Who Is Our Go-To Guy Next Season?

[Franzez]

Who do you think will be our go-to guy next season,Coach K sometimes likes to have a senior as the go-to guy on the team but I don't know if Paulus should be that guy next year espescially with us returning G-Man,Singler,and Scheyer.

[Ignatius07]

I think Gerald because he wants to be that guy and I think his teammates would agree. Singler and Scheyer will get plenty of high-pressure shots, though.

[wilson]

Singler, no question. He was the most talented offensive player on the team as a freshman, and will retain that mantle in '08-'09. After that, it's Henderson. Paulus will provide his senior leadership in tight situations by bringing the ball up, and that's fine with me. He should be the #3 option on offense though (perhaps even a tick or two lower if someone else has the hot hand, and maybe a bit higher from time to time when he has hot-shooting games).

[Franzez]

Singler, no question. He was the most talented offensive player on the team as a freshman, and will retain that mantle in '08-'09. After that, it's Henderson. Paulus will provide his senior leadership in tight situations by bringing the ball up, and that's fine with me. He should be the #3 option on offense though (perhaps even a tick or two lower if someone else has the hot hand, and maybe a bit higher from time to time when he has hot-shooting games).
Yeah I really would like to see him handle the ball more because from the reports I heard about him in high school he was a capable ballhandler and could pass the ball.

Paulus really stepped up in my opinion last year but I don't think he has the speed or athletcism to be the go-to guy on our team at the PG position.

[Rudy]

Whoever seems to have the hot hand that game. I don't think it has to be the same guy every game.

[Channing]

if we need two points, i think it goes to gerald or singler. if we need three i think K will draw up a play to get Greg a look. He proved last year that he is a very very good shooter - and he doesnt have to be set - he can shoot it on the move.

[GopherBlue]

Henderson and Singler ... and Scheyer ... and Paulus, too.

Can you imagine being the opposing coach during a time out with the game on the line and 14 seconds to play:
"Double-up on Henderson when he gets the ball. Same goes for Scheyer. Force them to give up the ball .... but not to Singler or Paulus - we should put a couple of bodies on him, too. And keep an eye on Singler without the ball, especially on the perimeter ... and interior. And don't let Henderson set up for a 3 or sneak backdoor to the rim. But whatever you do, don't let Paulus or Scheyer take a shot, and for Petes sake don't put them on the line. And let's get a couple bodies on Zoubek/Thomas/Plumlee/Czyz after the shot, and Singler, and Henderson, and Scheyer, too. Is it too late to put Demarcus on the line? Ugh, I need a nap."

[camion]

Our go to guy will be Henderson... Henderson... and Singler... Singler and Henderson....

Our two go to guys will be Henderson and Singler... and Scheyer....

Our *three* go to guys will be Henderson, Singler and Scheyer... and Paulus....

Our *four*... no... *Amongst* our go to guys.... Amongst our go to guys...will be such players Henderson, Singler....

I'll come in again.

[Edouble]

Right now, if we needed two points, I'd want the ball in Scheyer's hands. Henderson is a great player and the most physically gifted guy on the team. However, I'd rather have Scheyer take it to the hole and get to the line than have Henderson take a 16-18 foot jump shot. Based on last season, the players most likely to go to the hole are, in this order: Scheyer, then Singler, then Henderson. Likewise, based on last season, the players most likely to make their freethrows are Scheyer, then Singler, then Henderson.

One intangible: Henderson saved our season against Belmont. He's been the go-to guy in the NCAAs and delivered big time.

My conclusion: too early to know who will be "the man". In my mind, Henderson is the most physically gifted, Singler is the most talented skill-wise, and Scheyer is the best clutch free-throw shooter. Three guys you would want competing over the chance to take the last shot.

[Master Shake]

Our go to guy will be Henderson... Henderson... and Singler... Singler and Henderson....

Our two go to guys will be Henderson and Singler... and Scheyer....

Our *three* go to guys will be Henderson, Singler and Scheyer... and Paulus....

Our *four*... no... *Amongst* our go to guys.... Amongst our go to guys...will be such players Henderson, Singler....

I'll come in again.

That post just earned you a stint in the Comfy Chair.

[Kilby]

Henderson. Without question. A go to man has to be able to get his shot a, a good shot off against strong defenders. Henderson's quick first step, vertical ability and accurate mid range jumper makes him uniquely qualified for the task.

[JasonEvans]

Our go to guy will be Henderson... Henderson... and Singler... Singler and Henderson....

