PDA

View Full Version : Are you a 'fan' of 3 guard lineups?



CenOhioDukeFan
03-31-2008, 11:59 AM
Since 2003, K has put 3 guard lineups on the floor for Duke and I don't see that ending anytime soon with the players we'll have over the next couple years. From Duhon, Redick and Ewing, to Redick, Ewing and Dockery, to Redick, Dockery and Paulus, to Paulus, Scheyer and Nelson, to Paulus, Nelson and Henderson, Duke has had some sucess with 3 guard lineups in the regular season but failed miserably in the NCAA Tournament.

Seems like during this 6 year-3-guard lineup run we're always getting outrebounded and with our switching defense on picks, we always get stuck with a 6'+ guard on some 6'7" forward inside and give up easy baskets. Go back to K's great teams and they were always built on 6'6" - 6'9" athletic wing forwards that could guard anyone on the floor, could run the court and finish, and could rebound the ball inside with our centers. (6'8" Mark Alarie, 6'6" David Henderson, 6'7" Brian Davis, 6'8" Grant Hill, 6'8" Tony Lang, 6'8" Roshown McCleod, 6'6" Chris Carrawell, 6'8" Shane Battier, 6'6" Nate James, 6'9" Mike Dunleavy, 6'6" Dahnte Jones, 6'8" Luol Deng.....just to name some). For some reason, we've quit recruiting a lot of these type of players for our 12 man teams. Now, because we're putting three 6'0" - 6'3" guards on the floor at all times, maybe these type of players are no longer looking at Duke because if we have more than one (Singler) , there'll be no quality playing time for them!!!

I've always felt 3 guard lineups were for the cute mid-majors (Butler, Belmont, Valpo, Davidson) that couldn't recruit with the big boys for big, athletic forwards and had to make do with having 3 guards on the floor at all times. Have we slipped so much in recruiting we're now always going to be the small team on the floor??

Your thoughts?

eddiehaskell
03-31-2008, 12:20 PM
It's fun to watch and it was firing on all cylinders early in the year.

However, a 3 guard lineup with a small forward playing power forward and a smallish 4 man playing center....not what I'd want in a perfect world.

1. Paulus
2. Henderson/Scheyer
3. Singler/King
4. Lance
5. ????

It's been said a million times, but a decent center (6'10 245+) would make the team incredible.

Saratoga2
03-31-2008, 12:25 PM
Since 2003, K has put 3 guard lineups on the floor for Duke and I don't see that ending anytime soon with the players we'll have over the next couple years. From Duhon, Redick and Ewing, to Redick, Ewing and Dockery, to Redick, Dockery and Paulus, to Paulus, Scheyer and Nelson, to Paulus, Nelson and Henderson, Duke has had some sucess with 3 guard lineups in the regular season but failed miserably in the NCAA Tournament.

Seems like during this 6 year-3-guard lineup run we're always getting outrebounded and with our switching defense on picks, we always get stuck with a 6'+ guard on some 6'7" forward inside and give up easy baskets. Go back to K's great teams and they were always built on 6'6" - 6'9" athletic wing forwards that could guard anyone on the floor, could run the court and finish, and could rebound the ball inside with our centers. (6'8" Mark Alarie, 6'6" David Henderson, 6'7" Brian Davis, 6'8" Grant Hill, 6'8" Tony Lang, 6'8" Roshown McCleod, 6'6" Chris Carrawell, 6'8" Shane Battier, 6'6" Nate James, 6'9" Mike Dunleavy, 6'6" Dahnte Jones, 6'8" Luol Deng.....just to name some). For some reason, we've quit recruiting a lot of these type of players for our 12 man teams. Now, because we're putting three 6'0" - 6'3" guards on the floor at all times, maybe these type of players are no longer looking at Duke because if we have more than one (Singler) , there'll be no quality playing time for them!!!

I've always felt 3 guard lineups were for the cute mid-majors (Butler, Belmont, Valpo, Davidson) that couldn't recruit with the big boys for big, athletic forwards and had to make do with having 3 guards on the floor at all times. Have we slipped so much in recruiting we're now always going to be the small team on the floor??

Your thoughts?

We are getting really good athletic guards irecently, in the 6'3" to 6'5" category (Scheyer, Henderson, Smith, Williams). I don't see that as a slip. With the plethora of guards on the team, we should be able to keep fresh players on the floor without giving away much on the scoring end. Playing three of these guys makes sense to me.

Singler was a great recruiting move and he fits into the team as a premier 4. He will only be more effective next year. So I don't see him as a slip at all.

