Dave Glenn's Duke Take

[tux]

I found Dave Glenn's article (http://www.wral.com/sports/blogpost/2623997/) linked on the DBR main page pretty interesting. But I wonder if it's just another way of saying that Duke had very young teams in most of those non-championship years. Duke's All-Americans were mostly AAs during their junior or senior seasons (JWill is one exception I can think of off the top of my head). I.e., Battier was not an AA his sophomore year, neither was Grant Hill (he was 3rd team as a Jr and 1st tam as a Sr., if you can believe that!) In the past 5-7 years, several Duke players who could have become AAs have left early for the draft, like Deng --- and I would maybe include Josh there as well. He had the talent to be that good by his senior season. The lower average age of college ball also skews this a bit; obviously, a So. Grant Hill could probably be an AA in today's game. Of course, Belmont and WV also don't have any AAs. Is there something about K's approach that makes good (but not great) teams less likely to overachieve?

[Classof06]

I agree with Glenn's take in the sense that Duke really didn't have any "superstar" player this year. We had a bunch of good players and a couple of very good players but no great ones.

But you can't just talk about not having the "stars" when most of the great players at Duke usually hit star status in their junior or senior years and we only had one of each this past season. I don't think Krzyzewski envisioned Demarcus having to carry such a load his senior year when he recruited him and I expect the same with Paulus.

Everyone got on me when I said it during the season but this team was still young this past season. There's no way around it and Krzyzewski said as much after the WVU game. The win over Belmont was every player's first NCAA Tourney win except for Demarcus and Greg; if that doesn't convince you, I don't know what will.

So Glenn makes a very strong point. Amidst all the speculation and the 10,000 different reasons people have come up with for the results of the past two seasons, Glenn's explanation is pretty straightforward, objective and backed with solid evidence. I totally agree with Glenn but when you take it a step further, you see that the past two years, we've simply been young and that is a problem Duke usually doesn't have to deal with. Unusual times yield unusual results...

[TwoDukeTattoos]

Really, his article echoes what I've said all along. During the years that we won the titles, we had marquee players. Marquees on the horizon? Certainly Singler can be if we can ever have him playing in his natural position. Henderson is ready to break out - you can tell. And I have a feeling that Elliot Williams is going to be huge for us. If Czyz plays particularly well early, we have the chance to be pretty awesome next year.

[SoCalDukeFan]

With early entry you can either have elite players and be young or have not so elite players.

DeMarcus Nelson may not have been one of the very best players in the country but he was one of the very best seniors.

Now Henderson and Singler may be elite players next year. I hope so. But then if they are then that may be their last year at Duke.

We had better get used to being young or get used to early tournament exits.

SoCal

[tux]

With early entry you can either have elite players and be young or have not so elite players.

DeMarcus Nelson may not have been one of the very best players in the country but he was one of the very best seniors.

Now Henderson and Singler may be elite players next year. I hope so. But then if they are then that may be their last year at Duke.

We had better get used to being young or get used to early tournament exits.

SoCal

Unless I'm misreading your post: Are we not getting used to both? We're young and our young guys are not the instant-AA types. (Not many are.) I think we are just now working our way through a few unfortunate early entries/tranfers that have left some thin classes. We need the current Fr. and So. classes to stick around; if that happens, then I think Duke will steadily improve. There's no reason to think that next year's team can't be better then this year's team, if all stay/get healthy. This year's team could have made the regional finals --- that would have been a healthy expectation given the way the season progressed; the early exit has just given us a collective hangover.

[west_coast_devil]

I feel good about next year's team. They were exciting to watch this year until they hit that wall three quarters into the season, and i have no doubt that they will get back too or exceed that level of play. With experience and maturity this team will most likely improve, however, a post presence would be nice. In regards to AA's, if GH and KS continue to develop there is no doubt in my mind they could become media darlings themselves and get the votes to become AA's. It's going to be a long offseason.... can't wait for November.

[Madrasdukie]

Is there something about K's approach that makes good (but not great) teams less likely to overachieve?

Here are a few thoughts that come to mind that may answer your question:

1. The trend of All Americans determining NCAA championships is not true just for K. There maybe a few exceptions but it seems to be a universal correlation.

2. So, why doesn't K recruit super-talented players all the time ?

I'm sure he tries but I think he also ensures that they fit the Duke "type". And I'm not sure how frequently you see players that are super-talented and of the Duke type. My guess: that frequency correlates well with Duke getting an awesome recruiting class.

