CBS - Duke poised for a bounce back season

[UrinalCake]

CBS picked the programs they think are most poised for a bounce back season. At the top of the list is our very own Blue Devils. Here’s to making last season an unfortunate blip on the radar.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...1-22-campaign/

[bullettoothtony]

I definitely think we have the talent to make a deep run, but I have to admit, I'm not super-optimistic about our chances of winning a national title at the moment. Gonzaga and Memphis in particular just have obscene levels of talent, and I just don't think we're quite at the level of a few teams.

That said, though, i think our ceiling is really high. I think Paolo and Wendell are locks to have very good years, and if Williams, Griffin and Roach approach their capabilities we could be really nasty. And I'm really intrigued by our defensive capability.

[gep]

I definitely think we have the talent to make a deep run, but I have to admit, I'm not super-optimistic about our chances of winning a national title at the moment. Gonzaga and Memphis in particular just have obscene levels of talent, and I just don't think we're quite at the level of a few teams.

That said, though, i think our ceiling is really high. I think Paolo and Wendell are locks to have very good years, and if Williams, Griffin and Roach approach their capabilities we could be really nasty. And I'm really intrigued by our defensive capability.

But... we have Coach K

[bullettoothtony]

^ Very important point!

[SkyBrickey]

I’m really high on this team for one big reason. Paolo Banchero seems to be the type of player who makes everyone around him better and can do whatever’s needed to win - and that’s from a player who may be the best in the country. If I’m right, I don’t think we’ve had a player like that since Battier or Grant Hill.

[uh_no]

I’m really high on this team for one big reason. Paolo Banchero seems to be the type of player who makes everyone around him better and can do whatever’s needed to win - and that’s from a player who may be the best in the country. If I’m right, I don’t think we’ve had a player like that since Battier or Grant Hill.

I'm not as high on this team as many, I think we will be BETTER, I don't think we will miss the tournament, certainly, so I suppose the bar for "bounce back" is low. I'm happy to be very wrong, mind you.

[simplyluvin]

I'm not as high on this team as many, I think we will be BETTER, I don't think we will miss the tournament, certainly, so I suppose the bar for "bounce back" is low. I'm happy to be very wrong, mind you.

From their lips to God's ears. It's a question, as some have stated here, of how good Paolo will be and how big a jump guys like Wendell and Jeremy have made. If these three guys are better than expected (or as good as we hope), then it's possible we might have a Top 5 talent-level team, the type of team that cuts down nets.

[uh_no]

From their lips to God's ears. It's a question, as some have stated here, of how good Paolo will be and how big a jump guys like Wendell and Jeremy have made. If these three guys are better than expected (or as good as we hope), then it's possible we might have a Top 5 talent-level team, the type of team that cuts down nets.

there is a lot that needs to go right.

• paolo is transcendental
• williams continues at the pace he established at the end of the year
• the guard play is significantly improved
• someone else steps up?

It's not impossible, but unlikely for EVERYTHING to turn out as best as everyone predicts it might (that's the planning fallacy in a nutshell). Even if you put 75% chance on each of those, it's still only a 30% chance they all happen. Just pulling numbers out, but the point is, the more you need to go right to succeed, the less chance you have that everything will. I would say it's likely we'll be better. It's unlikely we'll be great. It is "almost certain" that it will be exciting to find out.

[chrishoke]

Guard play is very likely the factor that ultimately will limit our ceiling.

[Bay Area Duke Fan]

I’m expecting a storybook ending for Duke in 2021-22. Coach K’s last team wins its last game, and K retires with #6.

[TruBlu]

I’m expecting a storybook ending for Duke in 2021-22. Coach K’s last team wins its last game, and K retires with #6.

BBN and IC will probably say this is predetermined by the NCAA, refs, and the selection committee. The season and tournament are mere formalities.

[brevity]

BBN and IC will probably say this is predetermined by the NCAA, refs, and the selection committee. The season and tournament are mere formalities.

Then let them say it now and have their teams cancel their seasons.

Mods, I think the thread title needs a change in punctuation. "CBS, Duke poised for a bounce back season"

[cato]

Then let them say it now and have their teams cancel their seasons.

Mods, I think the thread title needs a change in punctuation. "CBS, Duke poised for a bounce back season"

ROI baby

[Indoor66]

I’m expecting a storybook ending for Duke in 2021-22. Coach K’s last team wins its last game, and K retires with #6.

And I got +1,500 at the sports book!