Clearly we need additional help at the power forward and center positions. We have Zoubek, Thomas, King and McClure; with Czyz coming. Perhaps they will grow as players next year, but the one area of recruiting where we have missed for the last couple of years and moving forward is the power position. It isn't that coach K hasn't tried, we just haven't been successful.

eddiehaskell
03-31-2008, 12:37 PM
Taylor King seems more like a 3 man to me....?

I think Kyle would be very hard to stop at the 3 spot...

dukelion
03-31-2008, 01:01 PM
I agree that in the past our 3 guard lineup was limited especially when Dockery was paired with Paulus and Redick however the current/future roster doesn't have those flaws.

Henderson (4.7) and Nelson (5.8) were excellent rebounding guards this season as was Scheyer (3.7). Additionally, Henderson, Nelson and Scheyer are exceptionally more athletic than Redick and Dockery.

Things will be much the same next year with the addition of uber athlete Williams to the guard rotation.

So I don't think the lack of athletic wings is the issue.

The issue is that our starting center averaged ONLY 3.3 rebounds a game in 20 minutes of action.

That's completely unacceptable production from the center position.

Hopefully Thomas and Zoubek both continue to get stronger and will be able to hold down the center the spot next season.

I'm quite hopefull they can as they have both made great strides in past offseasons. Thomas has added 20 pounds since he arrived and I think that if he adds 10 more he'll have an excellent season.

Zoubek showed remarkable improvement considering the time he missed last offseason and during the season with his foot injury. If he stays healthy through the offseason I can see him as our starting center coming opening day next season. If he can average something in the neighbourhood of 8 ppg and 10 rbs a game per 25 minutes I think we'll be vastly improved.

Karl Beem
03-31-2008, 01:26 PM
It's the norm. Not everybody says that they have a 3 guard lineup. But there is usually a forward who is actually a wing.

CDu
03-31-2008, 03:34 PM
I agree with Dukelion on this one.

2003: Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Jones, Williams/Sanders. The problem wasn't the guard play. In fact, our four-man rotation at the guard/wing spots (Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Jones) was actually very good. The problem was that we didn't have a true "4", and our bigs were either too inexperienced (Williams, Randolph) or not very good (Sanders, Horvath). We had to play REALLY small, and we didn't get consistent production from the bigs that we did play.

2004: Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Deng, Williams. There was absolutely nothing wrong with this team. We were one of the two best teams in the nation, and we just happened to lose to the other of the two best teams in the nation in the Final Four (in a game we very easily could have won).

2005: Ewing, Redick, Dockery, Melchionni, Williams. The problem wasn't that we had to play three guards. The problem was that we had to start two guys who should have been backups (Dockery and Melchionni). Additionally, we didn't really have a point guard and we didn't have a "4." If anything, we got beaten by teams who were athletic and talented at the "4" spot, not at the guard/wing spot.

2006: Paulus, Dockery, Redick, McRoberts, Williams. Again, the problem wasn't the three-guard lineup. The problem was that we lacked scoring punch after our "big two." If Redick and Williams were on, we were really good. If one was not, we were likely to struggle. We happened to face a team that was really athletic and shut down Redick. And even then, we had our chances to win.

2007: Paulus, Scheyer, Nelson, Thomas/McClure. This team actually had pretty good size at the guard spots. Scheyer, Nelson, and Henderson were plenty long and athletic. The problem was that the team again lacked consistent scorers. And we were anemic at the forward spot, with Thomas and McClure struggling to provide any offense. It didn't help that Paulus struggled as a playmaker (possibly due to injury) and McRoberts struggled to take over the role of go-to guy (probably not suited for the role).

2008: Paulus, Nelson, Henderson, Singler, Thomas. This year, we were perfectly set up at the wing (Nelson, Henderson, Scheyer) and at the "4" (Singler), but we got no consistency from the post.

If we had Singler or Deng on the 2003 or 2005 team, we might have won the title in at least one of those years. If we had the talents of Williams or McRoberts on this year's team, we would have definitely threatened for the title. Having another small forward rather than a third guard wouldn't have changed much in any of those years.

CALVET
03-31-2008, 04:00 PM
Since 2003, K has put 3 guard lineups on the floor for Duke and I don't see that ending anytime soon with the players we'll have over the next couple years. From Duhon, Redick and Ewing, to Redick, Ewing and Dockery, to Redick, Dockery and Paulus, to Paulus, Scheyer and Nelson, to Paulus, Nelson and Henderson, Duke has had some sucess with 3 guard lineups in the regular season but failed miserably in the NCAA Tournament.