3. Does K determine how soon a player becomes an All American ? Maybe. But I think player talent determines this to a large extent esp. since becoming an All American is defined by numbers. I think K emphasizes on grooming a more complete player than one who should become an All American as soon as possible.

4. It also seems that K values the presence of seniors & upperclassmen and that they have been the corner stones of his success. Given the the way the college-to-NBA transition has changed over the years, he ended up having recent years without that strong senior & upper-classmen presence. Not surprisingly, these years also coincide with lack of tournament success (we've still had great seasons but not in the tournament).

5. K's so-called down years (resulting from lack of seniors and upper classmen, and/ or lack of talent at a certain position) are far and away superior to the down years of programs like Florida, Ohio State, Michigan State, and UNC to name a few. I think our 2007-08 team, is the best case-in-point.

6. I'm not sure if good teams with players that are also academically- and team-oriented (aka. Duke "type" players) are equivalent to good players who don't satisfy the above criteria. Perhaps, good players of the latter kind are more likely to excel at a younger age.

Joe Mazz' was playing with reckless abandon. While this years team had guards trying to rebound, I don't know if K encourages his pg to bang with bigger guys for rebounds. I bet if asked to, Greg would have laid it all out there, but I don't think K was going to do that knowing how valuable Greg is to running our offense.

Bad luck: I refuse to believe that Nelson's sub-par performance in the NCAA's was merely because he was "trying too hard" - he was absolutely under the weather. Under healthier conditions his offense might have wavered but his defense and rebounding seldom would have, and that I thought, unfortunately, was the difference - a healthier Nelson on Joe Mazz' (among other things) equals different outcome.

7. How do we define success ? Bad luck = 28 wins, I mean how many teams can say that ?

In other words, anyway you look at it, the man is working with self-imposed constraints, constraints that result from having a certain standard. So, for him to have had the success that he has had (and esp. this season) while always adhering to his "standard", I think is an incredibly admirable achievement - anyway I look at it, it is just simply an incredibly admirable achievement

[tux]

Here are a few thoughts that come to mind that may answer your question:

1. The trend of All Americans determining NCAA championships is not true just for K. There maybe a few exceptions but it seems to be a universal correlation.

2. So, why doesn't K recruit super-talented players all the time ?

I'm sure he tries but I think he also ensures that they fit the Duke "type". And I'm not sure how frequently you see players that are super-talented and of the Duke type. My guess: that frequency correlates well with Duke getting an awesome recruiting class.

3. Does K determine how soon a player becomes an All American ? Maybe. But I think player talent determines this to a large extent esp. since becoming an All American is defined by numbers. I think K emphasizes on grooming a more complete player than one who should become an All American as soon as possible.

4. It also seems that K values the presence of seniors & upperclassmen and that they have been the corner stones of his success. Given the the way the college-to-NBA transition has changed over the years, he ended up having recent years without that strong senior & upper-classmen presence. Not surprisingly, these years also coincide with lack of tournament success (we've still had great seasons but not in the tournament).

5. K's so-called down years (resulting from lack of seniors and upper classmen, and/ or lack of talent at a certain position) are far and away superior to the down years of programs like Florida, Ohio State, Michigan State, and UNC to name a few. I think our 2007-08 team, is the best case-in-point.

6. I'm not sure if good teams with players that are also academically- and team-oriented (aka. Duke "type" players) are equivalent to good players who don't satisfy the above criteria. Perhaps, good players of the latter kind are more likely to excel at a younger age.

Joe Mazz' was playing with reckless abandon. While this years team had guards trying to rebound, I don't know if K encourages his pg to bang with bigger guys for rebounds. I bet if asked to, Greg would have laid it all out there, but I don't think K was going to do that knowing how valuable Greg is to running our offense.

Bad luck: I refuse to believe that Nelson's sub-par performance in the NCAA's was merely because he was "trying too hard" - he was absolutely under the weather. Under healthier conditions his offense might have wavered but his defense and rebounding seldom would have, and that I thought, unfortunately, was the difference - a healthier Nelson on Joe Mazz' (among other things) equals different outcome.

