why we are recruiting multiple guys for the same spots. The program really got caught out in 05 when Livingston was supposed to run the point. Additionally, we were extremely shallow on the front line without Deng these last two years. That won't happen again. And, I think, if that means that guys who can't get run end up transferring, then so be it.

[drksuh]

Mullet Man, you ask how would Carolina look if they lost a lot of guys to the pro ranks. Did you forget last year, when they lost most of their scoring from their NCAA Championship team and then stayed in the top 15 all year and beat us to end the season? That's how they have already looked!

[chris13]

UNC also had a truly exceptional senior leader in 2006 in David Noel and other good upperclass leaders like Wes Miller.

I do think Roy is trying to also mix in four year players with elite talent that is likely to leave early. If, say, Wright and Lawson bolt after this year, he'd still have a pretty good nucleus to start the '08 season with Hansbrough, Ellington as returning starters and Frasor, Green and Ginyard as upperclassmen who've played a lot and some promising but inexperienced players like Thompson, Stepeson (sp?). Then throw in Copeland, Graves and Q. Thomas and you've got a pretty decent squad.

Plus, if Brandan Wright had opted for Duke instead of UNC, Duke's season would have been better.

[vango]

I agree that we're in between recruiting concepts and it will take time to overcome that. I also agree that the year we had, after losing 2 4-year players who were AA, is pretty darned good. But I do have a question about the make-up of our team that confounds me. We seem sufficient in some spots but thin at others. There has been time to address that and I think I see it in some instances but do not in others: (I know that players can be multi-positional and in the current landscape it is not uncommon to play a non-traditional lineup - 3 guard lineup for instance)

Sufficient

We have a ton of SG: Pocius, Henderson, Nelson, Scheyer.
Coming: Smith
Targeting: Releford

I see us finally addressing a sore spot for us for a couple of years now at SF: McClure
Coming: King, Singler

Insufficient:

We will only have one PF (Thomas) if McBob leaves and Patterson doesn't come.
Targeting: Patterson (07); Monroe and Gooden (08)

Very Insufficient

PG: Paulus
Coming or Recruiting: None (entered on Drew but it seems too late)

C: Zoubek
Coming: None
Recruiting: Samuals (08)

NOT being critical and knowing what I know (as stated above) to be true, why do we find ourselves out of balance? I know Scheyer and Smith can play the point in a pinch but is that what we need ("in a pinch" backups - it's hard to ask a kid to play out of position and be good at it). I also know the true center is rare nowadays but even our PF (who can serve as a center) seems thin.

I just do not recall seeing this in the past. Perhaps somebody can explain to this football guy why this is OK. Just seems a team makeup of:

PG: 1
SG: 5
SF: 3
PF: 2 (maybe 3 or maybe 1)
C: 1

seems a bit out of whack.

Just curious what others who know much more than I about x's and o's as well as recruiting think.

[Troublemaker]

Mullet Man, you ask how would Carolina look if they lost a lot of guys to the pro ranks. Did you forget last year, when they lost most of their scoring from their NCAA Championship team and then stayed in the top 15 all year and beat us to end the season? That's how they have already looked!

Last year was an extremely weak year for college basketball and for the ACC. Duke 06 went 14-2 in the ACC, and UNC 07 went 11-5. Does that mean Duke 06 > UNC 07? Last year's UNC team would have struggled in this year's ACC as well. And guess what? They lost to 11 seed George Mason to end their season.

[Troublemaker]

vango, Singler and King will almost certainly be 4s in Duke's system and add perimeter scoring to that position. Think Battier.

[drksuh]

Yeah, troublemaker, but we lost early too.

[Troublemaker]

Yeah, troublemaker, but we lost early too.

I know. That's why I made the comparison.

[DragonWithMatches]

K is trying to build this PROGRAM (again, in a new college basketball landscape) into one that contends every year.

I agree that K is looking for more 4 year players but I think you can point to losing Wright to Ol Roy as a key factor in a disappointing season. It isn't like K won't recruit guys he knows will only be there one year. He seems to be trying to get both the superstar recruit as well as some 4 year guys. It's good strategy that didn't pan out when we didn't pull Wright. Our squad this year would be much, much better had he been paired with McRoberts inside. The high low game that could have been would be devistating.

