Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 104
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by bluenorth View Post
    I'm seeing a lot of young players developing their basketball IQ. Unfortunately, that comes at the cost of making mistakes. For example, Johnson's fifth foul was in a situation where a veteran player simply does not even think about reaching for the ball. Another is that even in a zone you do not lose track of Champagnie for one second - the guy put up a double double in the first half, so if he's not scoring he just might be going after a rebound. Yet another: after a nice steal and attacking in transition why throw a long pass to Tape? Even if he manages a clean catch, what is he going to do with the ball in that position? I could go on, but the theme is that these young guys are learning on the fly, and are paying for it. It will take time and repetitions, and the season is getting short.
    This team will improve w/experience but I do not see them beating even good (not top) teams consistently. They simply lack both talent and experience to do so. Johnson is the only one not limited in some way(s). Other teams will concentrate on him and dare the rest of team to beat them. We cannot expect 20+ pts/10+ rebs per game from him in the future given how opposition will treat him. Our shooting is lacking and our defense horrible-giving up open 3s and layups by the ton while committing way too many bad fouls.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronDuke View Post
    Hurt, Brakefield, and Johnson should be shooting the majority of the deep balls.
    Johnson is not a shooter. His long-distance shooting numbers in high school were poor, and his form is questionable. Maybe one or two three-point-attempts per game should be his maximum if you want efficient scoring. Instead, I agree with others who think the offense should run through him so he can find cutters and open three-point shooters who'll have a higher percentage chance of hitting their shots than he would.

    Obviously Hurt can shoot. So can Baker, notwithstanding his meh performance so far this season. But I don't know what to make of Brakefield's three-point shooting. His high school shooting numbers were mediocre, but his form looks pretty good. So I don't mind him taking shots but I'm not sure I want him to take so many (currently 54.3% of his shots are three-point attempts). His defense has been improving the past few games, but he still hasn't reached the level of "good." He's probably a 7th or 8th man right now.

    Steward is an interesting case. He's not on your list, but he has a shooter's mentality and apparently had shooting success in high school. He should be shooting. That said, to me, he looks like maybe he's a little flummoxed by the longer distance in college (vs. high school). His form looks a little funny, like he's trying to put some extra oomph on his shots. Troublemaker has suggested he's OAD, but I strongly suspect he could follow a Luke Kennard-type path. Kennard couldn't shoot very well his freshman year, either (32.0%, not that much different from Steward's current 30.8%). But Kennard as a sophomore shot 44% from three and got drafted in the lottery. Steward could possibly do the same (maybe not the lottery, but late first round is within his reach), but unless he suddenly starts hitting everything I'll be very surprised if an NBA team is interested in him in this year's draft.

    Roach is clearly not a shooter. His high school shooting stats were poor and his college shooting stats to date have been poorer. The problem is, so far he hasn't been a point guard either. His peripheral stats resemble a shooting guard (maybe a combo guard but not really) much more than a point, he doesn't display a great deal of passing vision when he has the ball, and despite his considerable speed and quickness, he doesn't seem to be able to get past his man and wreak havoc inside opposing defenses. And defensively, he's been erratic (his steals% is not terrible, but it is 9th on the team and his dRtg is an atrocious 108.1, by far the worst on the team). There's a lot of potential there for him to become a good player, but right now he's a bit of a liability. If we're only going to play two guards, I'm thinking maybe Goldwire should start ahead of him.

    Finally (although having nothing to do with shooting), I'll be disappointed if Mark Williams's and Henry Coleman's minutes dwindle further. They both have turned the ball over too much and the speed of the game seems a bit much for them right now, but some of their other advanced stats seem intriguing. Letting them play through their mistakes (maybe 5 mpg each) might pay dividends down the road. Though of course that's not K's way, so I'm not holding my breath.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Johnson is not a shooter. His long-distance shooting numbers in high school were poor, and his form is questionable. Maybe one or two three-point-attempts per game should be his maximum if you want efficient scoring. Instead, I agree with others who think the offense should run through him so he can find cutters and open three-point shooters who'll have a higher percentage chance of hitting their shots than he would.