7. How do we define success ? Bad luck = 28 wins, I mean how many teams can say that ?

In other words, anyway you look at it, the man is working with self-imposed constraints, constraints that result from having a certain standard. So, for him to have had the success that he has had (and esp. this season) while always adhering to his "standard", I think is an incredibly admirable achievement - anyway I look at it, it is just simply an incredibly admirable achievement

I think that was a good answer. The team that can run the gauntlet of the NCAA tourney most likely has AA-type players, but there will be several teams with that type of talent that fall to "less talented" teams. So, to state the obvious, you need top-notch talent and a dose of good luck. I'll file the flu bug not as an excuse but, at the very least, a bit of bad luck for our Blue Devils.

[Skitzle]

I think the real question is this:

When was the last time an NCAA Champ didn't have an all-american on the squad?

I'm not much of a college basketball history buff, so I'm kinda putting this out there to the ones that are in the know.

[Exiled_Devil]

I think the real question is this:

When was the last time an NCAA Champ didn't have an all-american on the squad?

I'm not much of a college basketball history buff, so I'm kinda putting this out there to the ones that are in the know.

2007 (Florida) didn't have any for the sporting new (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=186991)s -
Maryland didn't have any in 2002, I think.


SO there are a few examples.

[VaDukie]

2007 (Florida) didn't have any for the sporting new (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=186991)s -
Maryland didn't have any in 2002, I think.


SO there are a few examples.

I don't know for sure but I'd guess Juan Dixon was in 2002.

[_Gary]

I pretty much completely agree with Glenn's take. We can come up with numerous reasons why Duke has bowed out early the last several years, but I'm not sure that Glenn doesn't come up with the most obvious reason. What I would say, kind of in addition to Glenn's comments, is that we do have the AA type players at the 2-4 position. It's the 1 and the 5 where I'm just not sure we have the great player. Good players for sure, but I'm not too sure we have great players at those positions. And I think we need at least one of those two positions to be occupied by an All-American in order to be a serious, serious title contender. Just my two cents.

[lmb]

2007 (Florida) didn't have any for the sporting new (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=186991)s -
Maryland didn't have any in 2002, I think.


SO there are a few examples.


Maybe they didn't have AA's but Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, and Chris Wilcox(?) are currently playing in the NBA. Sarunas Jesse'sCabbages was just released this season. Al Horford and Noah are playing in the league, along with a couple of others. I'm going on memory here, so forgive me if I'm off on a couple of these - but you get the point.

NBA talent is probably a better measuring stick than AA talent. Syracuse won on the talent of Carmelo. UConn had Okafor and Boone (I can't believe he's still playing in the NBA). Our entire 2001 starting line-up was made up of NBA talent. It's got to be a factor.

[mr. synellinden]

I think it's pretty simple. Talent wins. For all we want to say about coaching and communication and leadership and team unity, the most talented teams usually win. Yes there have been exceptions. Georgia Tech went to the title game in 2004. Florida was probably not the most talented team in 2006 but they did have three future lottery picks and another first rounder. Duke went from losing to UNLV by 30 to beating them the next year with the addition of one of the greatest basketball talents ever - Grant Hill.

UNC and Illinois had the most talent in 2005. Florida for sure did last year. Kansas, UNC, Memphis, UCLA and Texas do this year - they just happen to be the top 5 teams in the country.

Some thought that Gerald would reach AA status this year but he didn't. Many think Singler will next year. They are unquestionably our most talented players ... with Scheyer close behind. If Singler had stayed at his mid ACC season level and Henderson didn't get hurt, maybe we are all discussing right now how we beat Xavier and UCLA. In fact, I am sure we are.

In 2004, we had Duhon, Ewing, Shelden and JJ - all future NBAers and we were 3 minutes away from beating Okafor, Gordon, Boone and Villanueava - comparable talent.

Our 2002 season is one that we should look back on with regret - we had Duhon, Boozer, Dunleavy and JWill. That team should have been in the Final Four, although I am not sure that MD wasn't the better team that year. Others can look to 2006 but LSU had two great talents on that team - Davis and Thomas.

What I am saying is that Glenn is spot on in his assessment. The reason Duke had such a remarkable run between 1997 and 2006 is simple ... we had Brand, Avery, Battier, Williams, Boozer, Dunleavy, Duhon, Redick and Shelden.

The reason we haven't had similar success in recent season is simple, our most talented players left or didn't come -- How would we have been in 2006 with Livingston and Deng on the roster? How good would we have been this year with McRoberts?