[DavidBenAkiva]

Guard play is very likely the factor that ultimately will limit our ceiling.

Coincidently, this is true for nearly all the top teams in the country.

Gonzaga is replacing Jalen Suggs and Joel Ayayi with two freshmen, Hunter Sallis and Nolan Hickman. Are either ready to step up to the plate?
Baylor lost Jared Butler, Davion Mitchell, and MaCio Teague and are hoping to get reasonably similar production out of James Akinjo, Adam Flagler, and LJ Cryer.
Kansas loses its best defender and point guard, Marcus Garrett, and will slide in a very experienced transfer in Remy Martin plus Josef Yesufu and SO Dajuan Harris. Neither are known for defense but the offensive upgrade should be apparent.
Memphis has even bigger question marks around point guard than does Duke. There is talk that Emoni Bates will see a significant amount of time on the ball. Alex Lomax is a talented point guard, but he has turned the ball over a lot over his 3 years. And he's not exactly a good shooter or scorer, either.
Texas might have the best crop of guards in the nation (I would argue it's Alabama), but there are serious questions around fit. Marcus Carr has been ball dominant. Will being around other talented guards allow him to thrive or will he detract from Courtney Ramey, Andrew Jones, and others?
Kentucky has its usual turnover, losing players to the NBA (and sadly losing Terrence Clarke forever) and transfer (Devin Askew to Texas). They bring in multiple transfers for the first time under Calipari, few of whom have NBA upside. Can Coach Cal guide a team with so few high-end players on the roster?

Duke is a lot like the other teams at the top. There is good talent but questions about how players will fit into roles. A lot of the best teams take years to get to the point where they click and play at the highest levels. Wisconsin got there in 2014 and 2015 but weren't able to capture the Title. Since then, they have struggled to regain national relevance. Virginia got to the mountaintop in 2019 but have taken a significant step back since. The team they are fielding this year might be the worst offensive group Tony Bennett has had since he was named head coach in Charlottesville.

I think the big factor hanging over a lot of the teams this season is that so many rosters are substantially new. Most coaches aren't used to dealing with that kind of turnover. I'm not saying that Duke is going to run away with it this season, but I think there's a nice mix of continuity and talent in the backcourt relative to the rest of the competitors.

[chrishoke]

Coincidently, this is true for nearly all the top teams in the country.

Gonzaga is replacing Jalen Suggs and Joel Ayayi with two freshmen, Hunter Sallis and Nolan Hickman. Are either ready to step up to the plate?
Baylor lost Jared Butler, Davion Mitchell, and MaCio Teague and are hoping to get reasonably similar production out of James Akinjo, Adam Flagler, and LJ Cryer.
Kansas loses its best defender and point guard, Marcus Garrett, and will slide in a very experienced transfer in Remy Martin plus Josef Yesufu and SO Dajuan Harris. Neither are known for defense but the offensive upgrade should be apparent.
Memphis has even bigger question marks around point guard than does Duke. There is talk that Emoni Bates will see a significant amount of time on the ball. Alex Lomax is a talented point guard, but he has turned the ball over a lot over his 3 years. And he's not exactly a good shooter or scorer, either.
Texas might have the best crop of guards in the nation (I would argue it's Alabama), but there are serious questions around fit. Marcus Carr has been ball dominant. Will being around other talented guards allow him to thrive or will he detract from Courtney Ramey, Andrew Jones, and others?
Kentucky has its usual turnover, losing players to the NBA (and sadly losing Terrence Clarke forever) and transfer (Devin Askew to Texas). They bring in multiple transfers for the first time under Calipari, few of whom have NBA upside. Can Coach Cal guide a team with so few high-end players on the roster?

Duke is a lot like the other teams at the top. There is good talent but questions about how players will fit into roles. A lot of the best teams take years to get to the point where they click and play at the highest levels. Wisconsin got there in 2014 and 2015 but weren't able to capture the Title. Since then, they have struggled to regain national relevance. Virginia got to the mountaintop in 2019 but have taken a significant step back since. The team they are fielding this year might be the worst offensive group Tony Bennett has had since he was named head coach in Charlottesville.

I think the big factor hanging over a lot of the teams this season is that so many rosters are substantially new. Most coaches aren't used to dealing with that kind of turnover. I'm not saying that Duke is going to run away with it this season, but I think there's a nice mix of continuity and talent in the backcourt relative to the rest of the competitors.

Good stuff David. thanks for putting that together.

