Page 4 of 19 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 366

Thread: next season

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15 View Post
    I also find it perplexing why Duke isn't playing for it's 30th straight title.

    Judging from the game threads, it's because the officials are screwing us.

    8 out of 10 Jay Bilases agree they can't do their jobs right!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan_Wilson View Post
    Well specifically, the Tatum team was a total mess with too many moving parts. I feel like K works better with less pieces, to be honest - see the 2010 team with a 7 man rotation. The Tatum team had way too many players coming in and out of the rotation that never came close to gelling defensively or offensively for that matter. No identity.
    Yet they still won the ACC Tournament
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    And I’d argue it’s more about looking at the way those teams developed players, not necessarily the recruiting philosophies, that were popping up in each of those years in your trend. Sure, it may have been expressed as anti-OAD sentiment but at its root the implied question is, where’s our Luke Maye or Joel Berry?
    Joel Berry was ranked #25 out of high school. Grayson Allen was #24; Jon Scheyer was #28; Brian Zoubek was #25; Luke Kennard was #21; Amile Jefferson was #21; DJ Steward (story still being told) was #24; Mark Williams (story still being told) was #25; Wendell Moore (story still being told) was #25. We've had plenty of those guys.

    Luke Maye is a different story. There are very few of unicorns like Maye in all college basketball. And a lot fewer of them when 79% of your recruits are top 35 (as it has been with Duke in the 21st century). Even harder when 41% of your recruits who are not top 35 transfer away (as it also has been with Duke this century). But, having said that, of the 10 Duke recruits this century who were not top 35 and did not transfer away, 8 of them (80%) became at least rotation players (4 of them starters), plus Henry Coleman will probably be the 9th: Jordan Goldwire (starter), Tyler Thornton (starter), Jack White, Marshall Plumlee (starter, NBA player), Miles Plumlee (starter, NBA player/1st round draft pick), Dave McClure, Lee Melchionni, Joey Baker. So maybe no Luke Maye, but two NBA players and a very high rate of contributing to the cause. I'd say that's pretty decent player development.

    Now, if you're talking about guys outside the top 100 (like Maye), we've only had five of those this century who did not transfer away, and four of the five (80%) ended up as rotation players (two starters, 40%): Goldwire, Thornton, White, and Melchionni. Again, I'd say that's pretty good player development. (I'm not counting Justin Robinson in all this, but he's a pretty cool player development story all by himself.) The odds of a sub-100 guy ending up All-ACC caliber have to be worse than a thousand-to-one; can't expect to get such a guy when you only have five chances.

    So I disagree with you. I think at its root the implied question is, how come we're not in the Final Four every year?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    You and I are clearly seeing different things then. Roach looks pretty darn thick to me. And I don't think physicality is what is giving them problems, but rather awareness/understanding.
    Are you maybe confusing "thick" with "toned"? They aren't the same thing, and there is no universe in which Roach can be considered thick.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Are you maybe confusing "thick" with "toned"? They aren't the same thing, and there is no universe in which Roach can be considered thick.
    agreed. When i was in HS, and 1st year of college, i played baseball and lifted weights. At my peak i could bench 250, squat over 425 etc. I was 5'10, 180, and had some abs (ie., i was at least somewhat toned). Not sure anyone would have called me thick. Thickheaded maybe...

    As for Roach, i'm sure he's plenty strong, but it seems like the binary choice between 1) not strong enough to fight thru screens and 2) lacks defensive awareness, is a false choice. It is likely a bit of both. I have definitely seen plays where he lacked awareness of other players on the court, and i've seen him get totally stonewalled on a screen. Otoh, he's pretty quick, and his ability to get to the rim has really improved lately, which might actually be negatively impacted if he were to get "thicker". I think he's been pretty good as a Fr. and some of his weaknesses are typical for such, and it doesn't help that he's tying to play PG on a team w/o a true PG when his greatest strengths as a player are not exactly in line with being a top flight PG. I look forward to him terrorizing opponents next year.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Joel Berry was ranked #25 out of high school. Grayson Allen was #24; Jon Scheyer was #28; Brian Zoubek was #25; Luke Kennard was #21; Amile Jefferson was #21; DJ Steward (story still being told) was #24; Mark Williams (story still being told) was #25; Wendell Moore (story still being told) was #25. We've had plenty of those guys.