    Obviously Hurt can shoot. So can Baker, notwithstanding his meh performance so far this season. But I don't know what to make of Brakefield's three-point shooting. His high school shooting numbers were mediocre, but his form looks pretty good. So I don't mind him taking shots but I'm not sure I want him to take so many (currently 54.3% of his shots are three-point attempts). His defense has been improving the past few games, but he still hasn't reached the level of "good." He's probably a 7th or 8th man right now.

    Steward is an interesting case. He's not on your list, but he has a shooter's mentality and apparently had shooting success in high school. He should be shooting. That said, to me, he looks like maybe he's a little flummoxed by the longer distance in college (vs. high school). His form looks a little funny, like he's trying to put some extra oomph on his shots. Troublemaker has suggested he's OAD, but I strongly suspect he could follow a Luke Kennard-type path. Kennard couldn't shoot very well his freshman year, either (32.0%, not that much different from Steward's current 30.8%). But Kennard as a sophomore shot 44% from three and got drafted in the lottery. Steward could possibly do the same (maybe not the lottery, but late first round is within his reach), but unless he suddenly starts hitting everything I'll be very surprised if an NBA team is interested in him in this year's draft.

    Roach is clearly not a shooter. His high school shooting stats were poor and his college shooting stats to date have been poorer. The problem is, so far he hasn't been a point guard either. His peripheral stats resemble a shooting guard (maybe a combo guard but not really) much more than a point, he doesn't display a great deal of passing vision when he has the ball, and despite his considerable speed and quickness, he doesn't seem to be able to get past his man and wreak havoc inside opposing defenses. And defensively, he's been erratic (his steals% is not terrible, but it is 9th on the team and his dRtg is an atrocious 108.1, by far the worst on the team). There's a lot of potential there for him to become a good player, but right now he's a bit of a liability. If we're only going to play two guards, I'm thinking maybe Goldwire should start ahead of him.

    Finally (although having nothing to do with shooting), I'll be disappointed if Mark Williams's and Henry Coleman's minutes dwindle further. They both have turned the ball over too much and the speed of the game seems a bit much for them right now, but some of their other advanced stats seem intriguing. Letting them play through their mistakes (maybe 5 mpg each) might pay dividends down the road. Though of course that's not K's way, so I'm not holding my breath.
    I agree with almost all of this. On this team, the primary shooters should be Hurt and Steward. Baker could/should be in that mix, but his play right now makes him borderline unplayable, so it is a bit moot. But if he can settle down and drift to open spots when Johnson has the ball, hopefully he can regain his touch. And as a catch-and-shoot guy if left open by teams focusing on Johnson and Hurt, Baker might become useful. That's one of the things that having a player with such gravity AND willingness to pass can do. The thing that these guys have been missing is a player who can create openings for others. For various reasons, neither Roach nor Steward are ready for that role yet. But Johnson appears to be both ready and willing. I'm excited to see how things evolve now with him back.

    I think Steward's rep was more of a scorer than a pure shooter, although he was/is considered a good shooter as well. He takes DEEP 3s, which might be part of the problem. I don't know that he's a 40% type of shooter, but 37+% seems reasonable. I do like the Kennard reference there as I think he has a lot of scoring IQ like Kennard; it's just a matter of getting the shooting touch back. And while I'm bullish on Steward's talent, I tend to agree that unless he blows up in the second half he's probably not on a draft radar this year.

    Roach is definitely a work in progress. I agree that he's not a pure PG. In high school, he was a lead guard type more than a passing guard. He averaged under 5 assists per game as a senior in high school, despite playing with Trevor Keels. His strengths in high school were his ability to attack the basket and his athleticism. Very much a "downhill runner" type of guard. It seems like he's still adapting to the college game. Worth noting that his ACC stats are still pretty good: 14.2 ppg, 47.3 fg%, 66.7 2pt%. The low assists (2.8 apg) and high turnovers (3.0 pg) are certainly a concern, but might get mitigated somewhat if we start using Johnson as the primary facilitator rather than relying on the guards to do it. And of course the 3pt shooting (24%) compared with the volume (5 attempts per game) needs to change. But overall, I think he's been pretty good if viewed as a combo guard rather than a PG. Hopefully he continues his growth as a player as he gets more familiar with the ACC level of play. He's already playing much better than he did in his first few games, but still has a ways to go. I'm pretty bullish on his potential, but he is also very much a work in progress.