[tommy]

there is a lot that needs to go right.

• paolo is transcendental
• williams continues at the pace he established at the end of the year
• the guard play is significantly improved
• someone else steps up?

It's not impossible, but unlikely for EVERYTHING to turn out as best as everyone predicts it might (that's the planning fallacy in a nutshell). Even if you put 75% chance on each of those, it's still only a 30% chance they all happen. Just pulling numbers out, but the point is, the more you need to go right to succeed, the less chance you have that everything will. I would say it's likely we'll be better. It's unlikely we'll be great. It is "almost certain" that it will be exciting to find out.

I'm going to have to meditate on that.

As far as "someone else," I suspect a fair number of people are sleeping on AJ Griffin. I know he hasn't played much in awhile, but this dude is a surefire NBA player in a right-now NBA body with terrific athleticism and a diverse offensive game. His numbers may not pop due to the presence of Paolo, Wendell and even Mark, but AJ is poised to be a major piece for us this year. I'm kinda glad that he is a bit under the radar. Dude is gonna be a killer.

[uh_no]

I'm going to have to meditate on that.

As far as "someone else," I suspect a fair number of people are sleeping on AJ Griffin. I know he hasn't played much in awhile, but this dude is a surefire NBA player in a right-now NBA body with terrific athleticism and a diverse offensive game. His numbers may not pop due to the presence of Paolo, Wendell and even Mark, but AJ is poised to be a major piece for us this year. I'm kinda glad that he is a bit under the radar. Dude is gonna be a killer.

That is also highly speculative. Maybe he will be, maybe he won't be, and if I know one thing, it's that DBR in general is awful at evaluating the NBA potential of Duke players.

[CDu]

there is a lot that needs to go right.

• paolo is transcendental
• williams continues at the pace he established at the end of the year
• the guard play is significantly improved
• someone else steps up?

It's not impossible, but unlikely for EVERYTHING to turn out as best as everyone predicts it might (that's the planning fallacy in a nutshell). Even if you put 75% chance on each of those, it's still only a 30% chance they all happen. Just pulling numbers out, but the point is, the more you need to go right to succeed, the less chance you have that everything will. I would say it's likely we'll be better. It's unlikely we'll be great. It is "almost certain" that it will be exciting to find out.

You can talk about planning fallacy, but I think you are making some fallacious mistakes in your reasoning. Specifically, I don't think taking last year as a whole is very useful for predicting this year's team (which you are implicitly doing here) for a few reasons:
1. We didn't have a preseason last year. For a young team, that's a HUGE problem. We didn't have a summer to work together, and we didn't have a preseason schedule to see what would and wouldn't work. And the lack of both meant our freshmen-laden team didn't get the normal prep we usually get from our freshmen laden teams. Moreso than most years and most teams, we were playing catchup.
2. On top of that, we also had a yo-yo of the roster thanks to our most talented player going in and out of the lineup twice. That made everything start over, twice. So it just compounded the problems that point 1 caused.

Neither of those should be issues this year. And even WITH those issues last year, we weren't as bad as our record suggested.
1. We lost two free wins to COVID cancellations. That pushed us from 15-11 to 13-11.
2. We lost an inordinate number of close games. We were something like 2-7 in close games.
3. By season's end, we were playing top-20 level basketball. It just got masked a bit because our season was incredibly difficult on the back end, and we lost two OT games.

Even with the exceptional circumstances outlined earlier, if we're 4-5 in close games (instead of 2-7) and we get those two gimme wins that got cancelled, we comfortably qualify for the tournament with a 17-9 record, top-40 KenPom, etc. We were probably an 8-9 seed in terms of quality, but because of COVID and some bad luck we wound up a 12-13 seed and on the outside looking in. So even if we have the same quality of team as last year, I'd expect we'd relatively comfortably make the tournament this year. And if you add in a normal offseason and better continuity in-season, I think we'd have finished even higher.

