Obviously we have heard about Gotlieb, but every time I read about Duke on SI I have to read Luke Winn. He has something negative to say every time. He can not give our guys any credit! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...onn/index.html
Printable View
Obviously we have heard about Gotlieb, but every time I read about Duke on SI I have to read Luke Winn. He has something negative to say every time. He can not give our guys any credit! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...onn/index.html
Let's see, Luke. The Huskies had a decided "athletic" advantage at 4 out of 5 positions and a Hall of Fame coach on the sidelines.Quote:
Originally Posted by G man
Yet they lost decisively.
Maybe there's more to this game of basketball than running and jumping??
Funny it is about who can put the ball in the hoop more than the other teamQuote:
Originally Posted by roywhite
On top of that there are neither style points nor Russian judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by G man
I mentioned it in the other thread re Gottlieb, but the No. 2 highlight from BluePlanet puts to rest any claim that Miles is not athletic. He flies and maneuvers in the air like gymnast, though he skipped the 2-point landing in favor of something safer. There are damn few 6-10 athletes that could do that while fending off the backboard at the same time.
Luke needs a different perspective. He should look at that highlight.
That article was hardly negative at all. It was smart, analytical, and fair. If you think Luke Winn is a hater, well, I don't know what to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by G man
Jumbo, I won't disagree with you often - mainly because I hate having my head handed to me by someone smarter and more knowledgeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumbo
But I disagree with calling that article smart for one simple reason.
This is the same front line that we had last year and doesn't even count the fact that G floated to the forward spot.Quote:
The game hadn't exactly been vindication of the Blue Devils' highlight-reel potential, but this team certainly has more explosiveness on the front line than the last few Duke clubs.
Analytical and fair I do agree with.
The only comment that was blatantly unfair and factually incorrect, was where Wynn describes Robinson's windmill dunk in the first half and then states that there is no player on Duke's team capable of performing a dunk of that nature. That was comical.
He obviously needs to pull the tape of the dunk contest from Countdown to Craziness and educate himself. By my count there are 5 players on our team that could easily do that dunk. Olek, Miles, Mason, Andre for sure, and I would give Nolan a fair shot at it. So call it 4 and a half.
Other than that my only beef with it is how many times do we need to beat this horse? We get it, ok?
P.S.- And besides, does anyone really think Stanley Robinson could jump over Zoubs and dunk the way Miles did in that infamous summer game???;):cool::eek::p
Just let it roll off your back fellas, I will take the winning "basketball players" that we have and not worry about the great athletes other teams may have..
Rock On Jon Scheyer, you are the man!!
Count me in the camp that doesn't see how Luke Winn was ripping on the Devils at all. He states that Duke had a "dominating performance" against UConn and his point about how Duke's November play will translate to March is definitely fair after the last few years. His points about the subtext beneath the unathletic label ring true as well.
While technically G played the "small forward" position last year, I wouldn't consider him to be a front-line player at all. I think Miles playing 20 minutes/game vs 4 and the yet-to-be-seen (by most of us) addition of Mason Plumlee will definitely make our front line much more athletic than last yearQuote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner
Glad someone else was most annoyed by the "no Blue Devil" nonsense. We have got some SICK dunkers this year.
Which was my point. He's saying we're more explosive this year. Not counting G, we have the same front line as last year but playing more minutes. If anything, that would suggest we're less explosive - or Winn is going with a dialogue that's a bit short on logic. He also says that the addition of Mason will make us more explosive so he clearly hasn't included him into his calculus yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by tbyers11
Last year, we had Zoubs, Miles and Lance.
This year, we have Zoubs, Miles and Lance (so far).
Miles is playing more minutes which does add a dimension to the team but that was there last year in raw form - the same can be said of Mason this year. In fact, Mason has said that Miles is the better athlete.
I think he was forced to modify his commentary after the Duke front line manhandled UConn but has not necessarily changed his thinking.