    As for Coleman and Williams, I kind of see Brakefield/Williams/Coleman as a bit of a single player proposition. I can't see us really giving those guys more than 15-20 mpg combined. Williams has looked way too slow and skinny to play at this level yet. Hopefully with time his body control, strength, and mobility make him a real weapon. But I doubt it happens this year. Coleman is a weird case. He went from presumed afterthought to preseason darling back to afterthought. In terms of strength, athleticism, and demeanor, he seems well suited for a role player role. His rebounding and steals rates are spectacular albeit in very limited minutes. His turnover rate looks too high, but it's really just 1 turnover in 12 minutes. I'd need to see more of a trend there. Williams' high turnover rate (5 in 52 minutes) has a bit more credence. But, for whatever reason, Coleman hasn't been given a longer look. Maybe now that Johnson is settling in, we could see more of Coleman? If Brakefield continues to struggle and Williams and Tape continue to not be ready, who knows?

    Brakefield is the other enigma. He went from afterthought to on-court darling, but has faded back again. The skill set is a bit limited. Apparently, Coach K was concerned that he was too turnover prone, so he restricted Brakefield's use of the dribble. That effectively made him a post- and spot-up player. When the 3pt shot was falling, he shined. But now the 3pt shot has disappeared (small sample size alert). Hopefully the shooting touch comes back. Brakefield seems like the best bet to hold down the third "big" role, and being a stretch 4 would be key for him to accomplish that.

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    I really want to see more of Coleman.

  5. #85
    It must be quite a shock to these young men as they transition from high school to college. Forgetting the shift to living in a campus environment (which as I recall it was huge, although I was having too much fun at the time to notice), they have had to go from playing dominant roles to being unsure if and/or how much they'll play. From being coveted 5 and 4 star recruits to having their shortcomings exposed. From being McDonald's all-Americans with dreams of being OAD to becoming a project. (Note: Johnson is the obvious exception!). The task for K and his staff is to bring them along to the point that as a coach you can send a player into a game with confidence, not with your fingers crossed. This is the model that has been followed for several years now, so the staff will get it done sooner or later.

    It's interesting that UNC and Kentucky are also struggling this year, although they have top recruiting classes too. It's probably partly due to Covid and the resulting delays to training. It could make for a very good NIT this year.

  6. #86
    I really think if Roach makes that reverse layup, we win the game. Down by 1 with all the momentum, no foul-out for JJ, etc. It was a disappointing result and execution wasn't there for large stretches of the game, but I'm pleased the team showed fight and got back into it. Coulda shoulda woulda and all that I get...But goes to show you the margin for error is small and one bucket can make all the difference.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluedog View Post
    I really think if Roach makes that reverse layup, we win the game. Down by 1 with all the momentum, no foul-out for JJ, etc. It was a disappointing result and execution wasn't there for large stretches of the game, but I'm pleased the team showed fight and got back into it. Coulda shoulda woulda and all that I get...But goes to show you the margin for error is small and one bucket can make all the difference.
    Yes, it's amazing how a result can swing so wildly on a single play. What should have been a make turned into a huge foul-out. From there, it was an uphill climb. Especially because it turned out to be a 3-point swing on top of the loss of Johnson (Champagnie got to shoot free throws as we were over the limit). So instead of being down 1 with momentum and - at that point - the best player on the floor in the game, we are down 4 with the ball and having lost our best player.