    Luke Maye is a different story. There are very few of unicorns like Maye in all college basketball. And a lot fewer of them when 79% of your recruits are top 35 (as it has been with Duke in the 21st century). Even harder when 41% of your recruits who are not top 35 transfer away (as it also has been with Duke this century). But, having said that, of the 10 Duke recruits this century who were not top 35 and did not transfer away, 8 of them (80%) became at least rotation players (4 of them starters), plus Henry Coleman will probably be the 9th: Jordan Goldwire (starter), Tyler Thornton (starter), Jack White, Marshall Plumlee (starter, NBA player), Miles Plumlee (starter, NBA player/1st round draft pick), Dave McClure, Lee Melchionni, Joey Baker. So maybe no Luke Maye, but two NBA players and a very high rate of contributing to the cause. I'd say that's pretty decent player development.

    Now, if you're talking about guys outside the top 100 (like Maye), we've only had five of those this century who did not transfer away, and four of the five (80%) ended up as rotation players (two starters, 40%): Goldwire, Thornton, White, and Melchionni. Again, I'd say that's pretty good player development. (I'm not counting Justin Robinson in all this, but he's a pretty cool player development story all by himself.) The odds of a sub-100 guy ending up All-ACC caliber have to be worse than a thousand-to-one; can't expect to get such a guy when you only have five chances.

    So I disagree with you. I think at its root the implied question is, how come we're not in the Final Four every year?
    Well, given this is Duke's longest Final Four drought since before Johnny Dawkins, I just happen to think the questions are fair and I would still argue they're more akin to - what could we be doing better or differently? But I'll agree to disagree.

    No one's disputing that Duke has historically recruited plenty of guys in the slightly sub-elite range (20-35, I suppose) or that its had success with a handful of sub-35 ranked guys, and developed a good number of them - though many of your examples were from outside of the time period in question.

    I'm also aware that Luke Maye was a rare case.

    I just picked those two guys as an illustration that we just spent half a decade watching three programs be objectively more successful than Duke and each program had upperclassmen playing major roles. Those upperclassmen spanned from top 25 recruits to guys who were down in the 75 to 100 range (or lower in some rare cases). So my primary point was that sure, some of us bemoan OAD but I think that it's fair to look at some of our primary competitors and see that they had sustained success over the last half decade with a mixture of highly rated players and lower rated players whom they developed into major contributors.

    Where this ties back into the OAD "complaint" then, is that it can feel to some like Duke's OAD-heavy approach is occurring at the detriment of long-term development of supporting players. Ideally, you'd see more supporting players like Grayson become stars or at least team leaders as upperclassmen. Or at the very least, you'd like to see supporting players become increasingly reliable in their role as time goes on. And it just doesn't feel like this is happening at Duke and hasn't been for a few years. I honestly think this is reinforced by the list of players you shared. Some of the best successes that you referenced were pre-2015.

    Open to hearing about where you think the non-OAD success stories are and how they've driven team success at a high level in the past 5 years.
    Last edited by DukieTiger; 02-10-2021 at 01:10 PM.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Are you maybe confusing "thick" with "toned"? They aren't the same thing, and there is no universe in which Roach can be considered thick.
    No, I'm not confusing "thick" with "toned." And like I said, I disagree. He seems plenty thick.

    For comparison, yesterday's opposing guards were Hubb (6'3", 175lb, so clearly less thick than Roach), Wertz (6'5", 195lb), and Ryan (6'5", 195lb). Non of those guys are thicker/stronger than Roach, and certainly none of them bully-balled Roach.

    Miami's guards: Beverly (6'5", 185lb), Wong (6'3", 180lb), and McGusty (6'5", 180lb). None of those guys are thicker/stronger than Roach. Not that it mattered as Roach played somewhat sparingly.

    UNC's guards: RJ Davis (6'0", 160lb), Caleb Love (6'4", 195lb). At best Love is slightly thicker, but that's certainly debatable. And certainly not substantially thicker. And Roach played well against the Heels.

    VaTech's guards: Jalen Cone (5'11", 165lb), Wabissa Bede (6'1", 195lb), Cattoor (6'3", 200lb), Diarra (6'4", 185lb). Cone and Diarra certainly aren't thicker/stronger. Bede certainly is bigger/stronger, but he also certainly doesn't use that thickness in any way. Same with Cattoor. Neither of those guys play physically at all. And Roach played really well against the Hokies anyway.

