i can't take it anymore ii

[dukie8]

i keep hearing about how duke's inexperience is what led to our down year, how our freshmen are going to take time to develop (as in 2 or 3 years) and how we are expecting too much if we actually expected mcdonald's aas to start playing, like, mcdonald's aas by the time february rolls around their freshmen year. well, is that really the case? maybe some of you should start watching teams other than duke and unc play basketball. then, you might notice that around the country, successful teams actually ARE being led by freshman. look at of what some of these inexperienced frosh not named durant or oden did last week:

sosa (louisville) against texas a&m: 31 of his team's 69 points
conley (ohio st) against xavier: 21 pts (11 in ot), 5 rbs and 4 assts
kramer (purdue) against florida: 14 pts (he averaged 6.6 on the year)
porter (oregon) against winthrop: 14 pts and 6 rbs
gibson (usc) against texas: 17 pts and 14 rbs
augustin (texas) against nm st: 19 pts and 7 assts
curry (davidson) against maryland: 30 of his team's 70 points
r smith (tenn) against lb st: 22 pts and 6 assts
chism (tenn) against uva: 13 pts and 5 rbs
lawson (unc) against mich st: 20 pts and 8 assts
ellington (unc) against e kent: 12 pts, 6 rbs and 5 assts
reynolds (villanova) against uk: 23 points

why is it that our freshmen, despite being some of the most highly ranked recruits in the country, need kid gloves and are "3 or 4 year players" who will take several years before actually being key parts of a post season team? thank goodness laettner wasn't listening to many of the posters on here who think that it takes years to develop into a player who can lead a team in the tournament. otherwise, how would he ever have put up that 24 point 9 rebound pasting of the #1 team in the country in the regional finals his freshman year.

[throatybeard]

thank goodness laettner wasn't listening to many of the posters on here who think that it takes years to develop into a player who can lead a team in the tournament. otherwise, how would he ever have put up that 24 point 9 rebound pasting of the #1 team in the country in the regional finals his freshman year.

1) Laettner was a once-in-a-program talent at his position, excelling even Ferry, Brand, and Mike Lewis at the college stage of development. To compare any of the current crop to him is really quite unreasonable.

2) You cite that 24/9, which came at the end of the season, as if it were a typical performance. Laettner only averaged 17 minutes/game that year and fewer than 9 points. Pretty darn good. But not 36 iterations of the Georgetown game.

[Buckeye Devil]

I think your post is daring dukie8. You have asked what others have probably been wanting to ask and made a decent point about the success of other frosh and how they contributed to their team's success. This was a pretty highly touted class coming in.

With that said, I don't know that it is fair to expect so much from them when the supporting cast was less than spectacular and took time to develop over the course of the year.

[dockfan]

Even though I generally try to follow the "no excuses" philosophy, those freshmen you mentioned (I believe) probably had:
1) Several games where they played worse than the Duke freshmen
2) Scholarship seniors as teammates, or
3) Scholarship seniors in the regular rotation, or
4) Juniors (more than one) in the regular rotation, or
5) Juniors who had played an entire healthy season, or
6) A different level of pressure (or visibility - whatever you call it) based on the name across the front of their jerseys.
Maybe all six of those things were true for many of them.

All I'm saying is that context matters, a freshman's role matters, and consistency matters. Kevin Durant is the only freshmen I am aware of who was consistently productive this season. You could also selectively pick out a stat line from one game for each of our freshmen and make them look pretty darn good.

[devildownunder]

dukie8,

from your posts, it seems clear you think something other than, or at least more than, youth held back our freshman recruits this year.

What do you think it was?

[Troublemaker]

i keep hearing about how duke's inexperience is what led to our down year, how our freshmen are going to take time to develop (as in 2 or 3 years)......why is it that our freshmen, despite being some of the most highly ranked recruits in the country, need kid gloves and are "3 or 4 year players" who will take several years before actually being key parts of a post season team?

The above is probably an unfair characterization. I can only speak for myself, but as someone who has labeled our young players as "3 or 4 year" guys, I already consider Henderson and Scheyer to be "key parts" of a postseason team. Don't you? I would also say that they're constantly developing (as opposed to taking two or three years to develop as suggested above), and that the two or three year wait isn't for them to develop into key players, but rather championship contenders. For example, I would expect Duke to be a legitimate top 5 team in 2009, when Paulus/Pocius/McClure are seniors and Hendo/Scheyer/LT/Z are juniors.