    Of course, there's no guarantee that Pitt doesn't score with us down just 1 (they scored on each of their next two possessions with us down just 2). But it certainly feels like a crucial point.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixthman View Post
    Looking at the team from 5000 feet instead of where the games are played, I'd suggest it looks like this. We were expecting to have three lead dogs: Johnson, Hurt and Moore, with a strong defensive stopper and evolving point guard distributor. The three lead dogs have never shown up together and may not, but if you took the best game from each of them and rolled them out on the same night, we'd be in the national title discussion. While that doesn't look like a possibility now, that was kind of what we were hoping for out of the gate. In turn, the failure of Johnson and Moore -- for different reasons -- to have as of yet shown up as consistent offensive forces, required both Roach and Steward to do more scoring than expected and taken them both out of their games a little.

    Imagine that we evolve to get a strong night out of two of three contemplated lead dogs every night and that this allows Roach to evolve into the best distributor he can be, for Steward to be an offensive and rebounding wild card, and Goldwire to focus as a defensive stopper. That doesn't seem like a stretch and seems like a fundamentally different team than we have seen. It's at least a reason to believe.
    I think the problem is that this year's would-be one-year-wonders aren't as good as we've had in recent years. It's the risk that K decided to take when he embraced the strategy of recruiting top ranked high school talent to play at Duke for a year (maybe two years). These guys aren't experienced in playing at the college level; they haven't learned to play together as a team; they're very young. Sometimes this top talent is good enough to come together and excel as a college team; sometimes it doesn't pan out. See what's happening at KY this year; similar to what we're seeing with Duke 2020-21. But there's still time for K to get them together in Feb and March.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Bay Area Duke Fan View Post
    I think the problem is that this year's would-be one-year-wonders aren't as good as we've had in recent years. It's the risk that K decided to take when he embraced the strategy of recruiting top ranked high school talent to play at Duke for a year (maybe two years). These guys aren't experienced in playing at the college level; they haven't learned to play together as a team; they're very young. Sometimes this top talent is good enough to come together and excel as a college team; sometimes it doesn't pan out. See what's happening at KY this year; similar to what we're seeing with Duke 2020-21. But there's still time for K to get them together in Feb and March.
    Nailed It!!!

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Bay Area Duke Fan View Post
    I think the problem is that this year's would-be one-year-wonders aren't as good as we've had in recent years.
    That shouldn't be a surprise - this year's class isn't in the same ballpark as the classes of 2016, 2017 or 2018. Those years we had multiple top-10 players plus additional top-20's. Last year we had just Carey as a surefire OAD and maybe Hurt was close but we were fortunate that Stanley overperformed and getting Tre back was like landing a top-5 freshman.

    This year our freshmen class is ranked by the RSCI:
    (11) Johnson
    (20) Roach
    (24) Steward
    (25) Williams
    (33) Brakefield
    (49) Coleman

    I don't know what everyone else was expecting, but I didn't consider anyone except Johnson to be a "one year wonder." I think there's a huge dropoff outside of the top 6 or 8 guys, though I did think that Johnson belonged in that elite group. Players ranked in the 20's don't typically contribute right off the bat, and when you start two or three of them together it compounds the issue. I was hoping that having Hurt and Moore back as experienced sophomores would offset having less talented freshmen, but that hasn't panned out because Moore has struggled big time and neither has emerged as a leader.

    For those who have long been clamoring to recruit a single OAD along with multiple lower-ranked players, the past two years haven't proven this to be a winning strategy. Perhaps you could say that it takes time to refill the pipeline, but Baker's lack of development would be evidence to the contrary. I do think we're setting ourselves up quite nicely to have a balanced team next season that could be elite, followed by a major rebuilding team the following season. But I'll wait to see how that plays out.

  11. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Bay Area Duke Fan View Post
    I think the problem is that this year's would-be one-year-wonders aren't as good as we've had in recent years. It's the risk that K decided to take when he embraced the strategy of recruiting top ranked high school talent to play at Duke for a year (maybe two years). These guys aren't experienced in playing at the college level; they haven't learned to play together as a team; they're very young. Sometimes this top talent is good enough to come together and excel as a college team; sometimes it doesn't pan out. See what's happening at KY this year; similar to what we're seeing with Duke 2020-21. But there's still time for K to get them together in Feb and March.
    You could be right. But also it could be COVID-related. Less practices, less games, no early tourney, etc. UK is also freshman heavy. The better teams have more upperclassmen this year.