    Louisville's guards are indeed bigger. But it was Roach's inability to handle Louisville's matchup zone that made his night miserable in that one.

    MSU's guards: Loyer (6'0", 175lb), Watts (6'2", 185lb), and Langford (6'5", 200lb). None of those guys were bullying anyone. If anything, the slightly bigger Watts was winning with his pace.

    Clemson's guards: Al-Amir Dawes (6'2", 180lb), Honor (5'10", 205lb), Trapp (6'4", 205lb). Dawes is certainly not discernably stronger or thicker. Honor is, but he also doesn't utilize that. Trapp might be a bit thicker, but again he doesn't use it. The Tigers certainly didn't bully Roach. And Roach was solid against Clemson anyway.

    BC's guards: Kelly (6'1", 175lb), Heath (6'3", 175lb), Langford (6'5", 195lb). None are thicker/stronger than Roach. Tabbs (6'2", 195lb) was, but he wasn't bullying anybody in that game off the bench.

    Pitt's guards are bigger/stronger, but we played zone in that one so there wasn't any bullying going on on the perimeter.

    Illinois' guards: Curbelo (6'1", 175lb), Frazier (6'2", 175lb), Miller (6'3", 180lb). None of those guys were bullying Roach, nor were they bigger or stronger. And Roach played well against the Illini anyway.

    I'm not sure why folks have this impression that our guards are getting bullied. And I'm certainly not sure why anyone would think that Roach isn't big/strong enough. He's right in line with the typical veteran guards in terms of his thickness.

    Our guards didn't do well with ball screens yesterday. But I think folks maybe are misinterpreting that as a lack of strength, when it's really all about awareness/communication. Nobody guards are going through screens by bigs, and if they did it would be a foul anyway. What they do is move to avoid the screens. If you don't see the screener's position in time, you get caught on it. If you do, you can either get over or under the screen. But it's all timing, anticipation, and communication. Our bigs probably aren't great at communication, and our guards aren't great at knowing what to do when a screen comes unless they have a lot of heads-up.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    No, I'm not confusing "thick" with "toned." And like I said, I disagree. He seems plenty thick.
    [obnoxiously long block of text redacted]
    You can make the argument that Roach isn't getting bullied without making the patently false argument that Roach is by any measure "thick" or big.

    Also, while I'm not even arguing that Roach was getting bullied and take no position on the matter, it is possible to be bullied by someone smaller than you so comparing heights and weights is basically useless as a rebuttal.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    You can make the argument that Roach isn't getting bullied without making the patently false argument that Roach is by any measure "thick" or big..
    For a college basketball player, he's plenty thick. That was my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Acymetric View Post
    Also, while I'm not even arguing that Roach was getting bullied and take no position on the matter, it is possible to be bullied by someone smaller than you so comparing heights and weights is basically useless as a rebuttal.
    The argument I'm countering is that Roach needs 10-15 lbs of weight added. So, while your statement is true, it's kind of irrelevant to the discussion. Weight was pretty clearly put into the discussion beforehand.

    Also, I don't think Roach has been getting bullied by guards in general, but most certainly not so by smaller players.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    Well, given this is Duke's longest Final Four drought since before Johnny Dawkins, I just happen to think the questions are fair and I would still argue they're more akin to - what could we be doing better or differently? But I'll agree to disagree.

    No one's disputing that Duke has historically recruited plenty of guys in the slightly sub-elite range (20-35, I suppose) or that its had success with a handful of sub-35 ranked guys, and developed a good number of them - though many of your examples were from outside of the time period in question.

    I'm also aware that Luke Maye was a rare case.

    I just picked those two guys as an illustration that we just spent half a decade watching three programs be objectively more successful than Duke and each program had upperclassmen playing major roles. Those upperclassmen spanned from top 25 recruits to guys who were down in the 75 to 100 range (or lower in some rare cases). So my primary point was that sure, some of us bemoan OAD but I think that it's fair to look at some of our primary competitors and see that they had sustained success over the last half decade with a mixture of highly rated players and lower rated players whom they developed into major contributors.