[phaedrus]

Mullet Man, you ask how would Carolina look if they lost a lot of guys to the pro ranks. Did you forget last year, when they lost most of their scoring from their NCAA Championship team and then stayed in the top 15 all year and beat us to end the season? That's how they have already looked!

what makes you think north carolina last year had a better season than us this year? distant 2nd place in a weak acc? early exits from the acc and ncaa tournaments? top 20 AP ranking?

getting the freshman player of the year probably didn't hurt either.

[CMS2478]

Or you could.... That would be nice.

I love how you get on someone else for their posts and says it contributes nothing, when all you can say is [something uncivil].

You may want to try the ESPN boards you can call names there......by the way are we in kindergarten here :confused:

[Troublemaker]

Read this thread from the beginning. I didn't call anyone a name. I ....

[evrdukie]

Troublemaker, it would be better if you could be more civil. [Uncivil behavior] isn't an appropriate response to somebody who disagrees with you and doesn't add anything worthwhile to the discussion. Think about changing your approach.

[drksuh]

Let us all respect each others opinions. I apologize for any comments with which Troublemaker had trouble. I agree that we are a community to inform, entertain, enlighten, and provoke reasonable thought. Thanks to all for keeping it in perspective. We, including me, should not hide behind our anonymity and abuse the privilege we have of posting responsibly, intelligently and with civility.:)

[Troublemaker]

Troublemaker, it would be better if you could be more civil. [Uncivil speech] isn't an appropriate response to somebody who disagrees with you and doesn't add anything worthwhile to the discussion. Think about changing your approach.

Please, you know darn well it's not about disagreement. The poster in question is an annoying poster who has been subtly trying to flame the board. Do a lookup on his posts and it will be very hard to disagree. At any rate, I should ignore him instead of telling him to shut up. I am done with this string of conversation.

[evrdukie]

OK. But if you feel that way, just don't take the bait. No good reason not to keep it civil.

[Troublemaker]

You should leave the policing to the moderators. I've been around long enough to know what I want to do. Sometimes I will ignore a flamer. Sometimes I will engage. I do as I please. If I become unnecessarily uncivil (which is certainly possible), a moderator will let me know, not you.

[evrdukie]

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

[johnb]

I'm not sure we've changed recruiting philosophies, and I'm not sure that we had all that bad a season.

Sure, we'd like to avoid the Livingston situation, but, in most cases, we are offering 16-17 year olds, and there is simply no way to know in advance who is going to rocket from being top 30 to being a lottery pick out of high school. While we were recruiting them, Burgess and Randolph were the top rated players in their classes. We don't recruit anyone out of the top 50--and I doubt we are really avoiding the Durants and Odens if we could get them.

Another statistical issue relates to our losses, almost all of which were close. Admittedly, we lacked a great finisher this year in that a lot of our end-of-game shots rimmed out. There is a fine line between those losses, and if the ball had bounced slighty differently, we could have a 28-5 record, more confidence amongst our youth, and a game tomorrow. Our greatest victories have been marked by last-minute shots that happened to go in for us or didn't go in for the other team. Our great losses feature such near misses as Trajan and lucky #^#@! shots by Pervis. While we might see ourselves as having been routinely on the positive end of these games (indicating our power over the fates or something), I'd think we have lost as many of those as we've won.

As for next year, would you really change our roster for anyone else's?

[evrdukie]

Two of your comments stand out. Whether Duke had a bad season or not depends to some extent on one's perspective. I'm guessing that most Duke fans regard it as among the worst seasons in a long time. As for exchanging Duke's roster for next year for somebody else's, the answer I believe most objective observers would provide is "yes indeed."

[AnotherNYCDukeFan]

Insufficient:

We will only have one PF (Thomas) if McBob leaves and Patterson doesn't come.
Targeting: Patterson (07); Monroe and Gooden (08)



I think a lot of people also forget that K had recruited Eric Boateng last year. It was mentioned in another thread, but I believe the "transfer bug" has hurt the team recently as much as the early defection bug.

I think K has done a great job of recruiting, but as long as point guards and centers are highly coveted at the NBA level, top level players at that position will not be looking to split time and limit their exposure on the college level.

[JasonEvans]

As for next year, would you really change our roster for anyone else's?

I love our roster and our kids-- they are OUR KIDS after all, but from the standpoint of just basktball ability, I would take the following rosters over ours.

