Has DeCourcey lost his mind?

[dkbaseball]

Or was he old enought to follow hoops in the early '90s?

First of all, he should get some facts straight. Brian Davis got most of the minutes at the forward spot opposite Grant, though Koubek may have been the nominal starter in '91. Lang seldom got off the bench during the national championship seasons. DeCourcey also seems to suggest that McCaffrey and Parks were part of the same bench. They never played together. And Grant is generally thought of as having played the four for Duke.

With those corrections, on to the most egregious of DeCourcey's calls. Whether you match Grant against Brewer or Horford, it is simply no contest. Why does this guy not get the respect he deserves. He's the best player ever to play for Duke. If you put the question to K I don't think he'd hesitate a moment in responding. Great as Laettner and Hurley were, they lost to UNLV by 30. Add Grant to the mix and you get a far more athletic and versatile team that beats the same UNLV bunch. Then Grant nearly carries the '94 team on his back to a NC. Before he was hurt, he was one of the top half dozen players in the NBA. Come on hoops conventional wisdom -- Grant Hill was one of the all-time greats.

Also, I don't think Humphries launches nearly as many of those threes with THill all over him.

[HK Dukie]

I completely agree. Grant Hill was absolutely amazing. What he did in '94 was absolutely mind-blowing. He almost singlehandedly won the NC.

I will give Brewer a lot of credit though. I think he will be the best NBA player out of the Florida bunch. However, I do not believe he was even close to Grant, even during Gran't soph season (nor should they be compared because they play different positions).

I would submit that we had three players better than ANYONE on this Florida team. That should end the discussion right there.

[kexman]

I agree that grant is one of the all time greats, but to be fair the comparison should be of grant hill as a freshman and soph. He did not have much of an outside game until his junior and senior years.

The part that I liked about florida is that there was not much fall off in talent 1-6. They were a great "team".

To belittle all of current college basketball...we saw this year the true lack of talent in college basketball due to early entry by the way the freshman came in and dominated college basketball. I'm guessing that championship teams of today would barely crack the top 10 in the era before early entry. Same with the all american teams. The talent level of the players and teams is considerably lower. Duke 91-92 versus florida is really no contest...but it sells papers or add clicks

[dukeENG2003]

yeah, I like how he talks about how amazing it was that Brewer shut down Aflalo (sp?) but doesn't mention G-Hill's defense. G-Hill, if you remember, shut down "Big Dog" Glenn Robinson in 1994, a far more potent offensive force. The only reason you can possibly give Brewer the edge is that Brewer played his sophomore and junior years during the back to back NC, while G-hill was frosh and sophomore in Dukes NC years. Compare the overall quality of player he was though, G-Hill was a far better player than Brewer in his NCAA career.

[Tom B.]

Lang seldom got off the bench during the national championship seasons.

I don't disagree with most of your points, but this one is simply not true, especially when you look at the 1991-92 season.

As a freshman, Lang averaged 11.8 minutes per game and started eight games, which is a good bit more PT than "seldom getting off the bench." True, his playing time went down in the 1991 postseason, but he still played in every game and averaged 5.25 minutes per game.

As a sophomore, his playing time went up significantly, especially late in the year and in the postseason. After Bobby Hurley broke his foot in the game at Chapel Hill in early February, Grant Hill took over the point guard spot and Lang moved into the starting lineup. Later in February, Grant sprained his ankle in practice and missed a few games (he actually sprained it just a day or two before the game that Hurley was due to return), so Lang stayed in the starting lineup. Grant came back from the injury in time for the last regular season game (the home game against UNC), but Lang stayed in the starting lineup -- not just for that game, but for the entire postseason.

Over the whole season, Lang averaged 22.4 minutes per game. Starting with the game following Hurley's injury, however, and continuing through the entire postseason, Lang started every game and averaged over 26 minutes per game. Looking at the 1992 postseason alone, Lang averaged 23.9 minutes per game.

Grant actually averaged more minutes per game (28.9) than Lang during the 1992 postseason, despite coming off the bench (except for the national title game against Michigan, in which Grant started because Brian Davis had sprained his ankle in the semifinal). However, it's highly inaccurate to say that Lang "seldom got off the bench" during that season.

[Patrick Yates]

I agree with many of the points made regarding the FL and Duke comparisons.

Guess who wrote a (very good) article that reflects all of our points, and states that the Duke teams were superior?


Gregg Doyel


Ain't that a B***h.

Patrick Yates

[dkbaseball]

I stand corrected (and surprised at how my memory betrayed me). Props to Tony Lang for his contribution. But DeCourcey should be assessing a very physically and emotionally mature Brian Davis as a starting forward for those teams rather than "Lang/Koubek," because Brian is who would have been in there in crunch time when he was healthy.

[Tom B.]

I stand corrected (and surprised at how my memory betrayed me). Props to Tony Lang for his contribution. But DeCourcey should be assessing a very physically and emotionally mature Brian Davis as a starting forward for those teams rather than "Lang/Koubek," because Brian is who would have been in there in crunch time when he was healthy.