    Where this ties back into the OAD "complaint" then, is that it can feel to some like Duke's OAD-heavy approach is occurring at the detriment of long-term development of supporting players. Ideally, you'd see more supporting players like Grayson become stars or at least team leaders as upperclassmen. Or at the very least, you'd like to see supporting players become increasingly reliable in their role as time goes on. And it just doesn't feel like this is happening at Duke and hasn't been for a few years. I honestly think this is reinforced by the list of players you shared. Some of the best successes that you referenced were pre-2015.

    Open to hearing about where you think the non-OAD success stories are and how they've driven team success at a high level in the past 5 years.
    Just in the last 5 years? How about Amile Jefferson, Matt Jones, Marshall Plumlee, Marquis Bolden, Javin DeLaurier, and Jack White? All non-OAD success stories who have been important-to-critical components of teams that have had a high level of success, even if they fell short of a championship.

    As far as "supporting" players like Grayson becoming stars, it can happen -- like Grayson -- but generally it is hard to do when you are bringing in a crop of star freshmen most years. But then we get to the question debated ad nauseum here -- do you prefer NOT bringing in star frosh? If so, and Grayson and others DON'T develop into star-level players, then what are you left with? For me, I'm happy to develop players like the six I mentioned above, and mix them in with a few highly talented freshmen, and take our chances. Sometimes the ball bounces our way in the tournament, and sometimes it doesn't. But I'll take that over a team with a lower ceiling anytime.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    NC
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    Well, given this is Duke's longest Final Four drought since before Johnny Dawkins, I just happen to think the questions are fair and I would still argue they're more akin to - what could we be doing better or differently? But I'll agree to disagree.
    First, I think that's a bit disingenuous, as the Final Four drought includes two last-second losses in the Elite-8, one year in which there wasn't a tournament, and one year that isn't over yet (though it almost certainly won't end in a Final Four for us). I'd argue that with an ACC championship, two elite-8s, and a sweet-16 in 5 seasons that had tournaments is a pretty darn good run.

    Second, your question of "what should we be doing better/differently?" is a reasonable question. But "where are the Luke Maye and Joel Berry?" was the wrong question if what you are going for is "what should we be doing differently?"


    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    Where this ties back into the OAD "complaint" then, is that it can feel to some like Duke's OAD-heavy approach is occurring at the detriment of long-term development of supporting players. Ideally, you'd see more supporting players like Grayson become stars or at least team leaders as upperclassmen. Or at the very least, you'd like to see supporting players become increasingly reliable in their role as time goes on. And it just doesn't feel like this is happening at Duke and hasn't been for a few years. I honestly think this is reinforced by the list of players you shared. Some of the best successes that you referenced were pre-2015.
    See below. Plenty of success stories. Individual development is largely up to the individual. I don't think the one-and-done model has prevented these guys from developing, given how many guys have improved greatly over their time.

    Especially since we haven't had much one-and-done value the past two years, and that hasn't led to Baker or Moore or O'Connell turning into a stud (in Moore's case, at least not yet).

    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    Open to hearing about where you think the non-OAD success stories are and how they've driven team success at a high level in the past 5 years.
    For development successes, let's see. Allen for one. Tre Jones. Matthew Hurt. Jordan Goldwire. Matt Jones. Luke Kennard. Amile Jefferson. Jack White. We may be in the process of seeing it with Wendell Moore (see the thread talking about the last 5 games). We may yet see it next year with Williams, Roach, and Steward.

    In terms of team success? Allen helped win a title, won an ACC title, and made another Elite-8, and was one unfortunate rim-out from another Final Four. Jones helped win a title. Kennard helped win an ACC title. Jefferson won a title and an ACC title. White helped reach another elite-8, where we were again one basket from a Final Four. Seems like pretty good success.

    One could make the argument that we should be more flexible in adding transfers and grad transfers since we're in the one-and-done market. But I vehemently disagree that the one-and-done approach has been anything other than a boon to our success. My reasoning? Because in the 10 years prior to 2015, we made one Final Four (and title) and one Elite-8. So one Final Four (and title) and two elite-8s in a 6 year span since seems like a pretty darn good set of results.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    I think that it's fair to look at some of our primary competitors and see that they had sustained success over the last half decade with a mixture of highly rated players and lower rated players whom they developed into major contributors.
    Can you really have "sustained" success over a half decade? That's barely more than one recruiting class.

