Big Duke Question....

[RanDEVILman]

Ok guy’s, I have been killing some of my free time, like many of you, by watching classic Duke games. I had already seen the main ones many times, but I’ve found some more obscure ones that weren’t buzzer beaters, or championship games. A lot of these have been from the 92 season. I was 7 when Laettner hit the shot. I watched the game and remember that season, but my true Duke fan hood didn’t really happen until about 94. Anyways, in watching some of these games I keep coming back to one question ( and I know this is border line blasphemous but I just wanted to see what everyone thought)
Is the 92 team overrated?
I mean we generally talk about them as the best team ever. And they may be. But watching them I can’t help but feel they were a little overrated. I can list a few of my nitpicks if need be, but I will leave it there for now.

 

[audioexcursion]

I don't think they were over rated. Out of all the top teams did they have the most talent? I don't think so. But they had enough talent and the right guys at the right positions and I think they always went into every game knowing they were going to win. The ACC in the early 90's had some solid teams. Clemson, Ga. Tech, WF, Fla. State, UNC and NC State all had NBA level talent. So in conference competition was just that super competitive. Contact rules were different as well. The game was brutal by today's standards. Not to mention that I believe the only 2 losses Duke incurred that season were while Bobby Hurley was out injured.

 

[Mac9192]

Overrated? That’s laughable. Of all 5 of Duke’s title teams, they are the only one to start the season ranked #1. They also stayed ranked #1 the entire season. As said above, I believe the only 2 losses they had were with Hurley injured.
The pressure was on them. They had to be escorted in and out of arenas. Think about that. The really weird part with this team was the tension and bickering, mostly between Laettner and Hurley. But, when they went to the court, they put their differences to the side, and played to win, not caring who scored the most.
They knew they were everyone’s title, and the best part is, they welcomed it.

 

[jwill133]

During this quarantine I’ve watch a ton of the 91 and 92 Duke games, mainly the UNC games and the tournament runs.

IMO the 99 Duke team is the best Duke team ever and I don’t care that they didn’t win the title in a stupid single elimination tournament.
Then 1992, then 2001, then maybe 2004 or even 2002.

 

[geddoughton23]

Overrated isn't the right word. But you are on the right track. Billy McCaffrey gave them superior ballhandling and shooting in 1991. They were the hunter in 1991 and the hunted in 1992. Laettner had jello legs in the Final against the Fab 5. A more experienced team would have beaten Duke that night

 

[DiehardDukeFan4Life]

The 1991-92 team only lost 2 games in the regular season and went on to win the ACC Regular Season Championship, the ACC Tournament and the NCAA Tournament. The 1991-92 team was ranked #1 in every AP Poll and every Coaches Poll for the entire season.. How could you think that team was overrated?

 

[bleediteveryday30]

During this quarantine I’ve watch a ton of the 91 and 92 Duke games, mainly the UNC games and the tournament runs.

IMO the 99 Duke team is the best Duke team ever and I don’t care that they didn’t win the title in a stupid single elimination tournament.
Then 1992, then 2001, then maybe 2004 or even 2002.

Idk about the order, but I am in agreement that probably the '92, '01, '99, '04, and '02 teams are the best collective teams of talent we've seen at Duke. I still cannot believe the '02 team blew that lead to Indiana. I think we go all the way to the title game against Maryland and repeat as champs that year. The '99 team didn't play their best ball at the final four. Didn't play all that great in the win against Michigan State and then still could've beat UCONN playing as poorly as they did. '04 is the one that gets me though. That team is probably my biggest what if team. If only we could've hit a few more shots down the stretch. I don't think a Duke loss got me more than that one did.

 

[bleediteveryday30]

Oh and the '92 team is most definitely not overrated. That team balled out all year long.

 

[RanDEVILman]

Believe me I understand their greatness. Being hunted is definitely harder than the other way around. And I know the ACC was legit (almost always the case though). I didn’t mean overrated by the polls or outside world, and I don’t mean they aren’t the greatest Duke team ever. But sometimes when “we” as Duke fans (myself included, thus “we”) y’all about them it’s almost like they are remembered as flawless. I was young and only watched a few of their major games that year, nowadays I watch every single game. Since about 01 I have been educated enough to nitpick at every Duke team some. I never really here Duke fans critique this team. Here are mine:
-Not great shooting minus Hurley and Laettner. Different era...I know, but still
-Laettner is a poor defender. He can turn it on, but in every game I’ve watched he is lazy down there a lot. Still a great player, but no Battier
-Not real deep
-Not a lock down defensive team like they are sometimes made out to be
-Finally, and this is the BIG ONE for me: They are selfish on offense. Especially Laettner. They routinely take what many would consider bad shots. Now, they are super skilled so they make A LOT. And I’m all for that. But I feel like they have been hyped as this super Motion offense team basketball group, when really they are a lot of Laettner iso ball.
Just my thoughts. Have at it...lol

 

[df64]

No team is perfect. But, 34-2 is pretty damn special.
Also:
The only losses were without Hurley.
They won ACC reg season + Tourney
They won NCAA
They had 3 all time ACC and NCAA greats in Laetner, Hurley, and Grant Hill.
The "role" players were T Hill, Brian Davis, and Tony Lang. Athletic, tough, and experienced.
Laetner shot 50% from 3 that year. 50!! 50% from a center that could pass, put the ball on the floor, and mix it up down low.