Our two go to guys will be Henderson and Singler... and Scheyer....

Our *three* go to guys will be Henderson, Singler and Scheyer... and Paulus....

Our *four*... no... *Amongst* our go to guys.... Amongst our go to guys...will be such players Henderson, Singler....

I'll come in again.

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

--Jason "watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A) from the top or starting :30 seconds into it" Evans

[Clipsfan]

Henderson. Without question. A go to man has to be able to get his shot a, a good shot off against strong defenders. Henderson's quick first step, vertical ability and accurate mid range jumper makes him uniquely qualified for the task.

Not only that, but he was our goto guy for most of this past season. If you look back at the games which were close at the end, Gerald took the shot almost every time. K almost always drew up plays for him out of time outs. He didn't hit every shot, but he can get them off and makes a decent % of them.

[MulletMan]

Who do you think will be our go-to guy next season,Coach K sometimes likes to have a senior as the go-to guy on the team but I don't know if Paulus should be that guy next year espescially with us returning G-Man,Singler,and Scheyer.

HOLY CRAP! Mike Gminski has a year of eligibility left?! That's awesome! That will totally solve our post problems.

(Perhaps Boozer can give us some minutes too... we'd be a force!)

[mddukefan]

I have to agree with Henderson as well for next year. In the Belmont game specifically he was a focal point in the second half, and not just the last second shot. I really noticed them calling plays for post ups for him against smaller defenders right out of the gate in the 2nd half. At that point i remember thinking that is a good sign for the future. Seeing him want the ball and them having the confidence to call on him in that big of a game.

Honestly, I think we are lucky enough to even argue Scheyer, Paulus or Singler as well. It is always a good thing to have options and these 4 guys have all proved they can step up in big games. 2009 could be a special year and I am really excited for it...

[Classof06]

Henderson. Without question. A go to man has to be able to get his shot a, a good shot off against strong defenders. Henderson's quick first step, vertical ability and accurate mid range jumper makes him uniquely qualified for the task.

Co-signed. Without Gerald Henderson, we lose to Belmont. Not that that should be the only reason but as far as I'm concerned, he is the best single player on our roster going into next year.

[moonpie23]

i have to wait to see how scheyer prepares himself physically for next season. Something about him tells me that with the proper conditioning, and a bit of extra weight/muscle, he could be THE guy.....gerald and kyle, obviously two extremely talented players...

we shall see...

[devildeac]

Our go to guy will be Henderson... Henderson... and Singler... Singler and Henderson....

Our two go to guys will be Henderson and Singler... and Scheyer....

Our *three* go to guys will be Henderson, Singler and Scheyer... and Paulus....

Our *four*... no... *Amongst* our go to guys.... Amongst our go to guys...will be such players Henderson, Singler....

I'll come in again.

noooo-body expects the Spanish Inquisition... but those who do...

[Ignatius07]

i have to wait to see how scheyer prepares himself physically for next season. Something about him tells me that with the proper conditioning, and a bit of extra weight/muscle, he could be THE guy.....gerald and kyle, obviously two extremely talented players...

we shall see...

While Scheyer is a lock to be one of our 3 best players next year, I really don't see him as the focus of an offense that includes both Singler and Henderson. That is a testament to those two guys, though, because Scheyer is a really, really good basketball player. I definitely expect him to improve (along with all the other guys on the team), but I can't imagine him leapfrogging those other two. Right now Scheyer is a dangerous 3rd option.

[Bluedawg]

I think Gerald because he wants to be that guy and I think his teammates would agree. Singler and Scheyer will get plenty of high-pressure shots, though.

I have to agree with G! During the NCAA he was the one who carried the team when they were down. I exptect G to step up big next year.

[sagegrouse]

I don't think Duke will be a true national contender without a first team A-A. (Or realistically, since A-A is often determined by preseason hype -- a player playing at that level.)

Answering my own (implied) question -- someone is going to have to step up big time. I expect it will be either Kyle or Gerald -- maybe Jon.

sagegrouse

[SilkyJ]

Henderson. Without question. A go to man has to be able to get his shot a, a good shot off against strong defenders. Henderson's quick first step, vertical ability and accurate mid range jumper makes him uniquely qualified for the task.

Agreed, though I don't know if we'll have that ONE go-to guy, as others have mentioned. I would also agree with the below (which basically says Greg becomes the guy if we need a 3).


if we need two points, i think it goes to gerald or singler. if we need three i think K will draw up a play to get Greg a look. He proved last year that he is a very very good shooter - and he doesnt have to be set - he can shoot it on the move.