[A-Tex Devil]

dukie8,

from your posts, it seems clear you think something other than, or at least more than, youth held back our freshman recruits this year.

What do you think it was?

Simple -- we ran an offense expecting 35-40 points a game from Josh and DeMarcus, and it never materialized. We had the occasional defensive problems, but it always seemed to go along with offensive problems.

I think the freshmen played quite well, frankly. In fact, I don't think we highlighted them on offense enough. One was quite a scorer earlier in the season, and faded (or did he?). Another started filling it up later on in the season. But for some mysterious reason, he hardly saw the ball against VCU.

We have up to 3 returning players on this team that could average 18 points a game next year. They're not Demarcus or Josh. If we have the same offensive plan next year -- and I don't think we will -- we'll struggle similarly.

[jipops]

i keep hearing about how duke's inexperience is what led to our down year, how our freshmen are going to take time to develop (as in 2 or 3 years) and how we are expecting too much if we actually expected mcdonald's aas to start playing, like, mcdonald's aas by the time february rolls around their freshmen year. well, is that really the case? maybe some of you should start watching teams other than duke and unc play basketball. then, you might notice that around the country, successful teams actually ARE being led by freshman. look at of what some of these inexperienced frosh not named durant or oden did last week:

sosa (louisville) against texas a&m: 31 of his team's 69 points
conley (ohio st) against xavier: 21 pts (11 in ot), 5 rbs and 4 assts
kramer (purdue) against florida: 14 pts (he averaged 6.6 on the year)
porter (oregon) against winthrop: 14 pts and 6 rbs
gibson (usc) against texas: 17 pts and 14 rbs
augustin (texas) against nm st: 19 pts and 7 assts
curry (davidson) against maryland: 30 of his team's 70 points
r smith (tenn) against lb st: 22 pts and 6 assts
chism (tenn) against uva: 13 pts and 5 rbs
lawson (unc) against mich st: 20 pts and 8 assts
ellington (unc) against e kent: 12 pts, 6 rbs and 5 assts
reynolds (villanova) against uk: 23 points

why is it that our freshmen, despite being some of the most highly ranked recruits in the country, need kid gloves and are "3 or 4 year players" who will take several years before actually being key parts of a post season team? thank goodness laettner wasn't listening to many of the posters on here who think that it takes years to develop into a player who can lead a team in the tournament. otherwise, how would he ever have put up that 24 point 9 rebound pasting of the #1 team in the country in the regional finals his freshman year.

Many of the players you mention in this list are simply better players at this point than our freshmen (conley, lawson, ellington, etc...). Recruiting rankings even reflected that notion. So that renders much of your point moot. The Curry kid at Davidson is just unreal, you seriously cannot expect any of our freshmen approach his kind of performance this season.

As for some of the other players, it is not at all unusual for lower profile freshmen to have bigger numbers than those on major recruiting lists. Actually, it can be more of the norm. Every freshman you named either has the luxury of playing off another superstar or at the very least plays with the support of multiple upperclassmen. Our young guys do not have any of those luxuries. Now the rest of your point is moot.

Go back and look at the numbers of past Duke freshmen and you'll see that our current frosh are pretty much on par with the past. In fact, Scheyer is actually among an elite group that has averaged double figures as a freshman.

There is no way around it, youth was the major factor in our struggles this season. Sure we don't have the kind of sick talent that only a handful of our past teams have had. But that's the thing, expecting us to have dominating talent year in, year out is far from realistic. I do believe we have a very good group here, one that will produce fine results in the future. Don't go jumping on them now as disappointments just because of your own outlandish expectations.

[Kewlswim]

Hi Dukie8,

I enjoyed chatting with you on snrubchat. I think some kids develop and make contributions faster than others. So, our kids are taking longer (if they are in fact taking longer), no shame in that. Also no shame if in fact Coach K made some poor recruiting choices--only time will tell. Recruiting is an imperfect science at best. In one or two years we will know how good or bad this crop of kids really is. Are you looking for someone on here to admit that Coach K made recruiting mistakes? I am not ready to do so yet for the reasons given. I also think in most of the teams you cited, though I admit I could be wrong, that there were a number of upperclassmen (as in more than just one junior) to help lead the way.