    Or a factor could also be the significant upperclassmen left this year are not at the level as previous years. Hurt is doing well, and hopefully Moore is getting better. But compare that to a few previous years after freshmen left:

    2015-2016 - Allen, MP3, Jefferson, Matt Jones
    2016-2017 - Allen, Matt Jones, Jefferson
    2017-2018 - Allen, White, Bolden, DeLaurier
    2018-2019 - O'Connell, White, Bolden, Goldwire, DeLaurier
    2019-2020 - Tre Jones, O'Connell, White, Goldwire, DeLaurier, Baker
    2020-2021 - Goldwire, Baker, Hurt, Moore

    Of these classes, sorry to say but objectively I'd have to rank this year's upperclass near the bottom of this list. Perhaps 18'-'19 was also down there, but that year Duke had Zion, Barrett, Reddish and Tre Jones, so...

    I personally can't place the root cause on any one area - COVID, the upperclassmen, the freshmen... I still think Johnson this year is the real deal. If he and Hurt can be weapons with a reliable third option scorer (Steward? Moore?), then Duke can right the ship and make it into the tourney. The more Duke plays, the more they could start to jell, particularly with Johnson healthy again, not to mention Tape.

    We who follow Duke aren't used to this situation at all, but power conference at-large teams that make it in as 10-11 seeds can tend to beat the lower teams in conference and sneak a few marque victories against the upper teams. Duke isn't dead yet, especially if they can start to click in time to get a few key wins - they have their chances against Ville, UVA, Clemson, FSU and GaTech still ahead of them... not even mentioning Carolina (their games against UNC will draw a lot of viewers - so if Duke looks good beating them, it could make an impression on the committee). Sure, it's wishful thinking right now to believe they will sweep all these games. But keep beating the teams lower than them, win a few against the upper teams, stay above .500 in conference, and they will have a shot. And remember, fair or not - money talks. CBS *wants* Duke in the tournament. If Duke is close, hard to believe they will be shut out.

    9F
    Bucket List - Throw a party when Duke MBB has a winning record against Carolina.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by kako View Post
    You could be right. But also it could be COVID-related. Less practices, less games, no early tourney, etc. UK is also freshman heavy. The better teams have more upperclassmen this year.

    Or a factor could also be the significant upperclassmen left this year are not at the level as previous years. Hurt is doing well, and hopefully Moore is getting better. But compare that to a few previous years after freshmen left:

    2015-2016 - Allen, MP3, Jefferson, Matt Jones
    2016-2017 - Allen, Matt Jones, Jefferson
    2017-2018 - Allen, White, Bolden, DeLaurier
    2018-2019 - O'Connell, White, Bolden, Goldwire, DeLaurier
    2019-2020 - Tre Jones, O'Connell, White, Goldwire, DeLaurier, Baker
    2020-2021 - Goldwire, Baker, Hurt, Moore

    Of these classes, sorry to say but objectively I'd have to rank this year's upperclass near the bottom of this list. Perhaps 18'-'19 was also down there, but that year Duke had Zion, Barrett, Reddish and Tre Jones, so...

    I personally can't place the root cause on any one area - COVID, the upperclassmen, the freshmen... I still think Johnson this year is the real deal. If he and Hurt can be weapons with a reliable third option scorer (Steward? Moore?), then Duke can right the ship and make it into the tourney. The more Duke plays, the more they could start to jell, particularly with Johnson healthy again, not to mention Tape.