Seems like during this 6 year-3-guard lineup run we're always getting outrebounded and with our switching defense on picks, we always get stuck with a 6'+ guard on some 6'7" forward inside and give up easy baskets. Go back to K's great teams and they were always built on 6'6" - 6'9" athletic wing forwards that could guard anyone on the floor, could run the court and finish, and could rebound the ball inside with our centers. (6'8" Mark Alarie, 6'6" David Henderson, 6'7" Brian Davis, 6'8" Grant Hill, 6'8" Tony Lang, 6'8" Roshown McCleod, 6'6" Chris Carrawell, 6'8" Shane Battier, 6'6" Nate James, 6'9" Mike Dunleavy, 6'6" Dahnte Jones, 6'8" Luol Deng.....just to name some). For some reason, we've quit recruiting a lot of these type of players for our 12 man teams. Now, because we're putting three 6'0" - 6'3" guards on the floor at all times, maybe these type of players are no longer looking at Duke because if we have more than one (Singler) , there'll be no quality playing time for them!!!

I've always felt 3 guard lineups were for the cute mid-majors (Butler, Belmont, Valpo, Davidson) that couldn't recruit with the big boys for big, athletic forwards and had to make do with having 3 guards on the floor at all times. Have we slipped so much in recruiting we're now always going to be the small team on the floor??

Your thoughts?

If you're playing with twin towers, ala Stanford, it's a no brainer. Conversely, many teams have successfully compensated for a smallish center by playing a tall three (Davidson, Notre Dame, etc.). I guess it strictly depends on matchup with the opponent as to the degree of effectiveness.

Saratoga2
03-31-2008, 04:05 PM
If we had Singler or Deng on the 2003 or 2005 team, we might have won the title in at least one of those years. If we had the talents of Williams or McRoberts on this year's team, we would have definitely threatened for the title. Having another small forward rather than a third guard wouldn't have changed much in any of those years.

One more quality small forward would have helped Singler but giving him a break more often, we still need a post player. Our guards are fine

dukelion
03-31-2008, 04:54 PM
It's interesting looking back through the years to see how different each team is.

The main point I get from his summary is that the years we were good we had a complete team.

The years where we struggled we had major fundamental deficiencies.....either with the PG spot, post production or depth (i.e. lack of supplemental scorers).

Next year will be very very close to a complete team.

PG.......check
Depth......check
Supplemental scorers.....check
Athletes.....check
Post play........????????

I'm sure I'll be harping on this all summer but the key next year will come down to Brian Zoubek. He just has to stay healthy. He's attending 2 big man camps this summer and will continue to add weight/strength.

I have to admit I was shocked at how well he played after coming back from the re-injuring of his foot this season and he can only get much much better. 7'1" with skill in the post is rare in todays game and we can be a very complete/elite team is Zoubek develops according to plan.

_Gary
03-31-2008, 04:56 PM
There's nothing wrong with a 3 guard line-up, as long as the three guards aren't all undersized and/or your 4 and 5 are solid post defenders and rebounders, which invariably means they can't be undersized along with the three guards. Bottom line, we've put some very small teams onto the floor with these 3 guard line-ups and we've gotten beat badly on the boards when it counted. It's one thing to rebound during the regular season when, perhaps, an opposing team doesn't come in with a specific game plan to pound the glass. But when the tourney rolls around and adjustments are the name of the game, we are getting beat on the boards because we just don't have the size to contend with guys that will go over the back again and again. I've said it before, and it bears repeating. If there's one call that disappears in the NCAA it's the over the back. Big, athletic teams can and will gain big advantages year in and year out because they go to the boards hard.

We need more size and toughness inside in order to compete next year. We can't start teams with three guards (unless at least one of them is going to be a 6'8 freak) AND play a 4 and 5 that are both under 6'9 - unless you've got a seriously strong guy like Shelden who was probably only 6'8. Generally that's just not going to be enough beef to contend with teams that will pound the boards mercilessly like WVU did to us.

Just my two cents.

Gary

DukeDude
03-31-2008, 06:02 PM
2004: Duhon, Ewing, Redick, Deng, Williams. There was absolutely nothing wrong with this team. We were one of the two best teams in the nation, and we just happened to lose to the other of the two best teams in the nation in the Final Four (in a game we very easily could have won).


I actually remember this team as Duke's most dominant inside team in recent memory. Duke would often play Williams, Randolph, and Deng at the same time. All 3 could score in the post and I loved having a defense that blocked so many shots. The 3 guard lineup was more a function of foul trouble (Shav) and matching up defensively with other teams who played 3 guards.

mgtr
03-31-2008, 06:35 PM
Ultimately, you play with the players you have. If you are successful at recruiting good post players (or developing them), you go with that. If not, you work around it. A great talent of Coach K is to change his strategy to fit his players.

Huh?
03-31-2008, 07:14 PM
I am a 'fan' of WINNING

Jumbo
03-31-2008, 07:30 PM
I'm admitting off the bat that I haven't read the whole thread (I just don't have time right now) and I apologize if someone else has brought this up. But, whenever you talk about Duke, it's important to realize that there's a whole college basketball world out there. And the majority of college teams -- even in the power conferences -- play three-guard lineups. I'll also add that there is very little difference between a "2" and a "3" -- I look at both as wings -- unless you are talking about starting an NBA "3" at that position in college (i.e. playing Singler there).