I also think there is another factor. I think most people would agree that Duke recruits kids who are both good students and for the most part nice kids. I don't think we have a guy who brings a nastiness (in a good way) to this years club. I would like to see a guy with a chip on his shoulder who wills the team to victory, but I would settle with a guy who is just a meanie and sometimes gets in his teammates faces to perform. McRoberts, I think, the coaches wanted to be that guy, but he really wasn't. He may or may not have been liked in the clubhouse. Overall, he wasn't as McNasty as we might have liked.

Dukie8, I truly believe that if this team was able to shoot free-throws--something my mom is good at because as she told me as a kid it is all about repetition! We might not be having this thread. The team might have beaten VCU. If so, confidence, something that is really important in any sport, would have returned to the team and they would have played Pitt tough--though I think Pitt is a better team. I think the team matched up well with Pitt and well, I was hoping to make my way to San Jose.

GO DUKE!

[gep]

I also think in most of the teams you cited, though I admit I could be wrong, that there were a number of upperclassmen (as in more than just one junior) to help lead the way.


I also agree with this statement. This team not only had zero senior experience/leaders, but the two "juniors" were: (1) injured much of his freshman and sophomore seasons, or (2) a redshirt, so really a sophomore in experience. And, the sophomores previously played under 2 all-americans and 2 other senior starters. I think it's one thing to watch and learn from the senior leaders, but a whole other matter to actually *be* the leader.

Also, I sometimes get the idea that one of Coach K's philosophies is to develop freshmen as "4" year players in his system... whereas, in other teams, freshmen are recruited to play and contribute immediately... so the other freshmen "appear" to be more developed, better, more productive, etc.

I still believe in Coach K...

[devildownunder]

Many of the players you mention in this list are simply better players at this point than our freshmen (conley, lawson, ellington, etc...). Recruiting rankings even reflected that notion. So that renders much of your point moot. The Curry kid at Davidson is just unreal, you seriously cannot expect any of our freshmen approach his kind of performance this season.

As for some of the other players, it is not at all unusual for lower profile freshmen to have bigger numbers than those on major recruiting lists. Actually, it can be more of the norm. Every freshman you named either has the luxury of playing off another superstar or at the very least plays with the support of multiple upperclassmen. Our young guys do not have any of those luxuries. Now the rest of your point is moot.

Go back and look at the numbers of past Duke freshmen and you'll see that our current frosh are pretty much on par with the past. In fact, Scheyer is actually among an elite group that has averaged double figures as a freshman.

There is no way around it, youth was the major factor in our struggles this season. Sure we don't have the kind of sick talent that only a handful of our past teams have had. But that's the thing, expecting us to have dominating talent year in, year out is far from realistic. I do believe we have a very good group here, one that will produce fine results in the future. Don't go jumping on them now as disappointments just because of your own outlandish expectations.


It seems to me that the point is that our guys are not as good as their rankings suggest -- not right out of the shoot anyway -- and that all of the other reasons listed are just excuses.

sorry, dukie8, for putting words in your mouth.

[duke23]

i keep hearing about how duke's inexperience is what led to our down year, how our freshmen are going to take time to develop (as in 2 or 3 years) and how we are expecting too much if we actually expected mcdonald's aas to start playing, like, mcdonald's aas by the time february rolls around their freshmen year. well, is that really the case? maybe some of you should start watching teams other than duke and unc play basketball. then, you might notice that around the country, successful teams actually ARE being led by freshman. look at of what some of these inexperienced frosh not named durant or oden did last week:

sosa (louisville) against texas a&m: 31 of his team's 69 points
conley (ohio st) against xavier: 21 pts (11 in ot), 5 rbs and 4 assts
kramer (purdue) against florida: 14 pts (he averaged 6.6 on the year)
porter (oregon) against winthrop: 14 pts and 6 rbs
gibson (usc) against texas: 17 pts and 14 rbs
augustin (texas) against nm st: 19 pts and 7 assts
curry (davidson) against maryland: 30 of his team's 70 points
r smith (tenn) against lb st: 22 pts and 6 assts
chism (tenn) against uva: 13 pts and 5 rbs
lawson (unc) against mich st: 20 pts and 8 assts
ellington (unc) against e kent: 12 pts, 6 rbs and 5 assts
reynolds (villanova) against uk: 23 points

why is it that our freshmen, despite being some of the most highly ranked recruits in the country, need kid gloves and are "3 or 4 year players" who will take several years before actually being key parts of a post season team? thank goodness laettner wasn't listening to many of the posters on here who think that it takes years to develop into a player who can lead a team in the tournament. otherwise, how would he ever have put up that 24 point 9 rebound pasting of the #1 team in the country in the regional finals his freshman year.