    Quote Originally Posted by DukieTiger View Post
    Open to hearing about where you think the non-OAD success stories are and how they've driven team success at a high level in the past 5 years.
    In the six recruiting years since our last championship (recruiting classes of 2015 to 2020), we've brought 33 recruited scholarship players to Duke. More than half (18) of those players were top 15 guys. Of the remaining 15 non-top-15 players, two transferred out (O'Connell and Tucker), two went pro early (Kennard and Stanley), both unexpected, and in Kennard's case because he developed so well in his two years in Durham. Two were solid four-year-guys (DeLaurier and White) and eight (8) are on this year's team (and thus their story has not been completely told). Of those eight, five are freshmen so we can't really talk too much about development, and the other three include Jordan Goldwire, who is an amazing development story about a guy who wasn't ranked in the top 350 becoming an ACC-quality player (and even a starter); Wendell Moore, who is coming off two of the best games of his career; and Joey Baker, who is at least in the rotation. The only non-top 15 guy we've brought in since 2015 who didn't transfer away (although one of the transfers (O'Connell) also contributed while he was here) who didn't become a legitimate contributor was Antonio Vrankovic. So I'd say we've had a pretty high success rate with non-elite recruits in recent years.

    It seems to me that you're moving the goalposts with your "non-OAD success stories [who have] driven team success at a high level in the past 5 years" question, since your initial hypothesis stated the issue was with player development (and not team success). But even if it was the original question, I don't think it's a fair point.

    First, if your recruiting plan targets OAD players then by design the non-OAD guys are meant to be supporting cast rather than driving forces. Counting O'Connell (who was around three years) but not Tucker (who was around three minutes), the top 15 guys (presumably OAD quality) outnumber the non-OAD types 18 to 14. Including top 15 guys who weren't OAD, here's how many top 15 guys we've had on each team in the past six seasons:

    2016: 3
    2017: 5
    2018: 5
    2019: 5
    2020: 3
    2021: 2

    With so many top 15 guys on the roster each year, the non-OAD guys would never fairly be expected to "drive" team success.

    Second, I assume you understand that "non-OAD guys" include top 15 players like Marques Bolden, Tre Jones, and Matthew Hurt. All were major contributors and Tre Jones (at least) can be said to have driven plenty of team success. Guys like Luke Kennard (non-OAD but left after two years) and Cassius Stanley (not close to the top 15) were not recruited as OADs and both drove team success and would have driven more if they'd stayed around.

    Third, we've had plenty of team success in the past five or six years. Since 2016, we've been to the Sweet 16 three times, same as UNC, one fewer than Gonzaga (and one of those was from a #10 seed), and more than Virginia or Villanova. Even if you don't count a Sweet 16 as a "success," we've had two recent seasons which were a single possession away from the Final Four. Taking away this year's freshmen, three of the nine non-top 15 recruited scholarship players we've had since 2015 were rotation players on Elite Eight teams (plus another played 300+ minutes on an Elite Eight team). That's not necessarily "driving" success but it's certainly participating in it. Last season ended without a tournament, but last year's top 10 (ish: #11 in AP; #8 in Coaches) Duke team had six non-top 15 players in the rotation plus two other top-15 but non-OADs. Frankly, that last case is a fine example of non-OADs driving team success for a successful team.

    Finally, the current team has eight non-top 15 players (nine if you count Patrick Tapé, who was not originally recruited to Duke)-- their story is far from written. All of them could be back next season, most of them could be playing three or four more years at Duke. Seems to me if what you're looking for is multi-year players driving or participating in success, you're asking your question way too soon and facing the wrong direction (backward when we had lots of OADs, rather than forwards when our many non-seniors can show the product of their development). If we make the Final Four next year, how does that change your calculus? What if we make two in the next four years while Gonzaga, Virginia, and Villanova suffer early-round exits?

    I honestly think the pining around here for the success of a Virginia or Villanova or Gonzaga is nothing more than complaining that Duke isn't a Final Four team every season.



    EDIT: As others have pointed out, we've also had guys like Grayson Allen, Amile Jefferson, and Matt Jones, all of whom helped drive considerable success for Duke. My post only includes players recruited since our last championship.
    Last edited by Kedsy; 02-10-2021 at 03:01 PM.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Now that 6'/175 is thick, maybe I should change my screen name to thickbeard.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Skinker-DeBaliviere, Saint Louis
    Speaking of Stanley, I did LOL a little a few days ago when he tweeted that we needed the fans in Cameron and people @-ed right back "we need you."