1) UCLA - not a senior on the team this year and adding super-frosh Kevin Love. while some early entry is a possibility, it is hard to peg any of the UCLA kids as certain to leave. Afflalo seems the most likely.

2) Kansas - again, no seniors on the squad. As for early entry, Julian Wright seems like he is going to leave but that is probably it. They've got a couple good recruits too.

possibly 3 and 4) Ohio State and/or UNC - early entry makes it really tough to predict what thse teams will have next season, but if Ohio State only loses Oden, they have a ton back and they add some pretty decvent recruits (including a 7-footer who can at least begin to try to replace Oden). If Carolina only loses Wright to the NBA, they would have a very strong roster next season.

That's about it. I could search a bit more but I doubt I would find many others in our league. Ga Tech, if Young and Crittendon stay, will have a very impressive roster.

-Jason "point is, we are in gooood shape talent-wise and should be much better from the standpoint of experience too" Evans

[mapei]

Georgetown - no seniors, and stud freshmen coming in.

[JBDuke]

Georgetown - no seniors, and stud freshmen coming in.

Yeah, but you know as well as I that the scuttlebutt has Green leaving and Hibbert maybe as well.

[duke69]

How are Singlar and King rated in the Top 5 HS prospects? They have great basketball skills but are not as athletic as many of the top 50 prospects. Maybe next year the ACC will have a "HORSE" tournament.

Where are the days of recruiting guys like Elton Brand, Corey Maggette, Jayson Williams and William Avery?

[Indoor66]

I would say it's a function of player talent and skill. It's difficult to look like you have chemistry when it's a chore for you to just advance the ball, pass and catch, and dribble in some cases.

I think it is more personality, respect, desire, motivation, selflessness and other "intangibles." My opinion: all the players on the rosters of all the division 1 schools are very good basketball players. Some, obviously, are better than others, but all are very good. If you doubt it, step on the court with the last man on Duke's bench and see what happens.

The teams that do very well do so because the individuals play well together. Their skill complement each other. Why? Because of the coaching scheme, the individual abilities and, imo most importantly, because of their "being" mixing with their teammate's "being".

We all meet people with whom we hit it off. I think the same happens with players. That "hitting it off" can be instant or develop over time. It is an intangible. Sometimes quick to develop, sometimes never developed. K has had the ability to bring that "mix" off most of the time. This pot needs more simmering. '07 - '08 will be better because we will add some oregano, garlic, onions and let it simmer - and K et al will continue to stir.

[Troublemaker]

I think it is more personality, respect, desire, motivation, selflessness and other "intangibles." My opinion: all the players on the rosters of all the division 1 schools are very good basketball players. Some, obviously, are better than others, but all are very good. If you doubt it, step on the court with the last man on Duke's bench and see what happens.

The teams that do very well do so because the individuals play well together. Their skill complement each other. Why? Because of the coaching scheme, the individual abilities and, imo most importantly, because of their "being" mixing with their teammate's "being".

We all meet people with whom we hit it off. I think the same happens with players. That "hitting it off" can be instant or develop over time. It is an intangible. Sometimes quick to develop, sometimes never developed. K has had the ability to bring that "mix" off most of the time. This pot needs more simmering. '07 - '08 will be better because we will add some oregano, garlic, onions and let it simmer - and K et al will continue to stir.

Well stated. I agree with everything you said but what I'm saying is this. I believe there are instances where people are mistaking poor basketball skill or decision-making for lack of chemistry. If a nice pass is thrown to a player who bobbles the catch, he may just have poor hands instead of poor chemistry with the passer. If a guard dribbles himself into a trap in the corner and turns it over before finding a teammate to pass to, he may just be slow, short, and a poor dribbler instead of having poor chemistry with his teammates.

[Indoor66]

Well stated. I agree with everything you said but what I'm saying is this. I believe there are instances where people are mistaking poor basketball skill or decision-making for lack of chemistry. If a nice pass is thrown to a player who bobbles the catch, he may just have poor hands instead of poor chemistry with the passer. If a guard dribbles himself into a trap in the corner and turns it over before finding a teammate to pass to, he may just be slow, short, and a poor dribbler instead of having poor chemistry with his teammates.

I am not picking an argument, but sometimes I think we fans demand a degree of perfection that is not found among any players (including the play-for-pay crowd.)

