Talent, Transfers, etc (aka, anything but Roscoe Smith)

[Kedsy]

I am missing something in this discussion. Don't most top programs have scholarships to spare? Duke, for example, has two walk-ons on scholarship.

Thirteen scholarships is a lot of recruited players on a roster -- three guys that don't even make the court when the first two teams scrimmage. So, in reality, most schools have a scholarship or two in reserve, which would be available if an outstanding player becomes available.

On a slightly different topic and more in agreement with RelativeWays: In this day of high turnover on college rosters, it seems to me that schools should have an average of four recruited players in each incoming class. I remember (my long-term memory is still holding up) when Bill Foster said he was looking for only one player in a class -- that to replace the graduating Jim Spanarkel. Vince Taylor was a good one. It was strange at the time -- but unthinkable today.

With pro basketball salaries as they are, it is to be expected not only that players will go the NBA as soon as they can merit a three-year contract (first round selection) but also that players not fitting in at one program take a stab at transferring, to see if they can get traction somewhere else.

With a four-person recruiting class, one could transfer and one could go early, leaving only two to complete a four-year career. If I have time, I'll do a retrospective of past Duke recruting classes to see what the Duke experience has been.

sagegrouse

When Vince Taylor was recruited, Spanarkel was still a junior. The only recruited player to graduate was 11th man Bruce Bell. With the top ten players back from a team that played for the national championship, a one player class made sense. Spanarkel graduated after Taylor's freshman year, along with 4 other seniors (plus I think Johnny Harrell left as well), and was replaced by a four player freshman class.

Duke currently has 11 recruited players on scholarship. We have three seniors, and a junior who could possibly leave and are bringing in three freshmen (not counting Roscoe), which would bring us to 10 recruited scholarship players for 2010-11, assuming nobody else transfers or goes pro, which is obviously not a lock but is a fairly safe assumption. We have one additional senior in 2011, which would bring us down to 9 recruited scholarship players and allow us to recruit four 2011 high school seniors for 2011-12.

If Roscoe comes to Duke, then the only scholarship "in reserve" that would allow us to recruit four guys in 2011 would be if Kyrie is one-and-done (which is possible but doesn't seem likely) or if someone else transfers (ditto).

The argument that we may not get all four of our top targets in 2011 and therefore should accept the "bird in hand" if Roscoe wants to come to Duke makes some sense to me. But if you're suggesting we ought to go full steam ahead with 2010 recruiting because we'll always have a scholarship or two in reserve if things go perfectly in 2011, that doesn't make so much sense.

[jesus_hurley]

Duke is still needing a wing player for next season, now instead of HB, we're going after RS. May be too late to get him though. Holding a scholy for hopes of signing everyone you're targeting for the next recruiting class is foolish and naive. Duke will not get all of their targets for 2011, lets hope that Huckleberry doesn't decide he wants any of them. I say sign who you can, when you can.

Ol' Roy is maxed out for 2010 and is currently one over the limit for 2011 now. If only Davis leaves early this year he's still at somewhat of a recruiting disadvantage since you cannot guarantee another player will leave early and open up a scholarship. Not to say he won't go out and pull a Calapari, but it would be unethical for him to offer scholarships to anymore 2011 prospects until he has open spots

[flyingdutchdevil]

I agree. It is possible that Henson and Thompson both leave, but I doubt it. Honestly, I think it was a mistake by the Wear brothers to go to UNC. They aren't going to get a whole lot of playing time, until maybe their junior years. Maybe one of them, but there is so much depth there, I just don't see them fitting in with their system and lineups. I wonder if Ol Roy will encourage one or both of them to transfer to have another open scholly for 2011.

Thompson is a senior and gone anyway. Did you mean Davis? IMO, he is the only one that has the potential to leave early. If Henson goes under the Eric Cartman diet (Weight Gain 4000), then there is a small chance. But I just don't see it...

[jesus_hurley]

Thompson is a senior and gone anyway. Did you mean Davis? IMO, he is the only one that has the potential to leave early. If Henson goes under the Eric Cartman diet (Weight Gain 4000), then there is a small chance. But I just don't see it...

Beefcake!!

[Tim1515]

Ol' Roy is maxed out for 2010 and is currently one over the limit for 2011 now. If only Davis leaves early this year he's still at somewhat of a recruiting disadvantage since you cannot guarantee another player will leave early and open up a scholarship. Not to say he won't go out and pull a Calapari, but it would be unethical for him to offer scholarships to anymore 2011 prospects until he has open spots

I'm not convinced Davis leaves after this year like so many seem to be.

He was coming of a national title and was a projected top 5 pick...instead he comes back to a team that shouldn't make the final four. If he stays another year he has a good chance at his second NT. Davis staying really sucks...UNC would be half as dangerous this year without him.

Henson might go and someone might transfer.

[ChicagoCrazy84]

I'm not convinced Davis leaves after this year like so many seem to be.

He was coming of a national title and was a projected top 5 pick...instead he comes back to a team that shouldn't make the final four. If he stays another year he has a good chance at his second NT. Davis staying really sucks...UNC would be half as dangerous this year without him.

Henson might go and someone might transfer.

The Wears should go elsewhere (or one of them). They're good, but there's so much depth there already, I don't see them factoring in the rotation much in bigger games.

[Battierfan01]

The Wears should go elsewhere (or one of them). They're good, but there's so much depth there already, I don't see them factoring in the rotation much in bigger games.

I can see someone on this UNC team transferring. I think that next year there is going to be a real problem with players and playing time. I can defiantly see the Wears sitting at the end of a long bench next year.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I can see someone on this UNC team transferring. I think that next year there is going to be a real problem with players and playing time. I can defiantly see the Wears sitting at the end of a long bench next year.

Also, what about Larry Drew? The incoming PG is supposed to be darn good, a good fit for Ole Roy. Will Drew give up his starting position so readily?

[oldnavy]

Excellent post! You hit on the concern/frustration I've had with our teams since '04. We've had great recruits come in but it seems since we missed Wright we have been one key recruit away from being a complete team. I honestly feel that if we had gotten any of the bigs we were seeking the last several years we'd have been in a legit position to win a national title. And I agree that we need Roscoe now to finally get over the hump and have that complete team again.

I hope no one takes what I've said as being disrespectful of any of our teams since '04, but I do believe what you stated is 100% correct and we need to right the ship in that area. Smith would certainly be key at this point, IMHO.

I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

[_Gary]

I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

Yeah, I understand how you could take that comment in the wrong way. By "Complete" I'm talking having a team that truly is a strong national title contender because all the parts are in place. I think since '04 we've lacked a piece to the puzzle that would have put us in that position, hence my use of the word "complete". It's in a truly legit national title contender sense that I use the word, not a good or even very good team sense.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, I understand how you could take that comment in the wrong way. By "Complete" I'm talking having a team that truly is a strong national title contender because all the parts are in place. I think since '04 we've lacked a piece to the puzzle that would have put us in that position, hence my use of the word "complete". It's in a truly legit national title contender sense that I use the word, not a good or even very good team sense.

You don't think the 2005 and 2006 teams were national title contenders? In the final pre-tournament coaches poll we were #2 in the country in 2005 and #1 in 2006. What more do you need to be a contender?

[jipops]

You don't think the 2005 and 2006 teams were national title contenders? In the final pre-tournament coaches poll we were #2 in the country in 2005 and #1 in 2006. What more do you need to be a contender?

At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

[oldnavy]

At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

National titles have been won with significantly less talent. We just didn't play well during the tournement when it counted. There is more to winning the title than putting the most talent on the court. Often you need to catch a couple of breaks, and you certainly cannot afford to have a shooting slump in a 6 game "season".

[Bluedevil114]

I think it is important we lock him up for 2010 to increase our Recruiting Rankings and to improve our front court and add some toughness. If we improve our recruiting after not getting HB this looks good for the Millers, Rivers and Beals of the future.