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA

    Inner Kemba

    I'm banking on Roach finding his inner Kemba and taking us to an ACC Tournament trophy AND a NCAA Tournament trophy.

    Remember, UCONN finished the reg season 9-9 in Big East play. There is precedent!
    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

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    First, I think that's a bit disingenuous, as the Final Four drought includes two last-second losses in the Elite-8, one year in which there wasn't a tournament, and one year that isn't over yet (though it almost certainly won't end in a Final Four for us). I'd argue that with an ACC championship, two elite-8s, and a sweet-16 in 5 seasons that had tournaments is a pretty darn good run.

    Second, your question of "what should we be doing better/differently?" is a reasonable question. But "where are the Luke Maye and Joel Berry?" was the wrong question if what you are going for is "what should we be doing differently?"
    I had no intention of being disingenuous about the timeline, would you believe I blocked last year's cancellation out of my mind - perhaps as a defense mechanism against depression?

    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    See below. Plenty of success stories. Individual development is largely up to the individual. I don't think the one-and-done model has prevented these guys from developing, given how many guys have improved greatly over their time.

    Especially since we haven't had much one-and-done value the past two years, and that hasn't led to Baker or Moore or O'Connell turning into a stud (in Moore's case, at least not yet).
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    For development successes, let's see. Allen for one. Tre Jones. Matthew Hurt. Jordan Goldwire. Matt Jones. Luke Kennard. Amile Jefferson. Jack White. We may be in the process of seeing it with Wendell Moore (see the thread talking about the last 5 games). We may yet see it next year with Williams, Roach, and Steward.

    In terms of team success? Allen helped win a title, won an ACC title, and made another Elite-8, and was one unfortunate rim-out from another Final Four. Jones helped win a title. Kennard helped win an ACC title. Jefferson won a title and an ACC title. White helped reach another elite-8, where we were again one basket from a Final Four. Seems like pretty good success.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by CDu View Post
    One could make the argument that we should be more flexible in adding transfers and grad transfers since we're in the one-and-done market. But I vehemently disagree that the one-and-done approach has been anything other than a boon to our success. My reasoning? Because in the 10 years prior to 2015, we made one Final Four (and title) and one Elite-8. So one Final Four (and title) and two elite-8s in a 6 year span since seems like a pretty darn good set of results.
    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.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    I'm banking on Roach finding his inner Kemba and taking us to an ACC Tournament trophy AND a NCAA Tournament trophy.

    Remember, UCONN finished the reg season 9-9 in Big East play. There is precedent!
    While I appealed to a similar sentiment a few days ago, this ACC sure as heck ain't that big east! Doesn't mean I'm not pulling for the same outcome!
    basketball is back, baby!

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by uh_no View Post
    While I appealed to a similar sentiment a few days ago, this ACC sure as heck ain't that big east! Doesn't mean I'm not pulling for the same outcome!
    It's kinda close. Pittsburgh, ND, Louisville, and Syracuse, the top 4 teams that year, are now all in the ACC.
    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

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Can you really have "sustained" success over a half decade? That's barely more than one recruiting class.



    In the six recruiting years since our last championship (recruiting classes of 2015 to 2020), we've brought 33 recruited scholarship players to Duke. More than half (18) of those players were top 15 guys. Of the remaining 15 non-top-15 players, two transferred out (O'Connell and Tucker), two went pro early (Kennard and Stanley), both unexpected, and in Kennard's case because he developed so well in his two years in Durham. Two were solid four-year-guys (DeLaurier and White) and eight (8) are on this year's team (and thus their story has not been completely told). Of those eight, five are freshmen so we can't really talk too much about development, and the other three include Jordan Goldwire, who is an amazing development story about a guy who wasn't ranked in the top 350 becoming an ACC-quality player (and even a starter); Wendell Moore, who is coming off two of the best games of his career; and Joey Baker, who is at least in the rotation. The only non-top 15 guy we've brought in since 2015 who didn't transfer away (although one of the transfers (O'Connell) also contributed while he was here) who didn't become a legitimate contributor was Antonio Vrankovic. So I'd say we've had a pretty high success rate with non-elite recruits in recent years.

