Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 53

Thread: New line up?

  1. #1

    New line up?

    I know Coach loves a three guard offense but these 3 guards are slight in stature which impacts their ability to guard in the half court and they are limited offensively as a unit. How about trying Moore at the point, Steward off ball with Brakefield, Jalen and Hurt?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke12 View Post
    I know Coach loves a three guard offense but these 3 guards are slight in stature which impacts their ability to guard in the half court and they are limited offensively as a unit. How about trying Moore at the point, Steward off ball with Brakefield, Jalen and Hurt?
    Moore has definitely not shown the ability to play point guard. And what has Brakefield done to show he deserves to start?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke12 View Post
    How about trying Moore at the point
    Moore had the ball in his hands initiating the offense quite a bit yesterday.
    Bob Green

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke12 View Post
    I know Coach loves a three guard offense but these 3 guards are slight in stature which impacts their ability to guard in the half court and they are limited offensively as a unit. How about trying Moore at the point, Steward off ball with Brakefield, Jalen and Hurt?
    Well other than not being able to dribble under pressure and not being a particularly good passer- Moore would definitely look good as a point guard.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    So many of our guys have the ability to completely disappear at times...Roach and Steward combined for two assists and four turnovers, not what you hope for from your starting guards. (not to mention Johnson with no assists and six turnovers, ouch.)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    There's already too much dribbling the air out of the ball from Goldwire and Moore already. And when Moore tries to drive the lane, I want to close my eyes because there's a good chance the opponent will be heading back down the court for a layup. We need more passing not more dribbling. Roach is not the answer either. I was hoping JJ was the answer but after last night I wonder if he's the answer as well.

    GoDuke!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by jv001 View Post
    There's already too much dribbling the air out of the ball from Goldwire and Moore already. And when Moore tries to drive the lane, I want to close my eyes because there's a good chance the opponent will be heading back down the court for a layup. We need more passing not more dribbling. Roach is not the answer either. I was hoping JJ was the answer but after last night I wonder if he's the answer as well.

    GoDuke!
    This team needs a more structured and disciplined offense. We currently just run around and if we cannot get it to Hurt, we commit a turnover, or someone throws up a wild shot.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke12 View Post
    I know Coach loves a three guard offense but these 3 guards are slight in stature which impacts their ability to guard in the half court and they are limited offensively as a unit. How about trying Moore at the point, Steward off ball with Brakefield, Jalen and Hurt?
    Coach K in the last two games has already gone away from the 3-guard lineup significantly and bumped Wendell's minutes up a bunch. Don't think that's the issue right now. And like others said, I don't think I like the idea of Wendell at point.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Watching carolina Go To HELL!
    As good a place as any to put this, but if the college basketball world was as it was in the early 1990's when star players stayed at Duke for four years, and clearly it is not, I am not delusional, our starting lineup would be:
    Tre' Jones, PG, junior
    RJ Barrett, SG, junior
    Zion Williamson, whatever position he wants, junior
    Wendell Carter, PF, senior
    Marvin Bagley III, C, junior (if he didn't reclassify or senior if he did)

    On the bench
    Cam Reddish, SG, junior
    And any assortment of other players we have had in the last 3 seasons.
    Ozzie, your paradigm of optimism!

    Go To Hell carolina, Go To Hell!
    9F 9F 9F
    https://ecogreen.greentechaffiliate.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Coach K in the last two games has already gone away from the 3-guard lineup significantly and bumped Wendell's minutes up a bunch. Don't think that's the issue right now. And like others said, I don't think I like the idea of Wendell at point.
    Yeah, the bigger lineup (with Moore in place of Roach) seems to coincide with playing zone which makes sense. I would rather have Johnson playing point than Moore. Despite his turnovers yesterday he has great vision and is a willing and able passer. This allows Roach and Steward to play off ball and look primarily to score which is basically what they’re already doing.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by UrinalCake View Post
    Yeah, the bigger lineup (with Moore in place of Roach) seems to coincide with playing zone which makes sense. I would rather have Johnson playing point than Moore. Despite his turnovers yesterday he has great vision and is a willing and able passer. This allows Roach and Steward to play off ball and look primarily to score which is basically what they’re already doing.
    Actually, Moore has mainly replaced Goldwire/Johnson not Roach. Roach has played 38 and 26 minutes in these two games, while Goldwire played 9 in the first game and Johnson played just 21 in the second game. Roach's downturn in minutes yesterday was largely in the second half when we went back to man-to-man.

    Ideally, I don't think Johnson should play PG, per se. But I do think the offense has the potential to work best if run through him in the half court. And I think that was the gameplan coming in against Louisville. Unfortunately, he was brutal yesterday. You can't run the offense through a guy who is making decisions that poorly.