I think sometimes, the legend that that team was, makes us in hindsight expect them to have won every single game by 20 plus. I also think we tend to forget that a lot of those wins came against very good, experienced teams.

 

[kingbluedevil]

Brian Davis was a good team player, Tony Lang was very athletic and Thomas Hill was one of my favorites. He was left handed and made shots thru contact. Grant Hill may be the best Duke player ever. He could play four positions.

 

[DukefanKY]

Laettner went to four final fours. I don’t think overrated at all. I think they could potentially look that way compared to some of the better teams of recent because to me, basketball was played a little differently back then as far as the style of play. Hurley remains the all time. Assist leader, Laettner won more awards than I will even try to list here, and grant Hill is arguably the best Dukie ever. That team absolutely blew the fab 5 out . Then there were other players who had major contributions. In short, I believe that team would have beaten any of the last 10 national champions. The 2012 ky and 2015 Duke teams may be the only two that I would give any chance against them.I also agree with @jwill133 that 99 was our best team ever

 

[RanDEVILman]

I hear ya. Again, I think I was just a little surprised with how “ugly” the games they played could be. Maybe it’s just the style of ball they played. I’m not taking anything away from their accolades and success. That team is in many ways the main reason I’m a Duke fan today. Laettner and Hill were my first two b-ball hero’s. But they just don’t “look” like the team that was so dominant. For instance the Senior night game vs UNC, the heels look to be a much more polished team offensively (granted D Hubey couldn’t miss), but Duke scores on some really kind of sloppy ball and Laettner was an impossible matchup in isolation. Duke won, but they did not win pretty. I guess the overrated aspect I’m referring to is the asthmatic aspect. Which in reality doesn’t matter one bit, but it was something new I discovered about that team.

 

[df64]

99 was probably our deepest and most talented team. One loss shouldn't tarnish how good they were. And, that UConn team that beat them was a dominant team.

 

[christophero]

One I really want to watch is Duke Gonzaga in 2015. The tournament game. I've found highlights but that's it. I missed it for some reason.

 

[bleediteveryday30]

One I really want to watch is Duke Gonzaga in 2015. The tournament game. I've found highlights but that's it. I missed it for some reason.

I had it recorded and lost it somewhere. Cannot find the game anywhere online. Keep hoping March Madness will upload it and the Utah game onto YouTube.

 

[christophero]

Yes the Utah game too. I like watching the MSU Final Four beatdown, and Izzo's face after the Grayson dunk.

 

[Mac9192]

The 99 team was so good, and still haunts me that we came up short. Brand was a beast, and Avery was outstanding. The rest of the lineup was solid.
I give the edge to 92 though, because they were mentally tougher than the 99 team. They were battle tested, and were probably K’s toughest team.
Case in point, Brand going quiet down the stretch. No one stepped up. You couldn’t do that to the 92 team. Someone always picked up the slack.

 

[RanDEVILman]

I had it recorded and lost it somewhere. Cannot find the game anywhere online. Keep hoping March Madness will upload it and the Utah game onto YouTube.

Im sure this isn’t going to be very helpful, but I remember watching those two games (Gonzaga and Utah) in 2015. And I remember feeling very similar about both, we won, and it was pretty un-exciting. I seem to remember Justise making some big plays, and Matt Jones hits some big shots against one of those teams. Ultimately that 2015 just kind of fit their style to every opponent and beat them. If they had to d-up and slow down they would, if it was a shootout they did that too. Very balanced team, if somewhat underwhelming at times.

 

[christophero]

Brand and Battier were amazing. If Brand and Avery came back for one more year that team would have been undefeated. A big if I know. I love Brand but he did disappear against UConn. Voskuhl's height definitely bothered him. Brand had trouble getting his shot off several times. Battier was more of a role player as a soph. A great role player but still. His junior year he started taking over games.

 

[jimlsumner]

Surprised no one has mentioned the 1986 team. 37-3, ACC regular-season champs, ACC Tournament champs in a loaded ACC. Georgia Tech and UNC both ranked number one nationally at one point during the season, NC State made Elite Eight in NCAAs. Johnny Dawkins first team A-A, Mark Alarie third-team All-America, Tommy Amaker, David Henderson, Jay Bilas, Danny Ferry, Billy King. Led title game until final minute.