At least we will not lose Smith to UNC.

[NSDukeFan]

At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

I agree with some of the above posters that it would be ideal to have a big center and some strong interior players, some good slashing wing players, good shooters, a point guard who can create shots and penetrate and will, guys who can defend all positions, good rebounders, and depth at all positions. The reality is that to be a contender for a national title, you don't necessarily have to have all these things.

I agree a better penetrating point guard would have helped in 2005 and 2006. But I am not sure how you can argue a team that was ranked in the top four most of the year is not a title contender.

[Poincaré]

I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

Just because we won 30 games does not mean the team was complete. I think that speaks more to the level of preparation and coaching we have at Duke. The problem is, come tournament time, everyone plays so hard that our advantage in the preparation department shrinks. Furthermore, if our team is not complete it is a given that we will eventually run into a serious match-up problem given the size of the tournament.

[Hermy-own]

I agree with the points being made, but I would like to think that we have had complete teams since 2004. We won 30 games and an ACC title last year. Maybe we need that one player to become an elite or special team, but saying we are not complete is not painting an accurate picture IMHO.

I disagree - with all respect to the players on those teams, they weren't complete. While we can win 30 games thanks to great players and great coaches covering up certain weak spots, it always made it hard to win the NCAA tourney. To get far in the tourney, we needed to go on a long streak, which is difficult when you hope each game that the other team doesn't exploit your weakness (PG, big man, athleticism, only one star, etc).
Also, our 'best' play can still be great - think Duke vs Wake Forest last year, going up 41-19 - but with a weakness, it means that you never feel comfortable - Wake ended up getting very near us before we finally put them away, 101-91.

[Edouble]

I disagree - with all respect to the players on those teams, they weren't complete. While we can win 30 games thanks to great players and great coaches covering up certain weak spots, it always made it hard to win the NCAA tourney. To get far in the tourney, we needed to go on a long streak, which is difficult when you hope each game that the other team doesn't exploit your weakness (PG, big man, athleticism, only one star, etc).
Also, our 'best' play can still be great - think Duke vs Wake Forest last year, going up 41-19 - but with a weakness, it means that you never feel comfortable - Wake ended up getting very near us before we finally put them away, 101-91.

I believe our team last year was complete with regards to personel, but it was not fully evolved. Coach K basically said that because the NCAA Tourney version of the Blue Devils had only been together for a month or so, if we had run into a team like 'Nova in January, we could have learned from the loss and developed further. Unfortunately the lineup with Jon at PG and Ewill playing big minutes was a new, and relatively untested group. Generally speaking, you need 3 NBA players on your team to win an NC. We had that last year.

[Kedsy]

At no point in those seasons did I think we were title contenders. What more do you need to be a contender? A pg would've helped. In the case of '06, how about having more than 1 guy who can hit a perimeter shot? I always thought we were massive over-achievers actually in those seasons, though I know most couldn't (wouldn't) see it that way.

Well, the actual title winner that year was Florida, who had Taurean Green at PG and had exactly one player who shot well from the perimeter (Lee Humphrey, who only scored 11 ppg). So based on your criteria, I think Duke was at least a contender.

If the #1 team in the country, with two first-team all-Americans, isn't a title contender then what team ever will be?

[jipops]

Well, the actual title winner that year was Florida, who had Taurean Green at PG and had exactly one player who shot well from the perimeter (Lee Humphrey, who only scored 11 ppg). So based on your criteria, I think Duke was at least a contender.

If the #1 team in the country, with two first-team all-Americans, isn't a title contender then what team ever will be?

Seriously? Do you really think the overall talent level existing for Duke at the time was equal to that of Florida's? Corey Brewer was also excellent from deep btw and is currently on an NBA roster.

Oh jeesh, I really got off topic though. yes Roscoe would help with balance, something that is very important for a title contender (note the last several champs).