As for this season:
1. I think you can consider Banchero a virtual lock to be elite. His rating is at a level for which we've never failed in the past (barring injury). We we get top-2 recruits, they are awesome. And when we have top-2 recruits in the one-and-done era, our teams have been 3 seeds or better in the NCAAs.
2. The guard play really should be significantly improved. I don't think that's even all that debatable. For one thing, the two starters this year will be a year more experienced. And based on historical growth of Duke guards recently, the freshman to sophomore jump suggests Roach should be much better. And that is ignoring that he'll have a normal offseason for the first time in his college career. So his growth may actually be moreso than the growth of a typical Duke sophomore. I see Keels as a wash with Steward, and Moore will be a year more experienced.
3. We should be a lot more versatile this year. Hurt was a one-dimensional player, and that one dimension (iso shooting) created stagnation offensively. On top of that, we were short on talent. Goldwire played hard, but he was extremely limited. Baker wasn't good enough, which forced us to play three tiny guards too much. Hurt couldn't defend, Goldwire couldn't play offense. Johnson was versatile but too often unavailable. We didn't have any backup size. This year, we have plenty of size and should have plenty of versatility. Griffin and Moore give us the size and athleticism to go big or small. Banchero can play the 4 or 5. Keels has the size to play up at the 3 if we want/need to go smaller with Roach and Blakes. Last year we basically had 3 small guards, one wing, 4 power forwards, and a center. This year, we go multiple players deep everywhere, with most of the roster able to play more than one position legitimately.
4. You mention that assuming Williams plays as well as last year as an uncertainty. Well, I'm not sure why we should expect Williams to get worse. Big men tend to get better with experience, not worse. And even if we are conservative and he plays no better than he did from when he joined the rotation (last 13 games), that's really good: 10.8 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 2 bpg in just 21.3 mpg.
5. Our level of talent in general should be better. We have a top-2 recruit, 3 more top-20 recruits, two more top-25 recruits, a top-50 recruit, and a grad student multi-year starter for a P6 school. Last year we had two #11 recruits (one of whom played just ~10 games), one more top-20 recruit, three more top-25 recruits, 2 top-40 recruits, a top-50 recruit, and a senior fringe starter. So we have one more elite player (Banchero replacing Hurt), an additional top-20 guy instead of a top-25 guy, and a more talented veteran.
6. Our talent will be a lot more experienced this year. Last year's team relied on two sophomore top-25 recruits, an underskilled senior, and five or six freshmen. This year's team will rely on a junior top-25 recruit, two sophomore top-25 recruits, a fifth-year senior (but underskilled player), and three or four freshmen. I haven't done a career-minutes count for the projected rotation players, but it should be a lot higher than it was for last year's team.

So we will be deeper, more experienced, and more talented. And we will not have the same hindrances that the 2021 team had with regards to COVID eliminating preseason prep. And we were gelling into a pretty good team by season's end as it was last year. So I feel pretty comfortable saying we should be at least a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament this year (barring injuries). And I would expect us to be higher than that. I think you are overstating the risks of those things not going right, and understating the baseline as well.

[flyingdutchdevil]

As for this season:
1. I think you can consider Banchero a virtual lock to be elite. His rating is at a level for which we've never failed in the past (barring injury). We we get top-2 recruits, they are awesome. And when we have top-2 recruits in the one-and-done era, our teams have been 3 seeds or better in the NCAAs.
2. The guard play really should be significantly improved. I don't think that's even all that debatable. For one thing, the two starters this year will be a year more experienced. And based on historical growth of Duke guards recently, the freshman to sophomore jump suggests Roach should be much better. And that is ignoring that he'll have a normal offseason for the first time in his college career. So his growth may actually be moreso than the growth of a typical Duke sophomore. I see Keels as a wash with Steward, and Moore will be a year more experienced.
3. We should be a lot more versatile this year. Hurt was a one-dimensional player, and that one dimension (iso shooting) created stagnation offensively. On top of that, we were short on talent. Goldwire played hard, but he was extremely limited. Baker wasn't good enough, which forced us to play three tiny guards too much. Hurt couldn't defend, Goldwire couldn't play offense. Johnson was versatile but too often unavailable. We didn't have any backup size. This year, we have plenty of size and should have plenty of versatility. Griffin and Moore give us the size and athleticism to go big or small. Banchero can play the 4 or 5. Keels has the size to play up at the 3 if we want/need to go smaller with Roach and Blakes. Last year we basically had 3 small guards, one wing, 4 power forwards, and a center. This year, we go multiple players deep everywhere, with most of the roster able to play more than one position legitimately.
4. You mention that assuming Williams plays as well as last year as an uncertainty. Well, I'm not sure why we should expect Williams to get worse. Big men tend to get better with experience, not worse. And even if we are conservative and he plays no better than he did from when he joined the rotation (last 13 games), that's really good: 10.8 ppg, 6.1 rpg, 2 bpg in just 21.3 mpg.
5. Our level of talent in general should be better. We have a top-2 recruit, 3 more top-20 recruits, two more top-25 recruits, a top-50 recruit, and a grad student multi-year starter for a P6 school. Last year we had two #11 recruits (one of whom played just ~10 games), one more top-20 recruit, three more top-25 recruits, 2 top-40 recruits, a top-50 recruit, and a senior fringe starter. So we have one more elite player (Banchero replacing Hurt), an additional top-20 guy instead of a top-25 guy, and a more talented veteran.
6. Our talent will be a lot more experienced this year. Last year's team relied on two sophomore top-25 recruits, an underskilled senior, and five or six freshmen. This year's team will rely on a junior top-25 recruit, two sophomore top-25 recruits, a fifth-year senior (but underskilled player), and three or four freshmen. I haven't done a career-minutes count for the projected rotation players, but it should be a lot higher than it was for last year's team.