Not necessarily no. 1. But IMO that team has to be on the short list.

 

[christophero]

The 2001 team was special. Dunleavy was a match up nightmare as Arizona found out. And Battier seem to always make the big play. And of course Jason Williams and Boozer and Duhon. Arizona had a team full of pros and still lost by double digets. The 86 team was where I first started cheering for Duke. I was in high school.

 

[KDSTONE]

Perimeter D wasn't always a strength of the 92 team, and UK and IU were well suited to exploit that, resulting in two very competitive games back to back. In addition, they were running on fumes down the stretch. UK and IU were also just excellent college teams, if somewhat lacking in star power, led by two HOF coaches. Good thread.

 

[skysdad]

Surprised no one has mentioned the 1986 team. 37-3, ACC regular-season champs, ACC Tournament champs in a loaded ACC. Georgia Tech and UNC both ranked number one nationally at one point during the season, NC State made Elite Eight in NCAAs. Johnny Dawkins first team A-A, Mark Alarie third-team All-America, Tommy Amaker, David Henderson, Jay Bilas, Danny Ferry, Billy King. Led title game until final minute.

Not necessarily no. 1. But IMO that team has to be on the short list.

Very good team. I feel if they had won the natty it would be very hard not to consider them our best. Team had good chemistry and look what several on that team accomplished. I think at least 6 or 7 saw some time in the NBA, Three coached division I ball. 4 were all - americans? Two NDPOY. Two went on to NBA consecatives and one depending on indidual opinion the best college basketball anaylst we have today. OFC

 

[jimlsumner]

Very good team. I feel if they had won the natty it would be very hard not to consider them our best. Team had good chemistry and look what several on that team accomplished. I think at least 6 or 7 saw some time in the NBA, Three coached division I ball. 4 were all - americans? Two NDPOY. Two went on to NBA consecatives and one depending on indidual opinion the best college basketball anaylst we have today. OFC

Dawkins, Alarie and Ferry were the only players on that team to have substantive NBA careers. David Henderson played briefly, as did Marty Nessley, who wasn't a key player that season.

But Dawkins, Amaker, Snyder and Henderson all became college head coaches, Snyder also an NBA head coach. King and Ferry became NBA GMs. Bilas was an assistant college coach before going into broadcasting.

So, a very smart team. And experienced. Dawkins, Alarie, Henderson and Bilas were seniors, Amaker a junior. It's hard to find that combination of talent and experience these days.

And they defended like their lives depended on it. That team and the 1978 team are my favorite Duke teams.

 

[skysdad]

Dawkins, Alarie and Ferry were the only players on that team to have substantive NBA careers. David Henderson played briefly, as did Marty Nessley, who wasn't a key player that season.

But Dawkins, Amaker, Snyder and Henderson all became college head coaches, Snyder also an NBA head coach. King and Ferry became NBA GMs. Bilas was an assistant college coach before going into broadcasting.

So, a very smart team. And experienced. Dawkins, Alarie, Henderson and Bilas were seniors, Amaker a junior. It's hard to find that combination of talent and experience these days.

And they defended like their lives depended on it. That team and the 1978 team are my favorite Duke teams.

Bilas, Amaker and I think King played some in the NBA. OFC

 

[jimlsumner]

Bilas, Amaker and I think King played some in the NBA. OFC

None of them played a second in a regular-season NBA game.

 

[RanDEVILman]

I’ve been watching some of the 86 team too. And not trying to bash them either, I’m truly a huge fan and understand their importance to Duke. But that’s another team that plays a kind of rugged style. Not dominating on offense or defense, but like the 92 group always found ways to win, just really good at basketball. Maybe it says something about that guy coaching them that his best teams (86, 92, 15, 10) weren’t always that pretty, but they found ways to win.
Heck, even my personal favorite, the 01 team, beat Maryland on the strength of Nate James rebounding 2x that year.

 

[Mac9192]

This is basically broke down by age groups. The younger fans, probably around 35 and younger, think basketball only started when Brand and company came along. I remember around 84-85 and on. The game was played different back then.
I admit, I sometimes forget the 86 team. Without them, Duke probably isn’t the program it is. That team was tough as nails. You can’t watch footage of those teams and come to a conclusion that the ones now would beat them.

 

[kingbluedevil]

This is basically broke down by age groups. The younger fans, probably around 35 and younger, think basketball only started when Brand and company came along. I remember around 84-85 and on. The game was played different back then.
I admit, I sometimes forget the 86 team. Without them, Duke probably isn’t the program it is. That team was tough as nails. You can’t watch footage of those teams and come to a conclusion that the ones now would beat them.

I think one difference the 86 team had is everyone knew that Dawkins was the go to when they needed it. He had a unique style that was very hard to defend. It's like what Bilas said the first time he met him he didn't look the part but it only took five minutes on the court he was the best he had ever seen. I think he may have dunked on David Robinson in the Navy game.

 

[df64]

86 is probably my favorite team of all time. That team made me a Duke fan. That loss to Louisville crushed me.

 

[RanDEVILman]

This is basically broke down by age groups. The younger fans, probably around 35 and younger, think basketball only started when Brand and company came along. I remember around 84-85 and on. The game was played different back then.
I admit, I sometimes forget the 86 team. Without them, Duke probably isn’t the program it is. That team was tough as nails. You can’t watch footage of those teams and come to a conclusion that the ones now would beat them.

While I personally barely fall into that “younger fans” category, I am a huge proponent of both history (I teach it) and basketball (I coach it). So while I will admit that I didn’t watch any of the 86 games as they happened, I was 1, or much of the 91 or 92 season I still have tons of respect and admiration for the greatness of those teams. Going back and reading, watching, and even listening to the old guard on here, even young Duke fans will learn to respect those teams.
That said, if both groups, old and young, were honest, there is plenty of room for debate about how good certain teams would’ve faired in different eras. For example, yes the games were far more physical in the 80s and early 90s (although watching the 99 or even the 10 team play, they would be completely fouled out in today’s game or they would adjust). However, that physicality works both ways. Not sure certain players who were great for Duke would be able to stay on the court without that physicality being permitted. While others would’ve thrived even more.

 

[christophero]

Wonder how the 86 team would fare against the 99 team. Interesting contrast of styles.

 

[df64]

86 really would have struggled guarding Brand. Dawkins very well could have shut down Langdon and gone off on offense. Question. Does 86 get 86 K or 99 K? That right there could be the difference. Remember K saying he wasnt thrilled with how he managed the 86 title game.

 

[Mac9192]

86 really would have struggled guarding Brand. Dawkins very well could have shut down Langdon and gone off on offense. Question. Does 86 get 86 K or 99 K? That right there could be the difference. Remember K saying he wasnt thrilled with how he managed the 86 title game.

If we’re playing the hypothetical game here, other than Brand, I’m not sure anyone on the 99 team would have done damage against the 86 guys. They were one tough bunch. Henderson was a man, and Amaker was similar on defense to Tre Jones.
The more I think about it, the 86 team is the next best team to the 92 team.

 

[Liftee]

I want to come to the defense of the 2010 team which is so commonly bashed. Remember, both Thomas and Zoubek really came alive after mid February that year. That group was incredibly tough. And just because none of them ever became great in the NBA doesn't mean it wasn't a group of great college players.

Not the most athletic group but 3 very talented players (the three S's), and played essentially a Virginia type pack line defense as well as anyone ever has.

 

[KDSTONE]

If we’re playing the hypothetical game here, other than Brand, I’m not sure anyone on the 99 team would have done damage against the 86 guys. They were one tough bunch. Henderson was a man, and Amaker was similar on defense to Tre Jones.
The more I think about it, the 86 team is the next best team to the 92 team.

Not sure who on this board is exactly how old, other than the certified members of the OFC. If you go back and watch the 86 ff games, that team struggled to score for long stretches against good defenses. I feel if they played a team the caliber of the 01 team, they would simply be outscored. Henderson was a great defender, but if he were matched up with Dunleavy or Battier he would lose that matchup. Boozer would outplay Bilas to put it mildly. If 86 couldn't beat that UL team I dont see them beating 01 or 92 Duke. Maybe the 99 team due to lack of experience.

 

[bleediteveryday30]

'99 has the advantage of '99 minded K for sure over the '86 minded K. The team that made me fall in love with Duke basketball was the '89 team. Never really talked all that much about. Senior Ferry and Snyder, freshman Lat/Davis, the abundantly resourceful Robert Brickey, the criminally underrated Abdelnaby, Greg Koubek, and Phil Henderson! That was a group of guys that could've cut down the nets for sure had Brickey not gotten hurt against Seton Hall. That poor guy had back to back final fours with injuries too! I love thinking about the old teams.

 

[RanDEVILman]

I love checking out some of those “in between” years too. We all know why 86 was so important, and obviously the 91,92 teams. But from 88-90 they had some really good teams that weren’t way off from national titles. It’s just harder to go back and watch their games because they actually lose the biggest ones. Still cool to find some of their big wins tho

 

[df64]

Very good points. I think something that often gets overlooked with the earlier teams is the sheer #of very skilled, very athletic, very experienced teams throughout the ACC and NCAA. If 86 struggled to score attimes, they were struggling to score against very good, very, mature, and very experienced teams.
Liftee mentioned the 2010 team being underrated. The core of that team did zip in the tourney in prior years. In the 80s, the major conference's all had multiple teams that were very similar to our 10 team. That is why teams like State and Nova were able to pull off the upsets they did in 83 and 85.