    The problem is that none of the guys best suited to facilitate (Roach, Steward, Johnson, Moore, I think in that order) is making good decisions as a passer. At least not with any consistency. It's really hard do anything but iso ball if nobody is making good passes.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Quote Originally Posted by Duke12 View Post
    I know Coach loves a three guard offense but these 3 guards are slight in stature which impacts their ability to guard in the half court and they are limited offensively as a unit. How about trying Moore at the point, Steward off ball with Brakefield, Jalen and Hurt?
    Well, aside from the many comments about offensive stagnation with this lineup, this is a team that would only play zone because ain't no way Brakefield could play man D on an even moderately decent ACC wing.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by jv001 View Post
    ...We need more passing not more dribbling...
    And a moratorium on no look passes. We are not that polished a team. Once in a while maaaybe the reverse pass into the paint but that's pretty dangerous too.
    Nothing incites bodily violence quicker than a Duke fan turning in your direction and saying 'scoreboard.'

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Santa Clara, CA
    I think the best option this team has is JGold at point. I'm not saying he's a stellar PG. It's just that I think he's the best option in terms of overall play both offensively and defensively, adding in his experience. My level of angst with this team seems lowest with him at point. If he had a shot that teams respected, there wouldn't be a contest. Roach can back him up, but with Roach the team on the floor would require secondary distributors to avoid him starting in on those suicide drives he often makes. With him the unit would need guys who can pass (like Johnson, perhaps). It's all pretty dicey, at this point there's no one on this team even in the same PG universe as a Hurley, Wojo, the Jones boys, etc.

    As I type this, I thought of a wild idea. Box and one, with JGold shadowing the guard who is the biggest offensive threat (scoring and/or distribution). Desperation? Maybe. But these are starting to be desperate times!

    9F
    I will never talk about That Game. GTHC.

  15. #15

    You know how to hurt a guy...

    Quote Originally Posted by OZZIE4DUKE View Post
    As good a place as any to put this, but if the college basketball world was as it was in the early 1990's when star players stayed at Duke for four years, and clearly it is not, I am not delusional, our starting lineup would be:
    Tre' Jones, PG, junior
    RJ Barrett, SG, junior
    Zion Williamson, whatever position he wants, junior
    Wendell Carter, PF, senior
    Marvin Bagley III, C, junior (if he didn't reclassify or senior if he did)

    On the bench
    Cam Reddish, SG, junior
    And any assortment of other players we have had in the last 3 seasons.
    Really, Ozzie? You had to do this? I try valiantly to not conjure up this back-in-the-day lineup, without much success, and you come along and put it right out there. Just a flesh wound.

    Wow, what a delicious basketball team that would have been to watch!

    I fully understand why some folks roll their eyes, become nauseated and annoyed, when some of us moan and groan about the quality of college basketball today. Got it, and sorry. But, man, it's painful. I keep wanting to like the product because I love basketball and Duke. Tar and feather me, but when I watch Duke play I'm mostly wanting a really good, quality game of basketball. When your most talented player commits how many turnovers in just a few minutes?..and is sometimes clueless on D, and pouts when he comes out, when your team doesn't have a good PG, and your poor coach has to keep figuring out...how can I get these guys to play hard all the time and smart and together at least much of the time, yikes.

    I am working hard at enjoying this team develop, but then they don't even seem to do that. Some players go forward, others regress, like they're taking turns.


    I find myself watching the NBA more, because of the skill level, the level of execution and teamwork, in addition to the talent. But I miss the passion of rooting for a team with whom I have a strong attachment. I hope that college basketball can regain at least some of the quality that some of us got spoiled on.

    Promise that this will be my last OAD rant and lament. Repeat to myself: They moved my cheese!

    It's all your fault, Ozzie.
    “I love it. Coach, when we came here, we had a three-hour meeting about the core values. If you really represent the core values, it means diving on the floor, sacrificing your body for your teammates, no matter how much you’re up by or how much you’re down by, always playing hard.” -- Zion

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chesapeake, VA.
    Quote Originally Posted by kako View Post
    I think the best option this team has is JGold at point. I'm not saying he's a stellar PG. It's just that I think he's the best option in terms of overall play both offensively and defensively, adding in his experience. My level of angst with this team seems lowest with him at point. If he had a shot that teams respected, there wouldn't be a contest. Roach can back him up, but with Roach the team on the floor would require secondary distributors to avoid him starting in on those suicide drives he often makes. With him the unit would need guys who can pass (like Johnson, perhaps). It's all pretty dicey, at this point there's no one on this team even in the same PG universe as a Hurley, Wojo, the Jones boys, etc.

    As I type this, I thought of a wild idea. Box and one, with JGold shadowing the guard who is the biggest offensive threat (scoring and/or distribution). Desperation? Maybe. But these are starting to be desperate times!

    9F
    Hate to break it to you, but I came up with the box and one idea a few days ago and posted it to the board. Great minds think alike, they say.
    But you have to take it with a grain of realism. The day K institutes the box and one, or any other unorthodox D, for that matter, will be the day there are icicles forming in hell.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by rsvman View Post
    Hate to break it to you, but I came up with the box and one idea a few days ago and posted it to the board. Great minds think alike, they say.
    But you have to take it with a grain of realism. The day K institutes the box and one, or any other unorthodox D, for that matter, will be the day there are icicles forming in hell.
    Hmmm, frankly, I've always considered the 3-2 zone to be a junk defense or unorthodox D. The reason is that no team uses it as their base defense. Certainly not in the power conferences, and almost certainly no one in the non-power conferences, too. (I unfortunately can't claim such encyclopedic knowledge of the low to mid majors that I can 100% guarantee none of them predominantly run 3-2 zone, but I'm 99.9% sure; I've just never seen it). When college basketball teams run zone, they run 2-3 zone, 1-3-1 zone, and matchup zone.

    And there's got to be a reason why programs eschew the 3-2 zone. I've always believed it's because you need two Kevin Garnetts on the backline, that is, two athletic, smart, rangy bigs that can both cover the corners and protect the basket. Nobody has those; we certainly don't. (Note: Hurt is actually a worse 3-2 zone backline defender than he is a m2m defender, and it's not particularly close, imo). As a result, we give up a lot of open corner threes and easy shots around the basket, which is what would happen to most programs that run a 3-2 zone as base.

    I mean, we'll see how it goes. I'm open-minded enough to give the Hall of Fame coach a few games to realize his vision of this 3-2 zone, haha. Maybe in a few games, the corner threes and shots around the basket dry up for our opponents, and we stop fouling? But, as of now, I'm thinking we should've stuck to m2m, especially with Jalen back. Having an athlete like Jalen flying around getting blocks and steals would've already improved our m2m, imo, in the absence of having to learn a completely new defense that nobody else plays.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Hmmm, frankly, I've always considered the 3-2 zone to be a junk defense or unorthodox D. The reason is that no team uses it as their base defense. Certainly not in the power conferences, and almost certainly no one in the non-power conferences, too. (I unfortunately can't claim such encyclopedic knowledge of the low to mid majors that I can 100% guarantee none of them predominantly run 3-2 zone, but I'm 99.9% sure; I've just never seen it). When college basketball teams run zone, they run 2-3 zone, 1-3-1 zone, and matchup zone.

    And there's got to be a reason why programs eschew the 3-2 zone. I've always believed it's because you need two Kevin Garnetts on the backline, that is, two athletic, smart, rangy bigs that can both cover the corners and protect the basket. Nobody has those; we certainly don't. (Note: Hurt is actually a worse 3-2 zone backline defender than he is a m2m defender, and it's not particularly close, imo). As a result, we give up a lot of open corner threes and easy shots around the basket, which is what would happen to most programs that run a 3-2 zone as base.

    I mean, we'll see how it goes. I'm open-minded enough to give the Hall of Fame coach a few games to realize his vision of this 3-2 zone, haha. Maybe in a few games, the corner threes and shots around the basket dry up for our opponents, and we stop fouling? But, as of now, I'm thinking we should've stuck to m2m, especially with Jalen back. Having an athlete like Jalen flying around getting blocks and steals would've already improved our m2m, imo, in the absence of having to learn a completely new defense that nobody else plays.
    The other reason that the 3-2 zone is problematic is because it often means you have just 1 rebounder inside. If corner(ish) 3 is taken, one of your bigs is away from the basket. That puts a lot more pressure on the guards/wings to crash down. With the 2-3, you have 2 (sometimes 3) bigs near the basket to rebound. And with man-to-man, you should have as many bodies near the basket as the other team has.

    The 3-2 defense is a pretty good defense for preventing 3s and trapping on the perimeter. But it certainly has its weaknesses as it exposes more of the "innards" of the defense without really good rotation from the guys up front.

    As for personnel, Hurt will have problems with any defense other than the 2-3 I think. It's possible to hide him in man-to-man except against teams disciplined enough and with capable enough guard play to exploit him in switches. Louisville (and some teams last year) illustrated this by getting Hurt stuck on Jones, who roasted him repeatedly. Many teams have a guard capable of doing this, which makes man-to-man problematic. But it takes a disciplined team to take advantage of it.

    But I agree that he's especially not a great option in the 3-2 because of his limited mobility and the extra range needed on the back line in a 3-2.

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    And there's got to be a reason why programs eschew the 3-2 zone. I've always believed it's because you need two Kevin Garnetts on the backline, that is, two athletic, smart, rangy bigs that can both cover the corners and protect the basket.
    I always thought the corner three is the primary responsibility of the wing in a 3-2; that the inside player only covers the corner if the opponent plays 4-out (or 5-out), or if the wing misses his assignment.

    Is that not true?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    I always thought the corner three is the primary responsibility of the wing in a 3-2; that the inside player only covers the corner if the opponent plays 4-out (or 5-out), or if the wing misses his assignment.

    Is that not true?
    It depends on how the offense is aligned. If the offense overloads to have 3 players on the perimeter on the same side of the floor (which is quite common), the inside player has to go defend on the perimeter. But generally speaking, the corner is usually the post man's responsibility in a 3-2. The wing is used as a trapper for the corner.

    The "2" assignment in a 3-2 requires a wide range and court awareness. Because you can be asked to cover as far from one corner to the other block, and potentially in relatively quick succession.
    Last edited by CDu; 01-25-2021 at 11:50 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. U2's No Line On The Horizon
    By Oriole Way in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 12:14 PM
  2. What's your best comeback line?
    By brianl in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 12:33 AM
  3. 3 Point Line
    By NYC Duke Fan in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-12-2008, 05:00 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
  •