People make a lot about coaching and strategy and bench play and shooting three pointers, etc. There is a reason why Duke was able to win games this year shooting poorly from the outside or getting outrebounded and always playing with no post presence - we had more talent than most teams. But as you advance in the tourney the cream rises to the top and you are at each step playing teams with better talent. When there isn't as much of a gap as there has been in years past, you are increasing the chances of an early loss.

The good news is that we should be one of the most talented teams in the country next year with three potential All-Americans in Singler, Henderson and Scheyer. I suspect all three will make All-ACC first or second team and all could make some AA teams. The bad news is that if UNC doesn't lose anyone to the NBA, they could go undefeated.

[Exiled_Devil]

Maybe they didn't have AA's but Juan Dixon, Steve Blake, and Chris Wilcox(?) are currently playing in the NBA. Sarunas Jesse'sCabbages was just released this season. Al Horford and Noah are playing in the league, along with a couple of others. I'm going on memory here, so forgive me if I'm off on a couple of these - but you get the point.

NBA talent is probably a better measuring stick than AA talent. Syracuse won on the talent of Carmelo. UConn had Okafor and Boone (I can't believe he's still playing in the NBA). Our entire 2001 starting line-up was made up of NBA talent. It's got to be a factor.

I'm not so sure how that argument works out though. hindsight is great, but Boozer was a late 2nd rounder, as was Duhon. People talk about thier NBA accomplishments, but both were derided by opposing fans while they were here.


I think that NBA as a measure of NCAA quality is not a good metric - it involves too much extrapolation one way (Beasley should be POTY, he'll be the first draft pick) or the other (Dunleavy is exploding at the Pacers, why didn't he give us 30 point games). Any extrapolation involves projecting data far afield from its source, and consequently makes the already subjective process of evaluation even more problematic. AA awards at least measure NCAA success in a given year.



Edit: Dixon was a Wooden finalist in 2002 - good call. I'd say that counts. Did FLA have any finalists last year?

[blueprofessor]

...and was ACC POY,although Jason Williams was also a consensus A-A and the winner of the Wooden Award.The link:
http://www.theacc.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/092602aaa.html

IIRC, Dixon's aunt(Sheila ? Dixon) is mayor of Baltimore.

Best regards.:)

[Saratoga2]

I found Dave Glenn's article (http://www.wral.com/sports/blogpost/2623997/) linked on the DBR main page pretty interesting. But I wonder if it's just another way of saying that Duke had very young teams in most of those non-championship years. Duke's All-Americans were mostly AAs during their junior or senior seasons (JWill is one exception I can think of off the top of my head). I.e., Battier was not an AA his sophomore year, neither was Grant Hill (he was 3rd team as a Jr and 1st tam as a Sr., if you can believe that!) In the past 5-7 years, several Duke players who could have become AAs have left early for the draft, like Deng --- and I would maybe include Josh there as well. He had the talent to be that good by his senior season. The lower average age of college ball also skews this a bit; obviously, a So. Grant Hill could probably be an AA in today's game. Of course, Belmont and WV also don't have any AAs. Is there something about K's approach that makes good (but not great) teams less likely to overachieve?

Had we made it to the sweet 16, would that have been overachieving? The situation is that Henderson, Scheyer and Paulus all provided what was expected of them in the tourney, yet we lost because a few people had off games. Had they done anything close to the norm they set during the regular season, we would have been in the sweet 16 and possibly further. So what caused some players to have such off games? I believe that is why this team didn't overachieve this year . Find the reason those players had such off games and you find out why we achieved less than some of us hoped for.

You asked if there was anything in coach K style that makes a good team achieve less than it might. In general, I would say no. The only thing I can think of is that he seems to stick with players that are having a bad night when possible alternatives are there. There is no guarantee that making substitutions would have won the games, but he tends to stick with his proven performers when they are not playing well.

[RockyMtDevil]

Glenn is dead on in his assessment, as is Colin Cowherd who ripped Duke to pieces on espn radio Monday morning.

K isn't getting elite talent anymore because it appears he has changed his recruiting strategy. He simply will not go after one-and-done players it appears and so we need to get used to the "new look blue devils" that appear to be more and more like what Gary Williams has built at Maryland. Henderson is the only nba type player on the entire squad, and you simply can't win in march with one star, you need at least three, of which we do not have.

[Ignatius07]

Colin Cowherd admits to not really following college basketball. All the same, what did he say?