Obviously, none of our freshmen had terrific games against VCU. But you seem to be implying that they haven't improved, and I think this is completely untrue. Jon Scheyer scored in the double digits for 10 straight games prior to VCU. Gerald had 15 against MD and 16 against UNC in the last two regular season games.

The problem with youth isn't talent, it's consistency - that's why, IMO, our inexperience led to our downfall. Having a senior leader who can produce consistently and stabilize the team is a huge benefit. For instance, Mike Conley Jr. took over in OT, but he scored only 10 in regulation - it was senior Ron Lewis who hit the big 3. Furthermore, look at Texas - you mention Augustin's 19 pt, 7 ast against NM St, but he followed that up with 8 pts on 1-8 shooting and 6 TO against USC - not surprisingly in a losing effort.

I agree that we should be able to expect our best freshmen to perform at a high level by the end of the year. I think for the most part they have. But I think we should not expect them to never have some off games.

[devildownunder]

Also, I sometimes get the idea that one of Coach K's philosophies is to develop freshmen as "4" year players in his system... whereas, in other teams, freshmen are recruited to play and contribute immediately... so the other freshmen "appear" to be more developed, better, more productive, etc.



I don't really accept that. I've seen plenty of freshmen come in and play huge minutes for K, at every position, including this year.

[gep]

I don't really accept that. I've seen plenty of freshmen come in and play huge minutes for K, at every position, including this year.

I agree... it was just a thought as to possibly why freshmen on other teams not only play huge minutes like Duke's freshmen, but appear to be more productive and "better" than Duke's freshmen this year... at least that's what seems to be the general consensus so far. I guess was trying to differentiate between "minutes played/productive performance" and "minutes played/learn the system first"... if that makes any sense.

[dukie8]

It seems to me that the point is that our guys are not as good as their rankings suggest -- not right out of the shoot anyway -- and that all of the other reasons listed are just excuses.

sorry, dukie8, for putting words in your mouth.

gulp. i would agree with that. the 2006 unc team basically destroys any of the myriad of excuses constantly being flung around here trying to explain the lackluster season this year. they had even LESS experience (as in next to zero and not 3 guys each with roughly 1000 minutes played, most of which were on national tv) and had a much more successful season any way you look at it.

[jipops]

It seems to me that the point is that our guys are not as good as their rankings suggest -- not right out of the shoot anyway -- and that all of the other reasons listed are just excuses.

sorry, dukie8, for putting words in your mouth.

You don't get it, you just don't get it.

[johnb]

To most of the posters on this particular thread, please read the front page of DBR for a discussion of the year and the players.

[bcato]

Seems to me the holes were 23-8 in 05-06 with a 12-4 ACC mark. Seems to me the ACC was a much weaker league last year and there's no reason to think this year's team wouldn't have been every bit as successful as last year's UNC team. In actuality had our team just hit the last shot in 3 of those games our record would have been equal to or better than last year's UNC team with the only difference being our 1st round loss to a CAA team as opposed to a 2nd round loss to a CAA team.
I am proud of this year's team and am looking forward to next year.

[phaedrus]

gulp. they had even LESS experience (as in next to zero and not 3 guys each with roughly 1000 minutes played, most of which were on national tv) and had a much more successful season any way you look at it.

i keep reading this and i don't understand it. please tell me how a team that finished a distant 2nd in a much weaker acc and lost early in the acc and ncaa tournaments (gasp! to an 11-seed!) had a much more successful season than us this year.

[jagger]

bcato -- You're right, if they had finished games better (PLAYED BETTER!), then this wouldn't be an issue.

Other than that, what about people's impressions watching the team. Statistics aside, I think if you are honest with yourself you will admit that the team looked weak. They did not appear to improve over the course of the year. At the end of the season, I was not any more comfortable about their ability to close out games than I was early on in the conference season.

So what do we do about it? Really, it's not our job. I guess we just continue rooting for them. But they are not beyond criticism. I's absurd when people jump on any poster who points that out.

[pamtar]

In Dukes case experience isnt talent or consistency, its a player's or team's ability to preform under the guidelines and demands of the program. K has paramiters set that he believes a team needs to follow. These parameters may push talent aside in order to aid cumulative progression. In the case of most of the fresman you listed they are experienced based on the complexity of their program's game plan. Dribble dribble shoot shoot is much easier to master than accepting your role and not interfering with the coach's process - whatever that may include. In fact Duke's freshman are probably more experienced in reguards to bball IQ than most of the guys you listed. They have to play for Coach K though. Here experience means making things work and the team as a whole has clearly not done that.

[dukeimac]

Well, I see things in another light.

Scheyer - the guy to fill JJ's shoes (pressure). This guy is a scorer and not a defender. His lack of speed showed up against other quick guards.

Thomas - the guy to help fill Sheldon's shoes (pressure). This guy was a scorer and not a defender. His lack of experience playing against more physical guys showed. He is more of a 3 than a 4 or 5.

Zoubek - the guy to help fill Sheldon' shoes (pressure). This guy was always the tallest and biggest guy thus he was tested by more physical guys and didn't respond well.

They weren't a great class and they'll get better. Next year's class will look better than this years but the question I have is Smith, Singler and King are all scores but do they play defense?

[imagepro]

have a thumbs down symbol beside of it? It's at least as interesting as ones with thumbs up. It's sort of insulting to everyone who has posted here to label it as such. It's like sahying it isn't worthy or something.

Who is the "power" to label posts as up/down? And do they label it based on their own opinion, because it's their friend, or just what exactly IS the criteria for such ratings? Dukie8, I guess they don't like you, huh?

[dukie8]

i keep reading this and i don't understand it. please tell me how a team that finished a distant 2nd in a much weaker acc and lost early in the acc and ncaa tournaments (gasp! to an 11-seed!) had a much more successful season than us this year.

very easy. let's compare the 2. first, let's look at the experience (or lackthereof) of the 2 teams.

this is unc's lineup that started its 1st round ncaa game with career minutes played going into 2006:

terry -- 249
hansbrough -- 0 (freshman)
noel -- 1137 + his freshman year (apparently unc didn't track min played in 2003)
frasor -- 0 (freshman)
miller -- 92 (plus 515 at jmu)

this is duke's lineup that started its 1st round ncaa game with career minutes played going into 2007:

paulus -- 1163
mcroberts -- 883
nelson -- 1151
scheyer -- 0 (freshman)
henderson -- 0 (freshman)

as you can see, duke actually was MORE experienced than unc's team last year. unc had noel and that's it. duke this year had 3 guys each with more experience than the unc's roster minus noel COMBINED. so right off the bat, it is clear that this inexperiencitis people like to point to for duke this year actually was much more severe at unc last year.

now let's look at what went on in each season.

unc:

*23-8 overall (10th sos)
*12-4 in acc (2nd)
*1 win in the acc tournament
*1 win in the ncaa tournament (lost to 11 seed gm who went on to the final 4)
*nonconference wins at kentucky and arizona
*finished the regular season on a 7 game winning streak
*beat duke at duke on senior day

duke:
*22-11 overall (3rd sos)
*8-8 in acc (tied for 6th)
*0 wins in the acc tournament
*0 wins in the acc tournament (lost to 11 seed vcu who went on to lose in the 2nd round)
*nonconference wins at home against georgetown and indiana and neutral gonzaga
*finished the regular season on a 2 game losing streak
*swept by unc and maryland

so let's summarize:
*overall record a slight edge to unc
*conference performance edge to unc
*acc tournament edge to unc (1 win is better than 0)
*ncaa tournament edge to unc (1 win is better than 0 and lost to a team that continued winning)
*nonconference games even (duke's weren't on the road but there were 3 good ones versus 2)
*end of season edge to unc (winning streaks are better than losing streaks)
*record against rivals edge to unc (sweeps are sweeps)

the acc was better this year but not by as much as people around here like to think (kenpom had it #3 last year #1 by a whisker this year and the acc's performance in the ncaa tournament hardly has been remarkable). what metrics are you using that led you to conclude that a LESS experienced unc team last year had a worse season than duke this year?

[Jumbo]

have a thumbs down symbol beside of it? It's at least as interesting as ones with thumbs up. It's sort of insulting to everyone who has posted here to label it as such. It's like sahying it isn't worthy or something.

Who is the "power" to label posts as up/down? And do they label it based on their own opinion, because it's their friend, or just what exactly IS the criteria for such ratings? Dukie8, I guess they don't like you, huh?