Check out the Final Four:
UNC -- starts three guards. Ginyard is a college swingman, sure, but he's no more of a "3" than Henderson or Nelson were.
UCLA -- Starts Josh Shipp at the "3." He's 6'5" 220 -- pretty much a classic swingman.
Memphis -- Starts two big guards on the wing in Anderson (6'6") and Douglas-Roberts (6'7").
Kansas -- Starts three guards and plays three guards a ton. Brandon Rush is the biggest of any of their perimeter guys (6'6", 210).

If you look around the country, it's even more pronounced. As I said, the line between a 2 and a 3 is really small. Every team knows it needs a minimum of three perimeter threats on the floor at a time. The key is for at least one of those perimeter threats to be big/athletic enough to mix it up inside a bit. Duke went through a stretch where the team lacked that. There was Duhon/Redick/Ewing which was a bit small and then Paulus/Dockery/Redick, which was REALLY small. But with Nelson, Henderson and Scheyer, Duke has much bigger, more athletic guards. And that should continue with Henderson and Scheyer playing tons of minutes next year and either Williams (6'4" and springy) or Pocius (6'5" with hops) providing backup minutes at the swing spot. That's really different than starting two really small guards in Paulus and Dockery and asking a third, smallish, slowish guy (Redick) to guard the closest thing the other team has to a SF.

This is largely much ado about nothing.

Jumbo
03-31-2008, 07:38 PM
I actually remember this team as Duke's most dominant inside team in recent memory. Duke would often play Williams, Randolph, and Deng at the same time. All 3 could score in the post and I loved having a defense that blocked so many shots. The 3 guard lineup was more a function of foul trouble (Shav) and matching up defensively with other teams who played 3 guards.

Not true. Duke played Deng at the 3 sparingly. It happened a little more often earlier in the year, but for the most part, Shav backed up Shelden and with Dockery getting the bulk of the backup perimeter minutes. Horvath got spot minutes inside. Lee didn't play much against good teams. In fact, looking at the boxscores from the Tourney that year, it appears Shelden, Shav and Luol only saw the floor together in the second round blowout win over Seton Hall.

Buckeye Devil
03-31-2008, 08:27 PM
There's nothing wrong with a 3 guard line-up, as long as the three guards aren't all undersized and/or your 4 and 5 are solid post defenders and rebounders, which invariably means they can't be undersized along with the three guards. Bottom line, we've put some very small teams onto the floor with these 3 guard line-ups and we've gotten beat badly on the boards when it counted. It's one thing to rebound during the regular season when, perhaps, an opposing team doesn't come in with a specific game plan to pound the glass. But when the tourney rolls around and adjustments are the name of the game, we are getting beat on the boards because we just don't have the size to contend with guys that will go over the back again and again. I've said it before, and it bears repeating. If there's one call that disappears in the NCAA it's the over the back. Big, athletic teams can and will gain big advantages year in and year out because they go to the boards hard.

We need more size and toughness inside in order to compete next year. We can't start teams with three guards (unless at least one of them is going to be a 6'8 freak) AND play a 4 and 5 that are both under 6'9 - unless you've got a seriously strong guy like Shelden who was probably only 6'8. Generally that's just not going to be enough beef to contend with teams that will pound the boards mercilessly like WVU did to us.

Just my two cents.

Gary

The point about the 3 guard lineup being ok so long as the 4 & 5 are solid inside is well taken.

Buckeye Devil
03-31-2008, 08:30 PM
The point about the 3 guard lineup being ok so long as the 4 & 5 are solid inside is well taken.

Having someone like Gerald at the 3 would be ok along with Singler as a 4 if Duke had a solid 5, which is yet to be developed.

Ignatius07
03-31-2008, 08:36 PM
Having someone like Gerald at the 3 would be ok along with Singler as a 4 if Duke had a solid 5, which is yet to be developed.

Do not be shocked if Zoubek starts next season. K even mentioned late in the season that he was looking forward to getting Zoubek minutes so that he could slide Singler over to the 4. With a (hopefully) healthy Zoubek, I think we could see a lot more of this.

And Gerald would be "OK" at the 3 no matter who the rest of the team was. He is pretty much what you look for in a college 3.

mgtr
03-31-2008, 08:45 PM
And Gerald would be "OK" at the 3 no matter who the rest of the team was. He is pretty much what you look for in a college 3.

On most college teams, Gerald would "OK" at almost any position he chose to play. Is it happenstance that "GH" are the initials of one of Duke's best players ever?