[RockyMtDevil]

Colin spent about 30 minutes Monday morning talking about how overrated Duke has become. In a sense, he's right, if you take JJ and Shelden off the teams from '03-'06 we wouldn't have even made the tournament in any of those years, that is how bad our recruiting has gone.

He compared Duke basketball to Notre Dame football basically saying we are heading in the direction of Notre Dame's nose dive, holding on to the past while not bringing in top notch talent and then when we do sign someone, that player is so overhyped that he can't/doesn't live up to expectations.

It's the old recruiting scheme we've seen for years, if Duke is after someone, they automatically vault into the top 50 no matter how bad they are. Shav is a prime example and I see Plumlee on that same tract.

What Colin failed to point out is that it appears K has changes his recruiting strategy to not get the one and done player, but to build a cohesive unit based on second tier talent that may one day gel into a national champion contender. It hasn't happened yet and in the meantime we've missed on some major post players.

All in all, if you look across the landscape of college hoops, we do not have the superior athletes that even a Texas A & M has, and that is just pathetic. We don't have anyone that can take a game over or beat you off the dribble. When Belmont clears everyone out to take your point guard one on one, then you have a serious, serious problem of lacking athleticism.

And it's not getting much better next year, we're just swapping one athlete out for another, with Cyzek being a work in progress.

[roywhite]

Glenn is dead on in his assessment, as is Colin Cowherd who ripped Duke to pieces on espn radio Monday morning.

K isn't getting elite talent anymore because it appears he has changed his recruiting strategy. He simply will not go after one-and-done players it appears and so we need to get used to the "new look blue devils" that appear to be more and more like what Gary Williams has built at Maryland. Henderson is the only nba type player on the entire squad, and you simply can't win in march with one star, you need at least three, of which we do not have.


Kyle Singler is very likely an NBA player, and a good one IMO. It's way early, but I'll venture to say that Elliot Williams is an NBA-type talent. That would make 3 future NBA'ers on next year's team, and I suspect that Jon Scheyer has a decent chance to be a pro.

[mr. synellinden]

Colin spent about 30 minutes Monday morning talking about how overrated Duke has become. In a sense, he's right, if you take JJ and Shelden off the teams from '03-'06 we wouldn't have even made the tournament in any of those years, that is how bad our recruiting has gone.

He compared Duke basketball to Notre Dame football basically saying we are heading in the direction of Notre Dame's nose dive, holding on to the past while not bringing in top notch talent and then when we do sign someone, that player is so overhyped that he can't/doesn't live up to expectations.

It's the old recruiting scheme we've seen for years, if Duke is after someone, they automatically vault into the top 50 no matter how bad they are. Shav is a prime example and I see Plumlee on that same tract.

What Colin failed to point out is that it appears K has changes his recruiting strategy to not get the one and done player, but to build a cohesive unit based on second tier talent that may one day gel into a national champion contender. It hasn't happened yet and in the meantime we've missed on some major post players.

All in all, if you look across the landscape of college hoops, we do not have the superior athletes that even a Texas A & M has, and that is just pathetic. We don't have anyone that can take a game over or beat you off the dribble. When Belmont clears everyone out to take your point guard one on one, then you have a serious, serious problem of lacking athleticism.

And it's not getting much better next year, we're just swapping one athlete out for another, with Cyzek being a work in progress.

This is just silly and I'm annoyed at all of this talk about Duke being overrated. Look, Georgetown went to the final four last year and was widely regarded as a national title contender this year - they got bounced in the 2nd round. Arizona had arguably 2 of the top 20 talents in the country in Bayless and Budinger and lost in the first round. UConn, a rich program, got bounced in the first round. So did Kentucky. So did Indiana. Maryland is not even in the tourney. Either are Ohio St. and Florida. Michigan is completely off the radar. Illinois? In the title game three years ago and nowhere now.

Come on. Let's be honest. Teams go through cycles. Recruiting is not an exact science. Players leave early and don't pan out. Duke is still in the adjustment phase in the current age of recruiting with the one year rule. Let's wait a year or two to let this phase play out and see what happens in two years when are starting five is this:

G- N. Smith
G. J. Scheyer
F. Henderson
F. Singler
C - Zoubek

Bench:

EMail
Plumlee
Thomas
King
Czyz
(this is not even counting Boynton McDonald and others)

Does that look like a national title contender to you? It does to me.