Paulus will provide his senior leadership in tight situations by bringing the ball up, and that's fine with me. He should be the #3 option on offense though (perhaps even a tick or two lower if someone else has the hot hand, and maybe a bit higher from time to time when he has hot-shooting games).

I do have to say that Greg has shown he is not afraid to shoot it in pressure situations and he has made some big shots down the stretch. I can definitely forsee situations where Greg brings the ball up and sort of calls a sort of "motion" play where no one is necessarily the "go-to" guy for the shot, but we just go with whoever gets the best look. Could be Greg on a screen if they go under the screen...if they go over he'll look to drive and pass...point is I think we'll be flexible.

[Jumbo]

Irritated, Grumpy Jumbo: Oh man, this stuff again? Guess it's that time of year. What's next -- predicting precisely how many seconds each guy will play next year?

Kinder, Gentler Jumbo: Lighten up, would you? It's the offseason. There's only so much to talk about.

IGJ: Lighten up yourself. The question is irrelevant. We ask this every year and it means nothing.

KGJ: I agree with you that the term "Go-to Guy" might not mean much, but how about explaining why that's the case?

IGJ: I do explain that. Every. Freaking. Year.

KGJ: Well, too bad. Because not everyone keeps a Jumbo Directory handy and we get new posters all the time.

IGJ: Yeah, you're making a decent point (for once).

KGJ: Get used to it. And we're going to have to work together, buddy, so we might as well start now.

IGJ: An alliance?

KGJ: Damn straight:

IGJKGJ: Okay, so before we even think about who might be a go-to guy, we need to define what a go-to guy actually is. There are so many different things the term can represent. For instance:
-Is it your best player?
-Is it your best scorer?
-Is it you best one-on-one player?
-Is it the guy about whom you say, "No matter what, we're getting him XX number of shots tonight?"
-Is it the guy you give the ball on the game's last possession and say "get us a hoop?"
-Is it the guy you expect to elevate to a different level late in a close game, put the team on his back and say "run everything through me?"
-Is it your best playmaker? The guy who might not end up shooting the ball, but will facilitate the best scoring opportunities?

Tricky concept, eh?

All of those things are true, which is why I don't think there is such a thing as a go-to guy. Kansas won without anything resembling a "go-to guy." Brandon Rush was the best scorer, Chalmers hit the huge three against Memphis, Sherron Collins often got the ball late in the shot clock to create, etc. If you prefer the NBA, look at the Spurs. Tim Duncan is a go-to guy by all accounts. But late in the game and with the clock ticking down, they run a lot of their offense through Manu Ginobili. Well, unless Tony Parker has a huge matchup advantage on the pick-and-roll. You get the idea.

The point is that because there is no clear definition, there's no clear "go-to-guy," especially with next year's Duke team. We know that Scheyer, Singler and Henderson all have the ability to be 15-17 ppg scorers. We know that Paulus likes to take (and often will make) big threes. That's a lot of balance. Trying to designate one as the "go-to guy" is just limiting. Instead, Duke has the ability to attack mismatches and go to the hot hand, whether we're talking about who gets the most shots or who gets the ball late in a tight game.

Take the Belmont game. With most everyone struggling, we went to Gerald Henderson late in the contest. It helped that he had a major strength/speed/leaping ability advantage over the guarding him. So we milked that. But other teams match up better against Henderson, but don't have a big guy who can chase Singler on the perimeter. Or maybe they've got a 6'1" guy guarding Scheyer. You get the point. Duke has a lot of ways to go.

The good thing is each of those three guys has the mentality of "I want the ball with the game on the line." So does Paulus, for that matter, but I think part of the teams development will be Paulus' maturation -- learning that those three guys are better playmakers and to let them handle the rock in big spots. He can still hit huge open threes -- he just can do it off plays they create.

There's so much else to consider. If you have a go-to guy, so you have a go-to play? Who shoots FTs better? Are you going to run iso late in the game, run a bunch of sets plays or stick with your normal offense? All of that matters.

So, in short, I think Duke will have three go-to guys, or none, depending on your definition. Depending on matchups, you can run pick-and-roll with Scheyer, dribble handoffs, iso with Henderson, iso with Singler or Singler in the post. That's a lot of variety. So, if the original poster wants to define "go-to-guy" more narrowly, that might make the discussion easier (i.e. -- down 1, 15 seconds left, who do you want to have the ball). But even in that situation, I think it depends on matchups and performance to that point. Hope that helps.