I agree with that. In fact, from a perspective of minutes played, the five primary players for Duke in the 1990-91 and 1991-92 seasons were basically the same -- Bobby Hurley, Thomas Hill, Brian Davis, Grant Hill and Christian Laettner. Greg Koubek technically was a starter for the 1990-91 team, but Davis played more minutes -- and Tony Lang was technically a starter for the 1991-92 team, but Grant Hill played more minutes.

That's why I'm not particularly bowled over by the whole "Florida is the first team to repeat with the same starting five" thing. Not that Florida hasn't accomplished something great by repeating as champions -- they have, and they deserve to be listed among the great teams in college basketball history for it. I just think there are plenty of other ways to recognize their achievements and give them the praise they deserve, so it's not necessary to invent a distinction for them that, while technically true, doesn't really set them very far apart from other teams that have accomplished the same feat.

[hurleyfor3]

That's why I'm not particularly bowled over by the whole "Florida is the first team to repeat with the same starting five" thing.

The only guy who has made a big deal about it has been Billy Packer, so consider the source.

[Wander]

I would submit that we had three players better than ANYONE on this Florida team. That should end the discussion right there.

And Ohio State had two. So what?

It's amazing to me how many people still don't "get" this Florida team. They're great - yes, great - because of the way they play perfectly as a team, not because they have any really jaw-dropping individuals.

I personally think that Duke 91/92 would beat this Florida team, but no one knows this for sure, and it is extremely debatable.

[vick]

And Ohio State had two. So what?

It's amazing to me how many people still don't "get" this Florida team. They're great - yes, great - because of the way they play perfectly as a team, not because they have any really jaw-dropping individuals.

I personally think that Duke 91/92 would beat this Florida team, but no one knows this for sure, and it is extremely debatable.

While I agree that this Florida team had impressive chemistry, and a game against Duke '92 would be at least competitive, DeCourcy's article used the methodology of matching up each position (plus the bench) to see which was better. In that case, having three players better than any of the other teams' players does effectively "end the discussion."

[mapei]

I thought the article was written in good fun and was pretty fair to Duke. Sure, we can argue a couple of points (Grant and Brewer were/are both terrific players) but he's probably right in saying the teams would be fairly evenly matched. And we'll never know. No need to be hyper-sensitive about it.

What I liked best was that there wasn't even a whiff of Duke-hating in the article. That's getting pretty rare.

[Wander]

While I agree that this Florida team had impressive chemistry, and a game against Duke '92 would be at least competitive, DeCourcy's article used the methodology of matching up each position (plus the bench) to see which was better. In that case, having three players better than any of the other teams' players does effectively "end the discussion."

The point remains that everyone here who suggests that they know for sure that Florida '07 wouldn't have stood a chance against Duke '92 and would have been blown out of the water is just being a completely biased Duke fan. I agree with mapai that the article was "just for fun" and there's no need to get worked up about it.

[dukemsu]

I find DeCourcy to be one of the fairest-minded columnists out there. I remember an article he wrote back in either 03 or 04 about how "old" he thought Duke bashing was getting. Ahead of his time. He actually thought that people should start asking why Maryland never got taken to task for Dukeitis, that dreaded Terrapin disease whose symptoms are Maryland playing horrible basketball in the games immediately following Duke-their annoying habit of making the latest Duke game the end-all, be-all of human existence. Gary's guys did a little better with this in 07, though.

Like I said, ahead of his time. He doesn't necessarily line up to toss bouquets at Duke's collective feet, but he is most assuredly not a chronic Duke basher. That's Forde, Doyel, etc...

dukemsu

[BDevilU]

The position-by-position analysis is a simpleton's ploy for the casual fan. Anyone who actually watched Duke in the early 90's would know that the lineup was routinely called "four guards and a forward"... meaning Hurley, GHill, THill, and Davis as the guards with Laettner as the forward. They forced other teams to play their style, to try to matchup with them instead of vice versa. They had the ability to defend multiple styles, thanks to the versatility of the Hills, Davis, and Lang. Hurley's on-the-ball defense was as good as I've ever seen, and Laettner was underrated as a defender despite ending his career as the NCAA Tournament career steals leader.
The '92 team could also play virtually any offensive tempo and style as well, thanks to that aforementioned versatility and the mastery of Hurley. They could run the break or carve you up in the halfcourt with equal ease.

One stat that I keep hearing to tout Florida's greatness is that they had five players who averaged double-figures in scoring. Duke '92 can also claim that statistic. Everyone on the floor was dangerous for Duke despite what current gurus claim.
Brian Davis rarely gets enough credit and is almost completely discounted, although he started all but the title game in that '92 season (due to that high ankle sprain suffered vs. IU in the Semifinal). Davis had a high game that season of 30 points in a tough 1 point win at Clemson (shortly after a gritty 19pt 11reb performance at highly-touted UCLA). Not bad for a 5th option. Any one of the starting five (Hurley, GHill, THill, Davis, Laettner) could go for 25 pts if the matchup or gameplan determined it.

As far as Humphrey's shooting prowess, I submit that Laettner averaged 55.7% from 3pt range during his senior season (compared to Humphrey's 45.9%). I'll take Laettner any day. If some consider this to be an apples to oranges argument, I'd say they are still stuck thinking in terms of positions. It all depends on the system and who is taking the shot. For Duke, it happened to be Laettner.

Despite DeCourcey's comments about Thomas Hill's inability to shoot, THill averaged just over 40% from 3pt range in both of Duke's championship seasons. True, he did only attempt 3 threes in the two title games, but he hit 2 of those 3 attempts. In addition to his 9.5 point average in the championships (compared to Humphrey's 14.5 ppg), Hill brought in 5.5 boards and a couple of steals (to LH's 1 and 0, respectively). Depends on what you need, I guess, but Hill was a better day-in, day-out, all-around player, and contributed far more to his team's success. THill also just happened to average 4 more ppg than Humphrey over the course of their respective second title seasons. But hey, let's judge a player's greatness based on one game (right, Toby Bailey?)

Duke was also a much better Free Throw shooting team. This is a crucial and often overlooked deciding factor in tournament games. The entire '92 Duke starting five (ranging from 73-81%) was better than anyone else from Florida with the exception of Green (84%). This doesn't include McCaffrey for Duke (who was comparable to Green) Lang was the only significant contributor for Duke to average under 70% while only two Gators averaged over that.

--------------
Also:

Championship Game averages:

Grant Hill *
14pts 9reb 4ast 2bk 3stl

Corey Brewer (37.5 minutes)
12pts 7.5reb 2.5ast 1bk 3stl

*unable to locate minutes

Even a slight edge to Hill just on stats. I fail to see where DeCourcey can give an edge to Brewer anywhere except in the heat of the moment and nearsightedness (so to speak). Hill also completely demoralized opponents with his acrobatics above the rim (see amazing dunk vs. Kansas that set the tone early, and the baseline reverse vs. Michigan that popped their balloon)

Don't get me wrong, Florida deserves incredible praise for doing what few have been able to do... but it does them a disservice to compare them to one of the greatest teams of all-time. They beat who they had to beat to repeat, but they would not have beaten Duke '92.

[Troublemaker]

Doing it Decourcy's way (player vs player), the matchups really should go:

Laettner > Horford
GHill > Noah
BD < Brewer
THill > Humphrey
Hurley >> Green
Lang/Parks = Richard/Hodge

So Duke takes 4 out of 5 matchups, winning one (Hurley vs Green) by a wide margin.

The one Decourcy really missed the boat on was the THill/Humphrey matchup since he gave Humphrey the edge. That's stupid. THill was so underrated back in the day (and obviously still is). He was 6'5" to Humphrey's 6'2". He could shoot the three well (though obviously not like Humphrey) but he could so much more: slash, post up, and play very good defense. It's idiotic to give Humphrey the edge.

[dukemsu]

Doing it Decourcy's way (player vs player), the matchups really should go:


The one Decourcy really missed the boat on was the THill/Humphrey matchup since he gave Humphrey the edge. That's stupid. THill was so underrated back in the day (and obviously still is). He was 6'5" to Humphrey's 6'2". He could shoot the three well (though obviously not like Humphrey) but he could so much more: slash, post up, and play very good defense. It's idiotic to give Humphrey the edge.

Two points here. I'd give Laettner a wide edge over Horford. Horford's an outstanding player, but Laettner is one of the 10 best collegians ever.

T Hill was also an opportunistic rebounder-I recall especially in the 92 final against Michigan he had some big offensive boards that helped blow that game open. Just a very versatile player. Humphrey, sound as he is fundamentally and as lights out a shooter as he is, is nowhere near the total player T. Hill was.

[Wander]

They beat who they had to beat to repeat, but they would not have beaten Duke '92.

You have absolutely no way of knowing this. Need I remind everyone that Duke '92 needed a miracle shot just to make the Final Four? We're two seconds, a full court pass, and the most famous shot of all-time away from not even having this discussion.

Quoting arbitrary statistics from individual Duke players misses the point. The way Florida worked as a team was unbelievable.

Again - I personally think Duke '92 was better, but I'm sick of biased Duke fans pretending like they know for sure that Duke '92 would blow Florida out 9 times out of 10.

[Troublemaker]

The point remains that everyone here who suggests that they know for sure that Florida '07 wouldn't have stood a chance against Duke '92 and would have been blown out of the water is just being a completely biased Duke fan. I agree with mapai that the article was "just for fun" and there's no need to get worked up about it.

Nobody knows for sure, but yeah, Duke 92 blows Fla 07 out of the water.

My take is we'd have a very different view of Fla's dominance if UNC and Kansas hadn't choked in the Elite 8. Fla ducked two very tough matchups for them there, and while they might've won the championship anyway, I doubt they'd be remembered for dominating a second consecutive Final Four. For that matter, UConn would've played a much more competitive game than George Mason last season. I know you can't change results, and it is what it is (and I obviously prefer that UNC choked). Just saying.

[Wander]

My take is we'd have a very different view of Fla's dominance if UNC and Kansas hadn't choked in the Elite 8.

And we'd have a very different view of Duke's dominance if Laettner doesn't hit a miracle shot off a perfect full-court pass in the Elite 8.