When we are playing in April in 2010, we will be grateful that Coach K recruited four year players and not the Kevin Loves and OJ Mayos of the world. Would we have been better with Patterson this year? Absolutely. Would we be better with Monroe in the middle next year. Most likely. Would Echenique help our front court depth? Sure. But we can't be so spoiled as to think that we are going to get every player we want. Misses suck but they don't mean the cupboard is bare.

Recruiting? Our jr. recruiting class was ranked in the top 5. McRoberts didn't live up to the hype. That hurt us for sure. Our sophomore class was ranked in the top 5. Henderson and Scheyer will probably both stay two more years and will be All-America candidates. I think both will be in the NBA. Our freshman class was top 5. Singler was a top 10 recruit. Smith top 25 and king top 40. I could see all three in the NBA. If Jason Kapono can stick, so can Taylor King. Next year we add Email, who could be Johnny Dawkins level or could be Daniel Ewing level or could be Joe Cook level. Who knows. But he's a guy that everyone wanted and he might be a superstar.

In the following year we add the quintessential type of Duke big man - the kind we have won with before - Alarie - Ferry - Laettner as evidence. We might add Boynton and McDonald.

Duke is going to always have talentend players. Let's let Coach K work through the recruiting adjustment style before we start making comparisons to Notre Dame football and concluding that Duke has lost its mojo.

Look - if UNC doesn't lose anyone to the NBA, they might go undefeated next year and everyone might be playing for second. But the next two seasons look very good for Duke. All you have to do is just project the starting teams and benches to see how good we can be.

[Clipsfan]

Colin spent about 30 minutes Monday morning talking about how overrated Duke has become. In a sense, he's right, if you take JJ and Shelden off the teams from '03-'06 we wouldn't have even made the tournament in any of those years, that is how bad our recruiting has gone.

He compared Duke basketball to Notre Dame football basically saying we are heading in the direction of Notre Dame's nose dive, holding on to the past while not bringing in top notch talent and then when we do sign someone, that player is so overhyped that he can't/doesn't live up to expectations.

It's the old recruiting scheme we've seen for years, if Duke is after someone, they automatically vault into the top 50 no matter how bad they are. Shav is a prime example and I see Plumlee on that same tract.

What Colin failed to point out is that it appears K has changes his recruiting strategy to not get the one and done player, but to build a cohesive unit based on second tier talent that may one day gel into a national champion contender. It hasn't happened yet and in the meantime we've missed on some major post players.

All in all, if you look across the landscape of college hoops, we do not have the superior athletes that even a Texas A & M has, and that is just pathetic. We don't have anyone that can take a game over or beat you off the dribble. When Belmont clears everyone out to take your point guard one on one, then you have a serious, serious problem of lacking athleticism.

And it's not getting much better next year, we're just swapping one athlete out for another, with Cyzek being a work in progress.

I disagree with so many of the statements here that it's hard for me to choose where to start, but off the cuff:

1) Remove the two first team all-americans from any team and of course the team will be significantly worse. Often the rest of the team blends around them, and their presence also impacts recruiting.

2) Shav isn't a prime example, as he was highly regarded early on. He was the #1 recruit during the summer before his junior season (and before he got hurt). His ranking actually eventually decreased following his commitment to Duke, iirc.

3) Coach K isn't chasing after second tier talent. He wanted Monroe and Williams is anything but second tier. We will continue to go after 5 star players, and 4 star at times to round out the class.

4) We have excellent athletes. Sure, Paulus isn't the quickest PG in the country, but that doesn't mean that our team isn't athletic. I think that Scheyer and Henderson and Nelson and Singler would all disagree with your comments regarding athleticism. Paulus brings other necessary elements to the team rather than a lightning first step.

[tbyers11]

Glenn is dead on in his assessment, as is Colin Cowherd who ripped Duke to pieces on espn radio Monday morning.

K isn't getting elite talent anymore because it appears he has changed his recruiting strategy. He simply will not go after one-and-done players it appears and so we need to get used to the "new look blue devils" that appear to be more and more like what Gary Williams has built at Maryland.

I agree with this assessment to a point. K has stated that he was going to alter his recruiting strategy after getting no years or only 1 year from Livingston, Deng, and Humphries in 2004. As an aside, can you imagine the 2005 team adding Deng and Humphries as sophs and frosh Livingston to Ewing, JJ, and Shelden. That's GGLC (to reference Jumbo's quiz).