IGJ: Meh, I this whole "working together" thing stinks.

KGJ: Deal with it. See you at dinner.

[jimsumner]

Jumbo,

You're talking to yourself on line now?

Madness is a short step away. :)

[SilkyJ]

Irritated, Grumpy Jumbo: Oh man, this stuff again? Guess it's that time of year. What's next -- predicting precisely how many seconds each guy will play next year?

Kinder, Gentler Jumbo: Lighten up, would you? It's the offseason. There's only so much to talk about.

IGJ: Lighten up yourself. The question is irrelevant. We ask this every year and it means nothing.

KGJ: I agree with you that the term "Go-to Guy" might not mean much, but how about explaining why that's the case?

IGJ: I do explain that. Every. Freaking. Year.

KGJ: Well, too bad. Because not everyone keeps a Jumbo Directory handy and we get new posters all the time.

IGJ: Yeah, you're making a decent point (for once).

.....

So, in short, I think Duke will have three go-to guys, or none, depending on your definition. Depending on matchups, you can run pick-and-roll with Scheyer, dribble handoffs, iso with Henderson, iso with Singler or Singler in the post. That's a lot of variety. So, if the original poster wants to define "go-to-guy" more narrowly, that might make the discussion easier (i.e. -- down 1, 15 seconds left, who do you want to have the ball). But even in that situation, I think it depends on matchups and performance to that point. Hope that helps.

IGJ: Meh, I this whole "working together" thing stinks.

KGJ: Deal with it. See you at dinner.

Wait, so you're not driving the Scheyer wagon 100mph down I-40 on this one? ;)

Your post is pretty spot-on. Yea its a useless exercise, and yea we need to refine or establish the definition, but as one of you says, its that time of year...we need something to do!! Personally, I was simply thinking, "late game situation, go get us a bucket."

Oh and I must disagree with Dr. Sumner: clearly you are already crazy. Takes one to know one.

[devildeac]

Irritated, Grumpy Jumbo: Oh man, this stuff again? Guess it's that time of year. What's next -- predicting precisely how many seconds each guy will play next year?

Kinder, Gentler Jumbo: Lighten up, would you? It's the offseason. There's only so much to talk about.

IGJ: Lighten up yourself. The question is irrelevant. We ask this every year and it means nothing.

KGJ: I agree with you that the term "Go-to Guy" might not mean much, but how about explaining why that's the case?

IGJ: I do explain that. Every. Freaking. Year.

KGJ: Well, too bad. Because not everyone keeps a Jumbo Directory handy and we get new posters all the time.

IGJ: Yeah, you're making a decent point (for once).

KGJ: Get used to it. And we're going to have to work together, buddy, so we might as well start now.

IGJ: An alliance?

KGJ: Damn straight:

IGJKGJ: Okay, so before we even think about who might be a go-to guy, we need to define what a go-to guy actually is. There are so many different things the term can represent. For instance:
-Is it your best player?
-Is it your best scorer?
-Is it you best one-on-one player?
-Is it the guy about whom you say, "No matter what, we're getting him XX number of shots tonight?"
-Is it the guy you give the ball on the game's last possession and say "get us a hoop?"
-Is it the guy you expect to elevate to a different level late in a close game, put the team on his back and say "run everything through me?"
-Is it your best playmaker? The guy who might not end up shooting the ball, but will facilitate the best scoring opportunities?

Tricky concept, eh?

All of those things are true, which is why I don't think there is such a thing as a go-to guy. Kansas won without anything resembling a "go-to guy." Brandon Rush was the best scorer, Chalmers hit the huge three against Memphis, Sherron Collins often got the ball late in the shot clock to create, etc. If you prefer the NBA, look at the Spurs. Tim Duncan is a go-to guy by all accounts. But late in the game and with the clock ticking down, they run a lot of their offense through Manu Ginobili. Well, unless Tony Parker has a huge matchup advantage on the pick-and-roll. You get the idea.

The point is that because there is no clear definition, there's no clear "go-to-guy," especially with next year's Duke team. We know that Scheyer, Singler and Henderson all have the ability to be 15-17 ppg scorers. We know that Paulus likes to take (and often will make) big threes. That's a lot of balance. Trying to designate one as the "go-to guy" is just limiting. Instead, Duke has the ability to attack mismatches and go to the hot hand, whether we're talking about who gets the most shots or who gets the ball late in a tight game.