The game is quick, players have innumerable distractions at all moments. Passes are thrown and the defense reacts as well as the offense. Reactions around the intended receiver can cause distraction. Coordination is still developing. Eye off the ball. Bumped. Nerves.

It seems to me we want to see error free play by kids still learning to play. I remember being at soccer game yelling "don't bunch up" do kids who later won state championships. I think we tend to be very impatient with our "hero's." I try to remember that they all have clay feet.

[Troublemaker]

I am not picking an argument, but sometimes I think we fans demand a degree of perfection that is not found among any players (including the play-for-pay crowd.)

The game is quick, players have innumerable distractions at all moments. Passes are thrown and the defense reacts as well as the offense. Reactions around the intended receiver can cause distraction. Coordination is still developing. Eye off the ball. Bumped. Nerves.

It seems to me we want to see error free play by kids still learning to play. I remember being at soccer game yelling "don't bunch up" do kids who later won state championships. I think we tend to be very impatient with our "hero's." I try to remember that they all have clay feet.

I agree. That's why youth isn't an excuse but a reality. I think in a couple of years, this team will be quite dandy.

[Jarhead]

Troublemaker, it would be better if you could be more civil. [Uncivil behavior] isn't an appropriate response to somebody who disagrees with you and doesn't add anything worthwhile to the discussion. Think about changing your approach.

I have just gone over all of Troublemaker's posts in this thread, and I did not see one statement that would qualify as uncivil behavior. In fact, the first uncivil post I noticed was this one at 12:03PM yesterday:


I love how you get on someone else for their posts and says it contributes nothing, when all you can say is [something uncivil].

You may want to try the ESPN boards you can call names there......by the way are we in kindergarten here :confused:

I was really enjoying this thread until this discussion of uncivil behavior started. What's going on. huh?

[Troublemaker]

I have just gone over all of Troublemaker's posts in this thread, and I did not see one statement that would qualify as uncivil behavior. In fact, the first uncivil post I noticed was this one at 12:03PM yesterday:
I was really enjoying this thread until this discussion of uncivil behavior started. What's going on. huh?

I think a couple of posts were deleted so the context isn't there. But the situation has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, I believe. I would just ignore the remnants, Jarhead. Thanks.

[mapei]

Yeah, but you know as well as I that the scuttlebutt has Green leaving and Hibbert maybe as well.

Hi JB. I guess we can speculate but neither of us can prove anything for a while. And I fear you may be right about Jeff. His father was quoted a couple of weeks ago to the effect that "Jeff will have a decision to make," which certainly isn't reassuring.

But Roy is a different situation. He has said repeatedly that he is coming back, even using the phrase "case closed." You have to remember that this is a kid who loves the school. He went to Georgetown Prep (nickname: Little Hoyas) before coming to GU, and the degree means a lot more to him than it does to most. He has also said that he intends to keep improving in college before moving on. I'd say the odds are 90% on a return by Roy, but only 45% on a return by Jeff.

[Salty Breezes]

Seems to me that this year, as in many years past, we're stuck with a team with far too little size. I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to more consistently recruit guys that can truly bang inside, rather than just taking the best athletes and/or leaders available.

Yes, I realize that the loss of Boateng and Boykin were a big factor this year, but watching us get manhandled inside by Ebekwe, Gist, and Osby left me pining for just one guy with some muscle inside.

We need the next Shelden, Boozer, etc...

[Duke76]

I agree with Vango, until we get a speed demon with other obvious skills as a Point Guard we are going to be lacking all the ingredients to get back to the top and compete for a title.

If we can't stop opposing teams point guards from penetrating the middle nor we can penetrate the middle on offense like Hurley and Williams did during our championship years we're dead in the water, imo.

[Jarhead]

Thanks for the clarification.. *** NM ***

[MikeBinDC]

Someone explain to me where Coach K was when it came to possibly recruiting guys like Eric Maynor of VCU (a Fayetteville native) and Stephen Curry of Davidson (a Charlotte native). These were in-state players that got completely overlooked. We haven't had a guy who could do to others what Maynor did against us since Jason Williams, and Curry would have actually shot the ball this season, as opposed to Scheyer who never seemed to shoot if there was anyone within 30 feet of him. Our recruiting needs to get better.

[jimsumner]

"Someone explain to me where Coach K was when it came to possibly recruiting guys like Eric Maynor of VCU (a Fayetteville native) and Stephen Curry of Davidson (a Charlotte native)"

The same place as Roy Williams, Herb Sendek, Skip Prosser, Gary Williams, et. al.