    It seems to me that you're moving the goalposts with your "non-OAD success stories [who have] driven team success at a high level in the past 5 years" question, since your initial hypothesis stated the issue was with player development (and not team success). But even if it was the original question, I don't think it's a fair point.

    First, if your recruiting plan targets OAD players then by design the non-OAD guys are meant to be supporting cast rather than driving forces. Counting O'Connell (who was around three years) but not Tucker (who was around three minutes), the top 15 guys (presumably OAD quality) outnumber the non-OAD types 18 to 14. Including top 15 guys who weren't OAD, here's how many top 15 guys we've had on each team in the past six seasons:

    2016: 3
    2017: 5
    2018: 5
    2019: 5
    2020: 3
    2021: 2

    With so many top 15 guys on the roster each year, the non-OAD guys would never fairly be expected to "drive" team success.

    Second, I assume you understand that "non-OAD guys" include top 15 players like Marques Bolden, Tre Jones, and Matthew Hurt. All were major contributors and Tre Jones (at least) can be said to have driven plenty of team success. Guys like Luke Kennard (non-OAD but left after two years) and Cassius Stanley (not close to the top 15) were not recruited as OADs and both drove team success and would have driven more if they'd stayed around.

    Third, we've had plenty of team success in the past five or six years. Since 2016, we've been to the Sweet 16 three times, same as UNC, one fewer than Gonzaga (and one of those was from a #10 seed), and more than Virginia or Villanova. Even if you don't count a Sweet 16 as a "success," we've had two recent seasons which were a single possession away from the Final Four. Taking away this year's freshmen, three of the nine non-top 15 recruited scholarship players we've had since 2015 were rotation players on Elite Eight teams (plus another played 300+ minutes on an Elite Eight team). That's not necessarily "driving" success but it's certainly participating in it. Last season ended without a tournament, but last year's top 10 (ish: #11 in AP; #8 in Coaches) Duke team had six non-top 15 players in the rotation plus two other top-15 but non-OADs. Frankly, that last case is a fine example of non-OADs driving team success for a successful team.

    Finally, the current team has eight non-top 15 players (nine if you count Patrick Tapé, who was not originally recruited to Duke)-- their story is far from written. All of them could be back next season, most of them could be playing three or four more years at Duke. Seems to me if what you're looking for is multi-year players driving or participating in success, you're asking your question way too soon and facing the wrong direction (backward when we had lots of OADs, rather than forwards when our many non-seniors can show the product of their development). If we make the Final Four next year, how does that change your calculus? What if we make two in the next four years while Gonzaga, Virginia, and Villanova suffer early-round exits?

    I honestly think the pining around here for the success of a Virginia or Villanova or Gonzaga is nothing more than complaining that Duke isn't a Final Four team every season.



    EDIT: As others have pointed out, we've also had guys like Grayson Allen, Amile Jefferson, and Matt Jones, all of whom helped drive considerable success for Duke. My post only includes players recruited since our last championship.
    Thanks for your response - your points are solid and I don't know that it's fruitful to push this any further on my end. You're right that Duke's had lots of success since 2015 and that the prominence of the roles of sub-top 15 players is inherently capped by the surplus of elite recruits Duke's had. I think I'm mostly reacting to the disappointment of 2018 and 2019: teams I distinctly felt were one player away, much more than one shot away.

    I still think it's an unfair characterization to say that those comparing Duke to UVA, Nova, etc. are doing so out of an entitled attitude but it's a fair point that there are trade-offs between approaches. Anyway, I see that I'm not adding to the conversation at this point so I'll bow out and hope that the current core group proves me wrong and we get to see them blossom over the next 1-3 years.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    It's kinda close. Pittsburgh, ND, Louisville, and Syracuse, the top 4 teams that year, are now all in the ACC.
    haha I've always thought the ACC divisions should be the

    ACC division and the Big East division.
    basketball is back, baby!

Similar Threads

  1. GT to play a regular-season game in China next season
    By jimsumner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-11-2016, 01:03 PM
  2. CBS Pre-season Top 50 Big Men
    By Ultrarunner in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-26-2012, 01:09 PM
  3. Which early season tournament is Duke playing in next season?
    By WiJoe in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 02:55 PM
  4. 2012 AP All-Americans (post-season, not pre-season!)
    By superdave in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-27-2012, 12:02 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
  •