Take the Belmont game. With most everyone struggling, we went to Gerald Henderson late in the contest. It helped that he had a major strength/speed/leaping ability advantage over the guarding him. So we milked that. But other teams match up better against Henderson, but don't have a big guy who can chase Singler on the perimeter. Or maybe they've got a 6'1" guy guarding Scheyer. You get the point. Duke has a lot of ways to go.

The good thing is each of those three guys has the mentality of "I want the ball with the game on the line." So does Paulus, for that matter, but I think part of the teams development will be Paulus' maturation -- learning that those three guys are better playmakers and to let them handle the rock in big spots. He can still hit huge open threes -- he just can do it off plays they create.

There's so much else to consider. If you have a go-to guy, so you have a go-to play? Who shoots FTs better? Are you going to run iso late in the game, run a bunch of sets plays or stick with your normal offense? All of that matters.

So, in short, I think Duke will have three go-to guys, or none, depending on your definition. Depending on matchups, you can run pick-and-roll with Scheyer, dribble handoffs, iso with Henderson, iso with Singler or Singler in the post. That's a lot of variety. So, if the original poster wants to define "go-to-guy" more narrowly, that might make the discussion easier (i.e. -- down 1, 15 seconds left, who do you want to have the ball). But even in that situation, I think it depends on matchups and performance to that point. Hope that helps.

IGJ: Meh, I this whole "working together" thing stinks.

KGJ: Deal with it. See you at dinner.

You know that if you had this conversation responding to yourself under different Jumbo #'s, you could really add to your post count and have Jason Evans-like post #'s. The board would derive the additional benefit of another moderator:D . Consider the many other possibilities, too.

[Jumbo]

Jumbo,

You're talking to yourself on line now?

Madness is a short step away. :)

I assumed it had already set in ... ;)

[dw0827]

You are so scary in so many ways . . . but your post was great.

The best part: "Trying to designate one as the "go-to guy" is just limiting."

[Festus13]

...... waiting on the team Coach K has assembled for next year! Forty-seven years I've been a Duke b-ball faithful and after analyzing next year's roster I can honestly say we won't need that Go-To guy very often because we (the team for those who are still persnickity about who we means) will have many, many options. I mean that since those special teams of Vic Bubas in the early to mid-sixties we've never had a team with so much top-to-bottom talent. I would like to say that, for the record, I would favor Schyer, Singler, and Paulus as being the players with enough 'brass' to take control. Henderson can, however, be All-American is his game becomes consistent. This team should finish very high in the 'final' polls and the tournament with 3 or more AA's of some status.

[jimsumner]

Most great Duke teams have had a great player or two. Even three. But not all. The 1990 team made it all the way to the NCAA title game without a single first-team All-ACC player. I know, I know, Laettner and Hurley have their numbers retired but they were a sophomore and a freshman respectively in 1990 and nobody was talking Hall of Fame about either.

Trajan Langdon led the 1998 team with barely 15 ppg and J.J. Redick led the 2004 team with 15.9 ppg and those teams certainly were competitive at the highest level.

Nobody from the 1987 or 2003 teams even sniffed All-America status and they won 24 and 26 games respectively and advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. I'm pretty sure the '08-'09 Duke team is better than either of those.

[MarkD83]

Red....No, I mean blue...argggggggggggggggggggggh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GoDuke99]

we dont have a clear go to guy, each player has his own role but if anyone it would be Paulus.
he will provide great senior leadership and will get the fans and players fired up with one of his insane three streaks

[Newton_14]

I believe this is the year we will finally see the Gerald Henderson that we all have been waiting to see. It almost happened this past year but the wrist injury was a huge impact. He still had a really good year inspite of that, though. A lot of folks forget that Gerald started the game at a late age and is still learning how to use his skills. Which is one reason, I think, he has not been so anxious to jump to the nba. The guy is a freak of an athlete and has huge potential. He often times shows flashes of Kobe. I look for the play to be run for him in "must score" situations.

All that said, Singler is also an incredible player/athlete and with the extra body's available in the frontcourt next year, he shouldn't tire out like he did this year. Plus with a year under his belt he will likely take his game to a whole new level just like Gerald. He certainly could be the "Go To Guy" on any team in college hoops.

I look for those guys to be "The Men" next year. Not bad having Jon, Greg, and Nolan as the 3rd, 4th, and 5th options huh? I can't wait!