So we will be deeper, more experienced, and more talented. And we will not have the same hindrances that the 2021 team had with regards to COVID eliminating preseason prep. And we were gelling into a pretty good team by season's end as it was last year. So I feel pretty comfortable saying we should be at least a 5 seed in the NCAA tournament this year (barring injuries). And I would expect us to be higher than that. I think you are overstating the risks of those things not going right, and understating the baseline as well.

I see us as more talented (arguably much more talented). Not sure about the deeper nor more experienced. And if we are deeper and more experienced, is it substantial enough to act as an asset to the team? Not sure...

1. You're absolutely right about Banchero. I'm expecting First Team All-ACC at the minimum. That is a high bar, but everything we've all read about this kid screams, "special". He will be very good at the minimum, barring any foot problems.
2. I hope the guard play is improved. Roach is still small and arguably not a great playmaker. He was down right bad on D last year, and hopefully that will improve. Moore is an enigma. He started his sophomore year just terribly. He certainly improved as the year went on. His advanced stats show he drastically improved his offense and got worse on defense from frosh to soph. I think Moore will be better (willing to bet he improves more than Roach) and he'll be a key cog. I'm a little nervous about his defense at the 2. I've expressed that before (he's great at defending big wings and smaller post players). I hope he's good, and he'll be great at switches, but he may get burned off the dribble. We'll see. We have no idea at this point.
3. The versatility is intriguing, but I'd argue our versatility starts with the biggest enigma on our team: Griffin. None of us - analysts, recruiters, scouts, fans - have any idea what Griffin is right now. He hasn't played organized ball in 15+ months (maybe longer?). He supposedly has a few nagging injuries. I love me some Coach K like the next guy, but I don't buy anything Coach K is selling in the preseason, including what he says about Griffin. That's Coach K speak. Take out Griffin, and the team becomes a lot less versatile. Roach, Moore, and Keels basically man the 1-3 (with a little Blakes here and there) and Banchero, Williams, and John take the 4-5.
4. Yeah. I'm not expecting Mark Williams to be Shelden Williams, but I am expecting Mark to be somewhat improved. And that's scary. He'll be fantastic defensively and, at worst, the same offensively as last year (meaning he'll still struggle somewhat with creating but great at rolling to the rim and second chance points). And that's okay. We have Banchero.
5. Talent is there. Experience is kinda there with Moore and Roach. Baker is another enigma. All he could really provide last year was shooting, and he wasn't that great at that. His advanced stats paint a horrible junior year. He went from 1.3 win shares as a sophomore to 0.1 as a junior. Box plus/minus went from 4.1 as a sophomore to -1.9 as a junior. He was not good. Will he improve? Probably. But I'm not expecting him to be freshman Grayson Allen.
6. As for the deeper, we can definitely count on plenty of minutes for Moore, Banchero, and Williams. This is the core. Griffin and Roach should be there, but I think there are still question marks (Griffin's lack of playing time and potential injuries, Roach's poor freshman year where he had a 0.1 box plus/minus.). That makes 5. Keels should be there, but he could easily be a massive liability on defense with his lack of speed. John should be there as well, but Coach K transfers are very hit or miss (at least John played in a Power 5 conference. So he can hopefully add at least 5 min a game). And as for Blakes and Baker, I'm just not seeing it this year. Blakes is a low-ranked frosh; Baker was awful last year. They may be insurance policies rather than true rotation players. With Roach, Keels, Moore, Banchero, Williams, and one of Keels or John, that's 6 players. And if we assume it's both Keels and John and one of Blakes/Baker, that's 8. We can do a rotation of 6-8. It just leaves no room for injuries.