But it did fit the message even if there isn't a basis for it. Boozer gave 5 people (well, four and a half) that he thought could pull it off. That's about half the squad and I think that Lance could probably do it too if he ever got aggressive enough. That's half the squad which is pretty good for a bunch of alarmingly unathletic guys. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boozer
Have to agree with some of the otehr who didn't take offense to Winn's article. I think K's comments after the games speak volumes and supports Winn's article in that if you read in between the lines that K realizes their team is not athlectically elite but rather in the average range. I do think this is a better team athletically than they have had since JJ and Sheldon's years and those teams were not elite athlectically. We'd have to go back to Battier/Jay/Boozer/Dunleavy years for the last teams that were athletically elite though 2004's teams was pretty good. Average atheleticism usually won't win a national championship unless there are other intangibles that overcome that. I think this team can use those intangible and compete for a championship. To paraphrase Calhoun's comments regarding K, the Duke team takes on K's persona on the court and as a result you have elite basketball skilled players that play excessively hard and won't be outworked to help compensate the average athleticism. From my early feelings on this team, I feel better than I inititally thought and I think they can hold their own with the elite athletic teams though I think the lack of backcourt depth could be a factor due to fatigue, fouls, etc. It will be interesting to see how they continue to develop and how MPII fits in as I have not seen him play other than the McDonald's game
That said, good, hard, under control basketball beat the out of control, trying to get to the basket at all costs style Friday. And finally, this wasn't a vintage UCONN team either athlecically and I think they have issues at a number of spots and SMITH IS BETTER ATHLECTICALLY THAN DYSON IMO ( Just had to get that in)!!!
Winn's usually quite fair and even-handed. And his description of the frontline being more explosive is accurate considering that he's including Mason who's mentioned in the very next sentence and that Miles only averaged 7 minutes when he got into games last year.
Yet here is what Winn says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boozer
Quote:
The most undeniable evidence of the athleticism gap between UConn and Duke came seven minutes and 11 seconds into Friday's NIT Season Tip-Off final at Madison Square Garden
So Winn's undeniable evidence is false, yet the article is fair? Keep in mind that the "undeniable evidence of the athleticism gap" is the first sentence in Winn's article. Is Luke not aware that Olek Czyz, Miles Plumlee, and Mason Plumlee are capable of very spectacular dunks? There's 3 players, Luke.Quote:
No Duke player is capable of such a slam
Sorry, he played to the stereotype and highlighted the predictable for a Duke-hater. Why apologize for this guy or this line of commentary? It stinks.
Poppycock. He's a Duke-hater because he thinks Stanley Robinson can pull of dunks that no one on Duke can execute? Guess what -- he's right. Stanley Robinson is a ridiculous run/jump player. Miles has a great vertical. So does Olek. But Robinson -- man. Of course, none of that makes hima good basketball player, which was the bigger point of Winn's article that some of you are ignoring, for some reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by roywhite
And for whomever was making the comment about Duke's having the same frontcourt as last year, clearly it's not the same, given the number of minutes Miles is playing. And Miles, by himself, has made that group more explosive. Mason will be an even bigger addition.
Whoever. The poppycock stays.
I learned a long time ago that "opinions are like rectums...everybody has one and most of them stink". I'm a loyal Duke fan and I could care less if a player scores by dunking or shooting a jumper, just get the ball through the hoop! At the end of the day I want to see a "W" and I'm totally satisfied regardless of whether it was an ugly win or unathletic victory.
First, "...most of them stink"?? I would argue that they all stink. Just because UNC doesn't think theirs stink doesn't count.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDevilCorvette!
Sorry, had to say that!
Anyway. I think our style of play adds to our rap of being "unathletic". For instance, Luke Winn's comment that no one on Duke's team could pull of a dunk like that is ridiculous. However, no one on Duke's team would attempt to do it in a game for several reasons. First, it is not fundamental. If a Duke player were to miss that attempt, he would be benched immediately (especially in a close game like this one). And, second, it is a bit show-offish.. Duke is a very disciplined team, that may give the illusion of being unathletic at times, but Duke is very athletic and more importantly very fundamental and smart. And, yes they do take on Coach K's personality, and he is not a "tomahawk dunk" type of person.
I have a question - why do people care so much that we be athletic? Everyone seems to get insulted when people call our team unathletic. Who cares? No, honestly - who the hell cares?
So what if we aren't athletic? So what if we are? We are still winning games and playing great basketball, right? Isn't that the most important think? I'd take a bunch of unathletic players who play amazing together and win games over a bunch of Robinson-esque players who can provide awesome dunks but can't find a way to win. We know how to win. That's the bottomline. That's the Duke way.
The most important thing about our perceived lack of athleticism is how it can only be a positive for Duke. If, for example, the guy guarding Jon Scheyer thinks he's better than Jon, he becomes frustrated when Mr. Scheyer contorts in five different directions, shows six "Scheyer-faces" and hits a lay-up and draws a foul for a three point play.:cool:
Duke fans are used to Jon doing this kind of thing on a regular basis. I call it athleticism. If the opposition wants to think they got punked by the tall dorky guy who built a gun rack in high school shop class, what's not to love?