[Classof06]

The way I look at go-to-guy is when you're in a close game, down 1 or 2 points and you need a bucket. And if we go by that premise, then I'd have to say Gerald Henderson without question. Like Boozer just said, I think this is the year we finally get to see Gerald Henderson blossom and it's going to be a sight to behold. This kid is the real deal.

When Duke was on its January-to-early-February hot streak last season, the greatest strength of that team was that it was a different guy stepping up every night. I suspect and hope that we'll see much of that next year as well. But if/when Duke finds itself in a close game with the clock winding down, I want to see the ball in Henderson's hands, period. If you saw Duke's NCAA tournament games last March, wouldn't you?

[EarlJam]

IGJ: Lighten up yourself. The question is irrelevant. We ask this every year and it means nothing.

It's sports talk. How do you define relevance?

I mean, when you get down to it, this entire board is dedicated to serving as a communication tool for a universe of people who are fanatical about cheering and hoping that a group of young men wearing a dark shade of blue can put a leather ball into a metal rim (10 feet off the floor) more times than another group of young men wearing other colors over a 40-minute period.

And THAT question is irrelevant?

ALL sports talk - and sports for that matter - is greatly irrelevant - but still, it's fun and entertaining. So no question, in my opinion, should be so dismissed. To do so to another poster is to come across as high-brow, and fartoongulating (again, in my humble opinion).

Question on!

-EarlJam

P.S. My answer: Henderson and/or Singler.

[MHTorringjan]

HOLY CRAP! Mike Gminski has a year of eligibility left?! That's awesome! That will totally solve our post problems.

(Perhaps Boozer can give us some minutes too... we'd be a force!)

Nah, G-man's probably a bit out of shape with all that sitting in a broadcaster's chair and radio work and whatnot. Boozer, however, can probably get the job done. ;-)

M.H.

[davekay1971]

I mean, when you get down to it, this entire board is dedicated to serving as a communication tool for a universe of people who are fanatical about cheering and hoping that a group of young men wearing a dark shade of blue can put a leather ball into a metal rim (10 feet off the floor) more times than another group of young men wearing other colors over a 40-minute period.


Especially if the young men in question are wearing a particularly nauseating shade of light blue...

[sagegrouse]

Go-To-Guy Definitions--

1. "Must touch the ball once on every possession," a la Laettner, Gminski or Brand. Probably Singler.

2. "Give him the ball and let him make a play," a la JWill or Grant or JD. Clearly, Henderson.

3. "Run a screen to get an open shot," a la JJ or Hurley. Paulus or Scheyer.

Looks like some good options to the old Grouse --

sagegrouse

[wilson]

It's sports talk. How do you define relevance?

I mean, when you get down to it, this entire board is dedicated to serving as a communication tool for a universe of people who are fanatical about cheering and hoping that a group of young men wearing a dark shade of blue can put a leather ball into a metal rim (10 feet off the floor) more times than another group of young men wearing other colors over a 40-minute period.

And THAT question is irrelevant?

ALL sports talk - and sports for that matter - is greatly irrelevant - but still, it's fun and entertaining. So no question, in my opinion, should be so dismissed. To do so to another poster is to come across as high-brow, and fartoongulating (again, in my humble opinion).

Question on!

-EarlJam

P.S. My answer: Henderson and/or Singler.

Put me down as a resounding second to all of this.

[MChambers]

I don't think Duke will be a true national contender without a first team A-A. (Or realistically, since A-A is often determined by preseason hype -- a player playing at that level.)

Answering my own (implied) question -- someone is going to have to step up big time. I expect it will be either Kyle or Gerald -- maybe Jon.

sagegrouse

Was anybody from Kansas a first team A-A this year? I don't think so.

[CDu]

Was anybody from Kansas a first team A-A this year? I don't think so.

I don't know if that's a relevant question, as our team next year will have very little in common with Kansas's team this year.

But the answer is "no, they didn't." In fact, they had zero members of any of the three AA teams.

[MChambers]

I don't know if that's a relevant question, as our team next year will have very little in common with Kansas's team this year.

But the answer is "no, they didn't." In fact, they had zero members of any of the three AA teams.

It's relevant in the sense that I was responding to some of the earlier posts that seemed to suggest a team had to have a "go to player" to be in the hunt for the national title.

I'd disagree with you a little, in the sense that we will have some commonality with 2008 Kansas. We'll be deep, and likely without a first-team AA.

But I agree with you if you are suggesting that we won't have as strong a low-post game, or as fast a backcourt, as Kansas had.