Guys that slip in under the radar pretty much slip in under everybody's radar. How many of George Mason's guys last year turned down ACC schools? Probably none.

[phaedrus]

i've mentioned this before on another thread. it's nice to score 20/game in the socon, but curry went 2-9 for 5 points against us, while thomas, scheyer, and zoubek all scored in double figures. scheyer also put up 25 or so against unc.

as for maynor, are we going to ask why someone didn't get recruited by us everytime they have a great game against us? what about dominic james? that guy (killingsworth) from indiana who had 30+ against us and shelden last year?

for all this talk about how maynor "exposed" paulus' defensive weakness, what about paulus putting up 25 against maynor? why would we want a point guard who can't stop a slow, short white dude from scoring?

regarding the in-state angle, there's no reason to concentrate more on in-state players when we can get the cream of the crop nationally. i think we all remember what happened the last time we got nc's top prep player.

[Saratoga2]

Someone explain to me where Coach K was when it came to possibly recruiting guys like Eric Maynor of VCU (a Fayetteville native) and Stephen Curry of Davidson (a Charlotte native). These were in-state players that got completely overlooked. We haven't had a guy who could do to others what Maynor did against us since Jason Williams, and Curry would have actually shot the ball this season, as opposed to Scheyer who never seemed to shoot if there was anyone within 30 feet of him. Our recruiting needs to get better.

This is no knock on any player you mentioned, but coach K is constrained to go after players out of a pool of those academically able to succeed. We definitely do need one of more quick guards to compete successfully at the NCAA tournament level. All the successful teams have that in common. We could also use another banger with offensive skills inside, and coach K is after Patterson to fill that role. My understanding is that Patterson has a solid academic background.

As far as Scheyer goes, he did defer more often than he should have later in the year but his form is good and maybe a year of seasoning will bring him along. I expect it of him and he has the multiple skills needed to be a top class Div 1 player. One area he could improve on over the summer is his ability to get his shot off more quickly. JJ certainly improved in that area and Scheyer has an inch and some arm length on him as well, so has the tools to improve.

[Salty Breezes]

I keep hearing this in reference to our football and bball recruiting -- that we have either stringent admission policies, or won't take players because they won't succeed at Duke. Can anyone help me by explaining how the admissions process works with athletes at Duke? Do we have some written admission policies that others don't? While I know we're all waiting on the next Grant Hill, with freakish talent and academics to match, haven't we done a pretty darn good job of getting nearly everyone through a 4-year Duke academic career? How much does this really matter? How much is it just a convenient excuse?

[mapei]

On a related but different point, I have gotten a vague impression that we are not likely to get Patterson next year. True? I could be completely wrong, since I get almost all my information from reading this board.

But, if so, why do we keep talking about him?

[DukeBlood]

On a related but different point, I have gotten a vague impression that we are not likely to get Patterson next year. True? I could be completely wrong, since I get almost all my information from reading this board.

But, if so, why do we keep talking about him?

Hopefully Watzone will accidently tell us ;) jk

It sounds like he really likes Florida and Billy D(from various articles). However, he is waiting to see who goes pro which leads me to believe he wants immdediate playing time. Which is very important to him. So if Noah and Harford(sp) are still there then he wont go. Who know's though.. He should be deciding soon(i think)

[jimsumner]

Duke is still in play for Patterson. And vice-versa.

As a general rule, the question that admissions tries to answer for prospective athletes is simple. Can this prospective student-athlete handle Duke's academics to the benefit of the student-athlete and the benefit of the university? The prospective pool of folks for whom the answer is yes is substantially smaller than that of the opposition.

The devil, of course, is in the details.

[phaedrus]

I keep hearing this in reference to our football and bball recruiting -- that we have either stringent admission policies, or won't take players because they won't succeed at Duke. Can anyone help me by explaining how the admissions process works with athletes at Duke? Do we have some written admission policies that others don't? While I know we're all waiting on the next Grant Hill, with freakish talent and academics to match, haven't we done a pretty darn good job of getting nearly everyone through a 4-year Duke academic career? How much does this really matter? How much is it just a convenient excuse?

i can't address bball or football specifically, so i'm speaking of athletics in general - basically each program/coach has a certain amount of "pull" in getting kids admitted who wouldn't ordinarily make it. it would be tough for the wrestling/swimming/track coaches to get a kid in without a very good gpa and 1200+ SAT (the standard is probably closer to 1300, if i had to guess). lacrosse and soccer probably have more leeway. with football and basketball, i think the emphasis would be on whether they would be able to handle the academic load and graduate in 4 years while competing, rather than some specific numbers/criteria.

[gw67]

There is a reason that Coach K reportedly left after the team returned home to view Patterson's game. The Devils need frontcourt players. For all the complaining about Paulus, the weakest position this year was the PF position, IMO. Thomas was not ready and McClure gave up too much size to several opponents. I've got my fingers crossed that Thomas will make the adjustments and improve significantly in his soph year. His shooting % was very good but the rest of his frosh stats are not impressive and some are poor (A/TO of 1/43 and total of 3 blocked shots - Hayes of Md, a guard, had 5).

With regard to the point guards on teams left in the tourney, there are several really fast, quick players; however, the guards on Tennessee, Butler, Pitt, Vandy, UNLV and Georgetown, while good, are not extraordinary burners.

gw67

[The Gordog]

I agree that we're in between recruiting concepts and it will take time to overcome that. I also agree that the year we had, after losing 2 4-year players who were AA, is pretty darned good. But I do have a question about the make-up of our team that confounds me. We seem sufficient in some spots but thin at others. There has been time to address that and I think I see it in some instances but do not in others: (I know that players can be multi-positional and in the current landscape it is not uncommon to play a non-traditional lineup - 3 guard lineup for instance)

Sufficient

We have a ton of SG: Pocius, Henderson, Nelson, Scheyer.
Coming: Smith
Targeting: Releford

I see us finally addressing a sore spot for us for a couple of years now at SF: McClure
Coming: King, Singler

Insufficient:

We will only have one PF (Thomas) if McBob leaves and Patterson doesn't come.
Targeting: Patterson (07); Monroe and Gooden (08)

Very Insufficient

PG: Paulus
Coming or Recruiting: None (entered on Drew but it seems too late)

C: Zoubek
Coming: None
Recruiting: Samuals (08)

NOT being critical and knowing what I know (as stated above) to be true, why do we find ourselves out of balance? I know Scheyer and Smith can play the point in a pinch but is that what we need ("in a pinch" backups - it's hard to ask a kid to play out of position and be good at it). I also know the true center is rare nowadays but even our PF (who can serve as a center) seems thin.

I just do not recall seeing this in the past. Perhaps somebody can explain to this football guy why this is OK. Just seems a team makeup of:

PG: 1
SG: 5
SF: 3
PF: 2 (maybe 3 or maybe 1)
C: 1

seems a bit out of whack.

Just curious what others who know much more than I about x's and o's as well as recruiting think.

We have never had more than one point guard in the K era. Dawkins could handle point, but was far more valuable as a 2. Snyder had one year of overlap with Amaker, then Hurley took over, then we relied on Grant in 94, then Wojo came in thru 98, Avery had one year of overlap and was suppossed to stay thru 01, but thankfully we had JWill in the truck for 2000-2002. Duhon was recruited as a shooting guard (he won the 3 point contest at the McD's game) and he developed PG skills on the job.

[vango]

Gordog:

All very good points. Thanks for pointing them out. Regardless, that seems a bit risky. The overlap doesn't appear to be in play in the future, however, as I do not see a PG on our recruiting board for 07 or 08. I thought Scheyer did admirable in the point some this year but he belongs at SG - it is obvious I think. From what I've seen of Smith he is fast and maybe would have been Oak Hill's PG were it not for the one they had (that kid - going to USC - forget his name - is FAST!). Perhaps Smith is Paulus' understudy? [just a thought I had - if Smith is point worthy then maybe Paulus to SG? - the kid was stroking it there at the end and would be like a double-point - just thinking out loud on options here. It would be hard to keep Henderson off the court and maybe even Pocius].

After I posted my first message I realized that we were not originally that thin at C and PF b/c we had Boykin and Boateng and they decided to play elsewhere.

Perhaps we really are between recruiting concepts/plans and perhaps we've just had some unfortunate events with defections causing holes for us. We do seem so sufficient with SG's compared to almost every other position though.

[mcdukie]

In terms of recruiting, I still say we need to beat the bushes a little bit for players instead of just recruiting MCDAA types. For next year, we all need to remember that Nolan Smith is an outstanding talent but not necessarily a point guard. Like Duhon before him, he will probably be converted into a point which will only help his longterm goals. I am still very leery of us at the point next year.

[MChambers]

He came in as a point guard, and Coach K convinced him and Williams they could co-exist.

I could see Smith and Paulus playing together quite easily, sharing ball-handling responsibilites.

[Clipsfan]

Gordog:

All very good points. Thanks for pointing them out. Regardless, that seems a bit risky. The overlap doesn't appear to be in play in the future, however, as I do not see a PG on our recruiting board for 07 or 08. I thought Scheyer did admirable in the point some this year but he belongs at SG - it is obvious I think. From what I've seen of Smith he is fast and maybe would have been Oak Hill's PG were it not for the one they had (that kid - going to USC - forget his name - is FAST!). Perhaps Smith is Paulus' understudy? [just a thought I had - if Smith is point worthy then maybe Paulus to SG? - the kid was stroking it there at the end and would be like a double-point - just thinking out loud on options here. It would be hard to keep Henderson off the court and maybe even Pocius].

After I posted my first message I realized that we were not originally that thin at C and PF b/c we had Boykin and Boateng and they decided to play elsewhere.

Perhaps we really are between recruiting concepts/plans and perhaps we've just had some unfortunate events with defections causing holes for us. We do seem so sufficient with SG's compared to almost every other position though.

Don't forget that we most likely have Paulus for two more years, and as you mentioned, we can spell him with both Scheyer and Smith. That's deep enough at hte PG slot, especially given that Paulus is likely to play 36+ minutes most nights. I think that you're also forgetting that Drew may be on our radar as a PG recruit. The center position isn't as deep, but there aren't many college teams with 2 seven footers. It's not unusual to have a pro PF play C, especially here at Duke. We are likely to be a perimeter oriented team next year.

[sammy3469]

It still shocks me that people think K recruited incorrectly. The PF position should have been solved by McRoberts progression as a low post scorer. Only problem was he had back surgery over the summer and never added the muscle needed. Same with Paulus and his foot, Henderson, and Nelson (over his career). 4 of our McD AA have had significant injuries that have hindered their development (3 of which occurred over last summer).

Those things happen in sports.

[dockfan]

We certainly could use a power player like Patrick Patterson to play the 4/5 for this team. However, regardless of what happens with Patterson and McRoberts, the team isn't hurting that much at "PF" - a position that Coach K & staff call the "second big." McClure can do it, even though he gives up height. (remember, Lee Melchionni did a decent job at the 4 for us two years ago, and no disrespect to Lee, but we've upgraded there.) And Lance will be just fine with an offseason of hard work. G can probably do it some if needed, but I doubt we'll get there.

Mainly, I expect Singler and King to be able to play a lot as the second big. Heck, if Josh leaves, I wouldn't be shocked to see Singler and King as the two bigs (depending on matchups, and their abilities to defend the post and rebound). With all of the quick 3-guard lineups we often face, Singler (and King especially) probably match up better defensively as the second big.

Plus, at least for next year, we can sort of get away with guys playing slightly out of position inside (giving up height or rebounds) because Markie gives the team a huge advantage with his rebounding ability as a guard.

But there is still a HUGE role awaiting Patrick Patterson if he decides to come to Duke.

[vango]

Don't forget that we most likely have Paulus for two more years, and as you mentioned, we can spell him with both Scheyer and Smith. That's deep enough at hte PG slot, especially given that Paulus is likely to play 36+ minutes most nights. I think that you're also forgetting that Drew may be on our radar as a PG recruit. The center position isn't as deep, but there aren't many college teams with 2 seven footers. It's not unusual to have a pro PF play C, especially here at Duke. We are likely to be a perimeter oriented team next year.

True about Paulus. Still - I'd feel more comfortable with a PG backup. Not a SG backup to the point. Not being critical mind you - I do not have 3 rings so I do not think I know better. I think I'm just stating the obvious.

I don't think we have a chance with Drew - but I could be wrong. We entered very late and from what I've read seems enamoured with UNC (two post holiday visits and has them on the top of his list from what I read).

I alluded in my original post in this thread to the fact that the true center almost doesn't exist in college anymore and we can survive without one. Zoub is probably the first true traditional center we've had in a while.