    We who follow Duke aren't used to this situation at all, but power conference at-large teams that make it in as 10-11 seeds can tend to beat the lower teams in conference and sneak a few marque victories against the upper teams. Duke isn't dead yet, especially if they can start to click in time to get a few key wins - they have their chances against Ville, UVA, Clemson, FSU and GaTech still ahead of them... not even mentioning Carolina (their games against UNC will draw a lot of viewers - so if Duke looks good beating them, it could make an impression on the committee). Sure, it's wishful thinking right now to believe they will sweep all these games. But keep beating the teams lower than them, win a few against the upper teams, stay above .500 in conference, and they will have a shot. And remember, fair or not - money talks. CBS *wants* Duke in the tournament. If Duke is close, hard to believe they will be shut out.

    9F
    Bingo. If Duke is a bubble team, they'll be in. Yes, it will upset lots of anti-Duke fans (screw em).

    Duke is the biggest draw in college ball. The NCAA, CBS, all the advertisers, and >75% of casual fan wants them in. It just makes the tournament so much better when there is such a polarized team like Duke.
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  13. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Well, then hopefully we can uphold our end of the bargain and scrape together a remotely plausible slate of accomplishments come tourney time. Let's start with maintaining a winning conference record.

  14. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    San Francisco
    Quote Originally Posted by GGLC View Post
    Well, then hopefully we can uphold our end of the bargain and scrape together a remotely plausible slate of accomplishments come tourney time. Let's start with maintaining a winning conference record.
    Letís start with a win at Louisville.

  15. #95
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    Bingo. If Duke is a bubble team, they'll be in. Yes, it will upset lots of anti-Duke fans (screw em).

    Duke is the biggest draw in college ball. The NCAA, CBS, all the advertisers, and >75% of casual fan wants them in. It just makes the tournament so much better when there is such a polarized team like Duke.
    What is a likely "tie-breaker" is our string of 25 consecutive tournament appearances.
    Sage Grouse

    ---------------------------------------
    'When I got on the bus for my first road game at Duke, I saw that every player was carrying textbooks or laptops. I coached in the SEC for 25 years, and I had never seen that before, not even once.' - David Cutcliffe to Duke alumni in Washington, DC, June 2013

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    I think our freshman players are thinking too much rather than reacting and having fun playing college basketball. The lack of preseason work and postponed games has really hurt our young guys. Even Baker isn't playing offense the way he's capable of playing. He's worked on his defense but he's taken a step back on offense. Both he and DJ need to start hitting those open 3s. Roach needs to be the point guard and get open shots for our shooters.

    GoDuke!

  17. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by jv001 View Post
    I think our freshman players are thinking too much rather than reacting and having fun playing college basketball. The lack of preseason work and postponed games has really hurt our young guys. Even Baker isn't playing offense the way he's capable of playing. He's worked on his defense but he's taken a step back on offense. Both he and DJ need to start hitting those open 3s. Roach needs to be the point guard and get open shots for our shooters.

    GoDuke!
    Yeah, we have had a number of players who have been playing tight and/or have a mental block about one aspect of their game or another. Wendell was/is the biggest issue with his confidence in his shooting. He's such a smooth and confident FT shooter but was/is so hesistant and often waaay off on his threes. Hopefully he can shoot confidently the rest of the season; it would raise our ceiling a significant amount to have a 3-and-D wing.

  18. #98
    Duke is 1-8 against the spread this year. If they come out favored against Louisville bet the farm. Itís a win win. If you win the bet you get money if you lose the bet Duke wins!

  19. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by kshepinthehouse View Post
    if you lose the bet Duke wins!
    Yeah, but you would no longer own the farm.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Yeah, but you would no longer own the farm.

Similar Threads

  1. MBB: Duke 79, Pitt 67 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 146
    Last Post: 02-01-2020, 09:24 PM
  2. MBB: Duke 81, Pitt 54 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-22-2018, 12:58 PM
  3. MBB: Duke 87, Pitt 52 Post-Game Thread
    By JBDuke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 01-12-2018, 05:03 PM
  4. MBB: Duke 62, Pitt 76 Post Game Thread
    By Bob Green in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 03-02-2016, 08:39 AM
  5. Duke MBB vs. Pitt Post-Game Thread
    By dukeisawesome in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 252
    Last Post: 12-25-2007, 02:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •