next season

[azzefkram]

Now that 6'/175 is thick, maybe I should change my screen name to thickbeard.

Yeah if 6'/175 is thick, the extra inch I have must be super dense.

[CDu]

The two last-second losses: one was a team that desperately needed another shooter and... well, honestly both of them needed another shooter. Those teams were aching for one of O'Connell, Baker or White to be reliable. Zion's team almost lost to UCF so it was just as close to a major disappointment as it was to a Final Four.

The loss against MSU was because our team played unlike it had most of the season. We failed to force turnovers against a team that turned it over a ton, and we turned it over more against a team that didn't force turnovers. We shot better than the opponent in that game. It really came down to turnovers (17 to 7) and the team imploding for a brief stretch when our best player got called for a shaky second foul. Sometimes flukey things happen.

The loss against Kansas wasn't because we lacked shooters. It was because our shooters had bad days. Allen went 2-9, and Trent went 2-10. We were one of the better 3pt shooting teams in the country that year. That and because we didn't utilize the best player in college bball that year nearly enough in that game. Bagley took just 9 FGA compared with Trent's 18. And even with that unfortunate shooting night, if Allen's runner goes in at the end of regulation, we win.

When I held out Luke Maye and Joel Berry as examples, I got push back that Duke has recruited guys like that in the past and developed them. So when I say "what should we be doing better/differently?" I'm asking why Duke's player development seems to be lacking. You might disagree, as we'll discuss below, but the original, original point is that I think it's an unfair characterization to say that those of us looking to the examples of UVA or Nova are ones who think we're entitled to the Final Four every year or automatically blame "things" on One and Done.

But here's the thing. Our success from 2015-2019 IS on par with those other programs.

My argument is that Duke is less invested in long-term player development now, and the focus is intensely on what's best for that team in whichever OAD-defined year we're in; in particular, the focus seems like it's narrowed on the top 2 or 3 players on the team, which could have an impact even if OADs aren't taking up a large part of the team. Is it not possible that guys like AOC and Baker got less attention than they would have in a different era? AOC played with 9 OADs while at Duke plus Tre Jones and Matt Hurt, Baker's played with 5 or 6 plus Tre Jones and Matt Hurt, and Wendell is hopefully going to be a different case whose story is still being written.

I don't think it is at all accurate to say that Duke is less invested in long-term player development now. And I would posit O'Connell and Baker would have gotten less attention in previous eras when we had our one-and-done talent staying 3-4 years. Back then, the only real development we were doing was of the Matthew Hurt variety: elite talent just figuring out the college game.

Fair enough, though I think the best success stories of that bunch happened a half decade ago now. I say that because Jones and Hurt were fringe OAD types coming in and were basically day-one starters. So they fall into the "received attention from day one" category. Sure they developed, but under my hypothesis, they also got the coaching attention. Grayson and Kennard were obviously huge developmental successes, but most of their development happened circa 2016.

So whether this is fair or not, the secondary talent pool I'm thinking of is guys like Joey Baker, AOC, Javin Delaurier, Marques Bolden, Chase Jeter, Jack White, Jordan Goldwire, and Jordan Tucker. And with apologies, I'll say that I don't exactly consider Jack White a resounding success story in terms of his Duke career trajectory. Goldwire has been a revelation but his rise to starter has not been enough to prevent the worst Duke season in at least 25 years.

I don't see any reasonable argument that White wasn't a huge developmental success story. He was a complete unknown recruit who then developed into a starter on one of the best teams in the country. He was essentially the equivalent of an Andre Buckner on the recruiting trail. Same for Goldwire. That those guys were starting from so far below the talent level of a typical Duke guy doesn't mean their development wasn't incredible. Those guys were WAY below the recruiting rankings of even Luke Maye, let alone Joel Berry (who was more on par with guys like Amile Jefferson and Kennard).

As for the others, so basically you're talking about the 2016-2018 recruits. Hardly a meaningful sample size if you ask me. But let's look anyway. Note that if you exclude Kennard, you also have to exclude Jeter (they were the same class, and Jeter was a higher-rated recruit).

The 2016 class included White and DeLaurier as non top-15 recruits. White was unquestionably a developmental success, as noted above. DeLaurier went from unplayable as a freshman and developed into a role player and borderline starter as a junior and senior. His development was superior to that of a guy like Josh Hairston, for example. Not every next-tier guy makes it to stardom. I'd give 1.5 of 2 or 2 for 2 here. Bolden was a potential one-and-done guy who never really fit with Duke's style of play. So I'm not sure Duke is to blame there. But even if you want to include him, 1.5 or 2 for 3.

The 2017 class included Tucker, O'Connell, and Goldwire. Worth noting that none of these guys would have seen the floor in the 1998-2010 era of Duke basketball. They were too far down the recruiting rankings for that. So the fact that one of them (another who was the recruiting equivalent of Andre Buckner) developed into a starting caliber player is phenomenal. Tucker transferred after a few months, so I don't think it's fair to say anything about Duke's lack of development with him. If anything, we recruited too many developmental guys that year. Worth noting though that he hasn't exactly developed into much more since leaving for a VERY anti-one-and-done, which sort of points to my argument that development is largely on the player not the program. So, so far in terms of those developmental guys, we're 2.5 for 5 or 3 for 5.

The 2018 class had Joey Baker. Baker was clearly overmatched as a freshman. Interestingly, though, he has played most of his career in an environment light on one and dones. We had just one superstar last year and just one or two this year. So I don't think it can be argued that the one-and-done environment has prevented his development. Note that he also reclassified to come a year early, so he missed out on his senior year of high school ball.

So, we're 2.5 for 6 or 3 for 6 (depending upon how you feel about DeLaurier) in terms of developing lower-rated players, and of the 3 misses still has 1-2 years left to finish his story.

Given how much White and Goldwire improved in college, and given that both did so at the height of our one-and-done stretch, suggests that the one-and-done model isn't what is hurting player development. If anything, we've seen more player development of next-tier guys in the past 5 years than we saw in the previous 15. In those days, if you weren't a top-30 recruit, you were likely never going to play. And one of the misses is basically only halfway through his career right now, despite playing most of his career outside of the heavy one-and-done era.

Again, I won't disagree that OAD has been great. And I'll 1000% agree that the transfer market is a prime opportunity to smooth out some of the roster management. But I do think this reinforces the idea that there is some need for additional talent and/or experience in some way, shape or form. So in the end, I think we're in agreement (assuming you buy the need to bring in more transfers) even if I've not made a particularly compelling argument about the development of Duke's secondary recruited talent.

Of course there is a need for additional talent. There is ALWAYS a need for additional talent.

[Natty_B]

Brendan Marks of The Athletic has an article today where he does some forecasting on next season. Well worth a read.

[DukieTiger]

The loss against MSU was because our team played unlike it had most of the season. We failed to force turnovers against a team that turned it over a ton, and we turned it over more against a team that didn't force turnovers. We shot better than the opponent in that game. It really came down to turnovers (17 to 7) and the team imploding for a brief stretch when our best player got called for a shaky second foul. Sometimes flukey things happen.

The loss against Kansas wasn't because we lacked shooters. It was because our shooters had bad days. Allen went 2-9, and Trent went 2-10. We were one of the better 3pt shooting teams in the country that year. That and because we didn't utilize the best player in college bball that year nearly enough in that game. Bagley took just 9 FGA compared with Trent's 18. And even with that unfortunate shooting night, if Allen's runner goes in at the end of regulation, we win.



But here's the thing. Our success from 2015-2019 IS on par with those other programs.



I don't think it is at all accurate to say that Duke is less invested in long-term player development now. And I would posit O'Connell and Baker would have gotten less attention in previous eras when we had our one-and-done talent staying 3-4 years. Back then, the only real development we were doing was of the Matthew Hurt variety: elite talent just figuring out the college game.



I don't see any reasonable argument that White wasn't a huge developmental success story. He was a complete unknown recruit who then developed into a starter on one of the best teams in the country. He was essentially the equivalent of an Andre Buckner on the recruiting trail. Same for Goldwire. That those guys were starting from so far below the talent level of a typical Duke guy doesn't mean their development wasn't incredible. Those guys were WAY below the recruiting rankings of even Luke Maye, let alone Joel Berry (who was more on par with guys like Amile Jefferson and Kennard).

As for the others, so basically you're talking about the 2016-2018 recruits. Hardly a meaningful sample size if you ask me. But let's look anyway. Note that if you exclude Kennard, you also have to exclude Jeter (they were the same class, and Jeter was a higher-rated recruit).

The 2016 class included White and DeLaurier as non top-15 recruits. White was unquestionably a developmental success, as noted above. DeLaurier went from unplayable as a freshman and developed into a role player and borderline starter as a junior and senior. His development was superior to that of a guy like Josh Hairston, for example. Not every next-tier guy makes it to stardom. I'd give 1.5 of 2 or 2 for 2 here. Bolden was a potential one-and-done guy who never really fit with Duke's style of play. So I'm not sure Duke is to blame there. But even if you want to include him, 1.5 or 2 for 3.

The 2017 class included Tucker, O'Connell, and Goldwire. Worth noting that none of these guys would have seen the floor in the 1998-2010 era of Duke basketball. They were too far down the recruiting rankings for that. So the fact that one of them (another who was the recruiting equivalent of Andre Buckner) developed into a starting caliber player is phenomenal. Tucker transferred after a few months, so I don't think it's fair to say anything about Duke's lack of development with him. If anything, we recruited too many developmental guys that year. Worth noting though that he hasn't exactly developed into much more since leaving for a VERY anti-one-and-done, which sort of points to my argument that development is largely on the player not the program. So, so far in terms of those developmental guys, we're 2.5 for 5 or 3 for 5.

The 2018 class had Joey Baker. Baker was clearly overmatched as a freshman. Interestingly, though, he has played most of his career in an environment light on one and dones. We had just one superstar last year and just one or two this year. So I don't think it can be argued that the one-and-done environment has prevented his development. Note that he also reclassified to come a year early, so he missed out on his senior year of high school ball.

So, we're 2.5 for 6 or 3 for 6 (depending upon how you feel about DeLaurier) in terms of developing lower-rated players, and of the 3 misses still has 1-2 years left to finish his story.

Given how much White and Goldwire improved in college, and given that both did so at the height of our one-and-done stretch, suggests that the one-and-done model isn't what is hurting player development. If anything, we've seen more player development of next-tier guys in the past 5 years than we saw in the previous 15. In those days, if you weren't a top-30 recruit, you were likely never going to play. And one of the misses is basically only halfway through his career right now, despite playing most of his career outside of the heavy one-and-done era.



Of course there is a need for additional talent. There is ALWAYS a need for additional talent.

Thanks for the responses and for entertaining my thoughts. You make a compelling argument. I'm probably discounting guys like Jack White, Delaurier and Goldwire a bit too much based on their faults while not appreciating the growth they showed. Appreciate the back and forth.

I might be mis-remembering the complaints from each of those years you outlined (ie., 2016 it was "why can't we recruit like Nova?") - my perception is that it was mainly around the presence of Jr and Sr star players on each of those teams. I don't necessarily think that's mutually exclusive to a OAD strategy, but your argument is helping me see how it's not an indictment of Duke's development if it's been a few years since we had a senior star.

I'll also confess to perhaps being unduly influenced by random commentary about Duke "rolling out the ball" in these OAD years. I happen to think there's some truth to that but probably not a fair conclusion to say this is hurting the development of the non-OAD guys.

[CDu]

Thanks for the responses and for entertaining my thoughts. You make a compelling argument. I'm probably discounting guys like Jack White, Delaurier and Goldwire a bit too much based on their faults while not appreciating the growth they showed. Appreciate the back and forth.

PS - sorry, I was typing my response when Kedsy responded, so I didn't see it. I certainly didn't mean to be piling on as we hit on several similar points. The dangers of writing long posts!

I might be mis-remembering the complaints from each of those years you outlined (ie., 2016 it was "why can't we recruit like Nova?") - my perception is that it was mainly around the presence of Jr and Sr star players on each of those teams. I don't necessarily think that's mutually exclusive to a OAD strategy, but your argument is helping me see how it's not an indictment of Duke's development if it's been a few years since we had a senior star.

The 2016 team's season boiled down to the team thinking Tyus Jones was a multi-year PG and Winslow was a multi-year wing/forward. If we have Jones, that 2016 team is superb. If we have Jones AND Winslow, that's a juggernaut. But the dangers of winning it all is that you tend to lose more guys earlier than hoped. Obviously, you take the title. But that was the first year the team had multiple one-and-dones and I think it caught Coach K off guard.

I think there was a spillover affect as well, as when Jones went pro Coach K scrambled and it led to Thornton reclassifying. Thornton had to do summer school to get there, and thus missed a huge chunk of the team's development time, and never quite caught up. And I suspect, though obviously we'll never know, there was some degree of resentment that he gave away his summer and his senior year to reclassify and the team didn't prioritize him. In reality, he just wasn't ready, but it's hard to shake that narrative in your mind I'm sure. So that hurt the 2017 season, because we were basically back in the same situation in 2017 without a PG. With Thornton on that team as a regular freshman, we have multiple ballhandlers and maybe between him and Jackson we're a bit stronger overall.

But by 2018, we'd gotten the recruiting figured out again. Those teams were loaded. I don't think there was a recruiting mistake made on those teams, as we did have shooters around Bagley and Carter (we were a good shooting team that year), and Reddish was supposed to be a better shooter than he turned out to be. Those two particular losses were just bad fortune in my opinion. The 2019 team panicked on the court, and the 2018 team just had an offnight from their two shooters shooting the 3.

I'll also confess to perhaps being unduly influenced by random commentary about Duke "rolling out the ball" in these OAD years. I happen to think there's some truth to that but probably not a fair conclusion to say this is hurting the development of the non-OAD guys.

Yeah, I do think it is fair to say at the game level that a lot of what we were doing in 2018 and 2019 is more like "rolling out the balls". I think those two things need to be viewed separately. But I think that's separate from player development, which largely happens in the offseason.

[Acymetric]

I might be mis-remembering the complaints from each of those years you outlined (ie., 2016 it was "why can't we recruit like Nova?") - my perception is that it was mainly around the presence of Jr and Sr star players on each of those teams. I don't necessarily think that's mutually exclusive to a OAD strategy, but your argument is helping me see how it's not an indictment of Duke's development if it's been a few years since we had a senior star.

You aren't mis-remembering. People take all the stupidest takes some random posters have posted over the years, invent some others bad takes that were held by approximately nobody, compile them into one big composite bad take, then proceed to pretend that was the view of "the board" or "the anti-OAD crowd" and so on so that they can have an easy take down. It is pretty tiresome, but these people do it constantly.

[UrinalCake]

I'll add to the many excellent points already made by saying that it's really easy to pick and choose the lower-ranked guys who overperform at other schools, but a fair assessment would have to also include the dozens if not hundreds of lower-ranked guys who only meet expectations or fall below. Saying we should strive to recruit a team full of Luke Maye's would be like saying an NBA team shouldn't use any lottery picks and should instead focus on drafting Kawai Leonard, Nikola Jokic, Ben Wallace, Manu Ginobli, etc. rather than wasting their picks on Michael Olowakandi and Anthony Bennett. The exceptions to the rule stand out because they are exactly that - exceptions. And if you're going to praise Roy for developing Maye then it's only fair to criticizez him for failing to develop scores of elite recruits at the rate that would be expected based on their rankings. Consider how many of his top 10 players either stayed multiple years, plummetted in the draft, or both (Barnes, Henson, McAdoo, Ed Davis, Justin Jackson, Little, Anthony, etc. etc.)

[Phredd3]

haha I've always thought the ACC divisions should be the

ACC division and the Big East division.

I would happily support such a realignment.

[DukieTiger]

I'll add to the many excellent points already made by saying that it's really easy to pick and choose the lower-ranked guys who overperform at other schools, but a fair assessment would have to also include the dozens if not hundreds of lower-ranked guys who only meet expectations or fall below. Saying we should strive to recruit a team full of Luke Maye's would be like saying an NBA team shouldn't use any lottery picks and should instead focus on drafting Kawai Leonard, Nikola Jokic, Ben Wallace, Manu Ginobli, etc. rather than wasting their picks on Michael Olowakandi and Anthony Bennett. The exceptions to the rule stand out because they are exactly that - exceptions. And if you're going to praise Roy for developing Maye then it's only fair to criticizez him for failing to develop scores of elite recruits at the rate that would be expected based on their rankings. Consider how many of his top 10 players either stayed multiple years, plummetted in the draft, or both (Barnes, Henson, McAdoo, Ed Davis, Justin Jackson, Little, Anthony, etc. etc.)

Fair enough about overstating the exceptions to the rule.

Regarding UNC: by the standards laid out for me, most of the guys in your list WERE successfully developed by Roy since they became starters and made it to the NBA.

Nonetheless I think we can all agree that Duke features and develops OADs and top 25ish players better than Carolina. But I see a compelling argument that Carolina is the better team at developing players outside the top 25.

To be clear, what I think Kedsy and CDu are arguing (one part, anyway) is that the above reality is not incompatible with a failed player development program at Duke and is also not necessarily indicative of the "harm" of the OAD recruitment strategy. I might argue it does suggest that your long-term players aren't going to develop at the same pace if you're bringing in (and successfully implementing) so many elite talents ever year though.

[UrinalCake]

Nonetheless I think we can all agree that Duke features and develops OADs and top 25ish players better than Carolina. But I see a compelling argument that Carolina is the better team at developing players outside the top 25.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I will say that UNC does a better job developing lower-ranked big men while Duke does a better job developing elite guards and big wings.

[CDu]

I'll add to the many excellent points already made by saying that it's really easy to pick and choose the lower-ranked guys who overperform at other schools, but a fair assessment would have to also include the dozens if not hundreds of lower-ranked guys who only meet expectations or fall below. Saying we should strive to recruit a team full of Luke Maye's would be like saying an NBA team shouldn't use any lottery picks and should instead focus on drafting Kawai Leonard, Nikola Jokic, Ben Wallace, Manu Ginobli, etc. rather than wasting their picks on Michael Olowakandi and Anthony Bennett. The exceptions to the rule stand out because they are exactly that - exceptions. And if you're going to praise Roy for developing Maye then it's only fair to criticizez him for failing to develop scores of elite recruits at the rate that would be expected based on their rankings. Consider how many of his top 10 players either stayed multiple years, plummetted in the draft, or both (Barnes, Henson, McAdoo, Ed Davis, Justin Jackson, Little, Anthony, etc. etc.)

Not to mention the Andrew Platek, Brandon Huffman, Sterling Manley, Seventh Woods, Walker Miller, and Jalek Felton. Basically, the success stories have been Maye and Brooks, then a dropoff to Robinson and Black. Which sounds great, but that does ignore a LOT of “misses” as well.

And worth noting that UNC has largely not succeeded over this stretch. They did well in the 2016/17 seasons on the backs of the bygone era when they were still able to convince McD’s guys to stay 3-4 years (those two teams were stacked with upperclassman McD’s guys). But since 2017, we have been the unequivocally better program.

[CDu]

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I will say that UNC does a better job developing lower-ranked big men while Duke does a better job developing elite guards and big wings.

Yes... sort of. Because UNC runs a specific system religiously, they can identify good fits and teach them that system. But it is a program that inflates the value of their bigs. Guys like Brooks succeed in large part because of the system rather than their development overall. Which is part of why guys like Luke Maye and Brooks have had less than expected senior years after overachieving in secondary roles. They develop guys to be able to run Roy’s system with time and familiarity, but they don’t so much develop as players. As evidenced by the lack of any significant NBA success for those bigs.

But they absolutely get more out of lower-tier bigs than we do. Conversely, we are much better at building to the strengths of our wing players (UNC’s system is a nightmare for talented wings unless they like to do nothing but shoot jumpers).

[Steven43]

At the risk of overgeneralizing, I will say that UNC does a better job developing lower-ranked big men while Duke does a better job developing elite guards and big wings.

Hey UC, is there actually a risk to overgeneralizing?

[simplyluvin]

But by 2018, we'd gotten the recruiting figured out again. Those teams were loaded. I don't think there was a recruiting mistake made on those teams, as we did have shooters around Bagley and Carter (we were a good shooting team that year), and Reddish was supposed to be a better shooter than he turned out to be. Those two particular losses were just bad fortune in my opinion. The 2019 team panicked on the court, and the 2018 team just had an offnight from their two shooters shooting the 3.

I think you're spot-on in general, but I do recall that we did scramble to get Duval when Quade Green turned to a different shade of blue. We may have ended up getting the better PG, but this bespeaks of something that we haven't had outside the Jones bros in the last several years - that is, a high-quality floor general who can facilitate, make the occasional timely shot, and be a defensive stalwart. I think Tre was a once-in-a-generation type of guy, so I am not necessarily asking (hoping, yes) for us to get a Tyus every year, but I do feel that we've been hampered by not having a developed PG at Coach K's most important position. There were pockets where, as I recall, Grayson was playing point in 2017, so I feel it's been a mixed bag (again, outside the Jones brothers). Hoping that JRoach can be such a guy. Would love him to be a Quinn Cook-type.

[CDu]

I think you're spot-on in general, but I do recall that we did scramble to get Duval when Quade Green turned to a different shade of blue. We may have ended up getting the better PG, but this bespeaks of something that we haven't had outside the Jones bros in the last several years - that is, a high-quality floor general who can facilitate, make the occasional timely shot, and be a defensive stalwart. I think Tre was a once-in-a-generation type of guy, so I am not necessarily asking (hoping, yes) for us to get a Tyus every year, but I do feel that we've been hampered by not having a developed PG at Coach K's most important position. There were pockets where, as I recall, Grayson was playing point in 2017, so I feel it's been a mixed bag (again, outside the Jones brothers). Hoping that JRoach can be such a guy. Would love him to be a Quinn Cook-type.

I don’t know that Duval was a scramble per se, but I could be mistaken on that. But that is neither here nor there.

I definitely agree that, for a coach whose best teams have generally been strong at PG, he has struggled to maintain a pipeline at that position. Sort of like the concept that NFL teams should regularly draft QBs, I agree that we should make a habit of bringing in PGs more regularly. Obviously you want to land the best PGs if possible, but adding next-tier and/or developmental PGs to the mix would be huge. We have recruited, to my knowledge, just 3 such players in the last decade: Tyler Thornton, Cook, and Goldwire. Neither Thornton (too slow and floor-bound) nor Goldwire (not strong enough offensively) have quite panned out, but Cook was a success for sure. It does seem like having some of those guys regularly in the pipeline would really help.

Fingers crossed that Roach stays another year or two and develops.

[UrinalCake]

Hey UC, is there actually a risk to overgeneralizing?

For the most part, no

[DukieTiger]

I don’t know that Duval was a scramble per se, but I could be mistaken on that. But that is neither here nor there.

I definitely agree that, for a coach whose best teams have generally been strong at PG, he has struggled to maintain a pipeline at that position. Sort of like the concept that NFL teams should regularly draft QBs, I agree that we should make a habit of bringing in PGs more regularly. Obviously you want to land the best PGs if possible, but adding next-tier and/or developmental PGs to the mix would be huge. We have recruited, to my knowledge, just 3 such players in the last decade: Tyler Thornton, Cook, and Goldwire. Neither Thornton (too slow and floor-bound) nor Goldwire (not strong enough offensively) have quite panned out, but Cook was a success for sure. It does seem like having some of those guys regularly in the pipeline would really help.

Fingers crossed that Roach stays another year or two and develops.

Duke targeted Trae Young, Tre Waters (kinda), Matt Coleman and Quade Green before landing Duval. I think they were recruiting Duval all along so he might not qualify as a scramble but they definitely were in a position of dire need when they landed him.

Agree with the general point of this post and I wouldn’t necessarily limit it to PGs purely but would say that you’d like to have an additional, next-tier ball handler on your roster. Taking a transfer or grad transfer every couple years might help here. Duke’s been connected to Kira Lewis and Andrew Nembhart just in the past two years. Maybe those weren’t good fits, but I do agree with the point you’ve made before, that they could probably stand to be more aggressive in looking for those sorts of guys.

*Edited to add that I realize why I felt like the Bagley team needed another shooter: it’s because teams completely ignored Duval on the perimeter to the degree that it made spacing a challenge at times, even with such a good shooting team. Now that’s not to say taking Duval was a mistake - you don’t pass on the #1 pg in the class. But the fit wasn’t the greatest in the world IMO.

[UrinalCake]

Obviously you want to land the best PGs if possible, but adding next-tier and/or developmental PGs to the mix would be huge.

Landing Kyrie was both a blessing and a curse. He started the trend of making Duke a popular OAD destination, but it has led to the constant churn at PG that you describe. I for one thought that Tyus would be a 3-4 year player, and Tre even more so. Both were small, not elite athletes, and not great shooters in high school. When Tre started the recruitment process I don't think he was even ranked in the top 50. I could be wrong about that. And he absolutely LOVED Duke, moreso even than his brother, so for both of those guys I thought they would stay in college a long time. Derryck Thornton was thought to be a borderline OAD, and ironically enough he spent like six years in college. So I think K did try to recruit some non-OAD point guards but their success sort of worked against us. It's really hard to recruit a next-tier point guard because that position in particular is one where guys just don't want to be the backup. Any other position can split time and play multiple spots. Goldwire is really the best case scenario, he was willing to wait his turn but also able to contribute some.

[UrinalCake]

Regarding the Bagley team, my memory is that our defense was just limited because we were forced to play zone. Our defensive efficiency was suprisingly good, but it always felt like we had a ceiling because opponents could always get an open shot at the free throw line or the corners. Kind of like how Syracuse is always good but has only won one title and they needed Carmelo Anthony to do it. The slow pace also took away Duval's ability to run the floor, and there were spacing problems with Carter and Bagley. Still, we looked great the first three games of that tournament and then just didn't play our best game against Kansas.

[Native]

The 2016 team's season boiled down to the team thinking Tyus Jones was a multi-year PG and Winslow was a multi-year wing/forward. If we have Jones, that 2016 team is superb. If we have Jones AND Winslow, that's a juggernaut. But the dangers of winning it all is that you tend to lose more guys earlier than hoped. Obviously, you take the title. But that was the first year the team had multiple one-and-dones and I think it caught Coach K off guard.

This is accurate.