The person who creates the thread can add an icon next to his thread. In this case, it appears. Dukie8 included a thumbs down. You can also put a thumbs down, or several other symbols, next to any message you post. Simply look at the Post Icons section below the area where you type.

[dukie8]

The person who creates the thread can add an icon next to his thread. In this case, it appears. Dukie8 included a thumbs down. You can also put a thumbs down, or several other symbols, next to any message you post. Simply look at the Post Icons section below the area where you type.

i wasn't aware of that capability...

[Jumbo]

i wasn't aware of that capability...

In that case, I have no idea how a thumbs-down got added next to the thread.

[dukie8]

In that case, I have no idea how a thumbs-down got added next to the thread.

i may have inadvertently hit that button when i created the thread.

[phaedrus]

good points, dukie8, and based on that i agree that unc last year did have a better season than us this year.

but people point to unc last year as an example of what we could have been this year, as if the contrast between the two is enough to show that williams got them to overachieve while we underachieved. swap our season this year with unc's last year, and i don't think we're in any different situation. we'd all be just about as disappointed - think if we'd beaten nc state and vcu (only a difference of 2 baskets), duplicating unc's success last year, and ask yourself if you'd still have started this thread. i imagine you would have.

point is, it makes little sense to point at unc '06 and wish we could have had that, since we would have felt let down with that too.

[dukie8]

good points, dukie8, and based on that i agree that unc last year did have a better season than us this year.

but people point to unc last year as an example of what we could have been this year, as if the contrast between the two is enough to show that williams got them to overachieve while we underachieved. swap our season this year with unc's last year, and i don't think we're in any different situation. we'd all be just about as disappointed - think if we'd beaten nc state and vcu (only a difference of 2 baskets), duplicating unc's success last year, and ask yourself if you'd still have started this thread. i imagine you would have.

point is, it makes little sense to point at unc '06 and wish we could have had that, since we would have felt let down with that too.

i disagree. if we had beaten unc at home (not a stretch since we were winning almost the entire game) and beat maryland 1 time, we would not have been playing on thurs of the acc tournament. if we won our first game on friday (pick an opponent), then, with those extra 3 wins, we probably would have been a 3 seed (maybe a 4). if we then beat say albany or miami of ohio in the first round but then lost to some mid major, like winthrop, that was en route to the final 4 with a win against, say florida, i think that most people, myself included, would be saying that we just laid the foundation to hopefully a final 4 run next year. given how the last month unraveled, i cannot say that with a straight face.

[imagepro]

for that explanation of the "thumbs down" thing. I had no idea, nor did Dukie8, who started the thread.

If he didn't do it (& I doubt he hit it inadvertently, as that would be VERY difficult to do, though maybe not impossible) I wonder who did. And why in the world would someone post a thread, and rate it thumbs down themself? That seems highly unlikely from my viewpoint, which I admit may be incorrect.

Sure sounds as if someone else did it. But you taught Dukie8 and myself something new today. See, you're a moderator for a reason, and doing a good job too. Thank you for the tip!

[imagepro]

Change your rating to thumbs up Dukie8. I enjoyed reading all the posts here. It certainly does not warrant a thumbs down. Give yourself the credit deserved my friend. You did a lot of research, and all points, by you and Phaedrus were interesting. Nice job!

[Jumbo]

for that explanation of the "thumbs down" thing. I had no idea, nor did Dukie8, who started the thread.

If he didn't do it (& I doubt he hit it inadvertently, as that would be VERY difficult to do, though maybe not impossible) I wonder who did. And why in the world would someone post a thread, and rate it thumbs down themself? That seems highly unlikely from my viewpoint, which I admit may be incorrect.

Sure sounds as if someone else did it. But you taught Dukie8 and myself something new today. See, you're a moderator for a reason, and doing a good job too. Thank you for the tip!

All the rivals.com boards that most schools use have the same thing. As far as I can tell, only the original poster can mark a thread "thumbs down," "thumbs up," or anything else. I even tried to see if I could, as a moderator, edit it out of Dukie8's post. I can't.

On other boards, people use the "thumbs down" symbol all the time. For instance, when Carolina people whine about Roy playing too many guys, they might start a thread called "Roy's rotation" with a thumbs down next to it, as a way to let people know that they're ticked off about it. In other words, it's a way for the thread creator to expression his sentiment on the topic.

It's pretty easy to click the icon by accident -- it's almost right above the "submit reply" button. Dukie8 and I are both pretty sure that's what happened -- no need to read anything else into it.