I don't think Duke is entirely against recruiting one-and-done players. We got Josh McRoberts. We recruited Brandan Wright, Patrick Patterson (we got in a little late on this one) and Greg Monroe very hard. I just think K is not going to go after 2 or 3 in the same class. As a result you end up lacking an ultra-talented team if your targeted one-and-dones go elsewhere (the last 3 recruiting classes). Add in the fact that you were left with few upperclassmen because of the aforementioned situation in 2004 and you have your 2007 and 2008 Blue Devils without lots of super elite talent or an experienced upperclass led team.

I am not sure if this is the best strategy, but I am definitely not sold on it leading to the long-term decline of the program. I like it from the standpoint of long-term program stability but admit that your margin of error is quite small if you have a few recruiting misses. We'll see how things play out in 2009 when Duke will have an experienced team and some of that young talent (Henderson and Singler) have the potential to have All-American type seasons.

[Madrasdukie]

All you have to do is just project the starting teams and benches to see how good we can be.

I'm looking forward to seeing Czyz develop among other things.

[weezie]

Colin spent about 30 minutes Monday morning talking about how overrated Duke has become. In a sense, he's right....


Colin Cowherd??? We're supposed to accept Colin Cowherd as some kind of an authority on Duke basketball? I heard his gleeful rant and my mind wandered to how thrilled his ex-wife must be to have kicked his can out the door. How in the world that guy ever got a show is beyond me.

[dyedwab]

Colin spent about 30 minutes Monday morning talking about how overrated Duke has become. In a sense, he's right, if you take JJ and Shelden off the teams from '03-'06 we wouldn't have even made the tournament in any of those years, that is how bad our recruiting has gone.

He compared Duke basketball to Notre Dame football basically saying we are heading in the direction of Notre Dame's nose dive, holding on to the past while not bringing in top notch talent and then when we do sign someone, that player is so overhyped that he can't/doesn't live up to expectations.

It's the old recruiting scheme we've seen for years, if Duke is after someone, they automatically vault into the top 50 no matter how bad they are. Shav is a prime example and I see Plumlee on that same tract.

What Colin failed to point out is that it appears K has changes his recruiting strategy to not get the one and done player, but to build a cohesive unit based on second tier talent that may one day gel into a national champion contender. It hasn't happened yet and in the meantime we've missed on some major post players.

All in all, if you look across the landscape of college hoops, we do not have the superior athletes that even a Texas A & M has, and that is just pathetic. We don't have anyone that can take a game over or beat you off the dribble. When Belmont clears everyone out to take your point guard one on one, then you have a serious, serious problem of lacking athleticism.

And it's not getting much better next year, we're just swapping one athlete out for another, with Cyzek being a work in progress.

1) Colin Cowherd seems to know a lot about college football...and I rarely listen to him, because I don't care enought about the intricacies of the BCS for him to entertain me. But, he uses a college football model to understand college basketball and that doesn't work...simply, no equivalent of a Western Kentucky or Davidson gets to where they currently are in college football....and those who follow the sport don't seem to revel in the success of the little guys, but rather mocki and talk about how they need to stop complaining (see Boise State and Hawaii)

2) Ironically, I wouldn't be unhappy with some Gary Williams-like recruiting. I don't like Wiliams as a coach, and I don't like his program generally, but Willams greatest players have been below-radar recruit who developed. Joe Smith, Juan Dixon, Lonny Baxter, Steve Blake all became NBA players after stints in college park, yet they all fell below the recruiting radar. and I may be wrong, but I think his best rated recruiting class which came in on the Heels of the 2002 NC and had Glchrist and Caner-Medley was a great disappointment.

Say what we will about GAry, but he has a consistent record of identifying recruiting diamomds in the rough.

[DWP]

Suppose Duke had been healthy for the NCAA games. Is it reasonable to say they would have made it to the Elite 8? If so, would people be having this conversation about the program?

I do not know how widespread the flu bug was on the basketball team, but it seems to me that this year's early exit can be blamed on this unfortunate bit of bad luck.

[weezie]

Interesting line of conjecture. If Duke had been at full strength, like the early part of the season, before teams had film to figure out our switching and speed, I just wonder.
But, that said, it's time to tune in Eliot Williams on epsn and see if he gets booed because he's going to go to Duke in August ;) .