Chase Jeter

[Crank_it_loud]

I'm not sure what point you're making here? My list is guys who have succeeded at the 4 plain and simple. They each had different 5's who played with them and they span some very diverse eras of basketball. No comparisons are being made. Simply illustrating K's success with versatile 4's throughout the years in response to your comment not understanding what I consider a tweener 4.

I saw the "amnesia" comment as a bit of a bait, but perhaps I read it incorrectly (tends to happen on these boards). Anyway, I agree, those 4's were all successful, but they were almost all somewhat protected by a legit 5-man. If Chase, Obi, or MP3 can step up and be a legit 5 even near their levels, then yes, I agree, Ingram can hold the 4 down on a bigger scale. If it is he and AJ together at the 4/5 for the long haul, I see a Parker/Jefferson result with Brandon getting plenty of individual stats, and even the team getting some decent wins, but Duke would fade IMO. Another caveat to this would be if K played zone there, even without a true rim-protector. Will be interesting for sure.

 

[HuffyJB]

K has an unbelievable track record using versatile guys at the 4. Even with the post depth, I would guess the lineup with Ingram at the 4 will be used as much or more than any other lineup.

 

[dukehokie]

I saw the "amnesia" comment as a bit of a bait, but perhaps I read it incorrectly (tends to happen on these boards). Anyway, I agree, those 4's were all successful, but they were almost all somewhat protected by a legit 5-man. If Chase, Obi, or MP3 can step up and be a legit 5 even near their levels, then yes, I agree, Ingram can hold the 4 down on a bigger scale. If it is he and AJ together at the 4/5 for the long haul, I see a Parker/Jefferson result with Brandon getting plenty of individual stats, and even the team getting some decent wins, but Duke would fade IMO. Another caveat to this would be if K played zone there, even without a true rim-protector. Will be interesting for sure.

What do you consider legit? That's the question here. Is legit jersey hanging status or is it simply a guy who can rebound and play D? Marshall is fully capable of that and Sean showed at Rice that he has potential to help.

You look back at some of the guys I mentioned, Shelden was a soph with Deng and really wasn't who he became as a junior and senior. As a soph he was good for blocks, boards and fouls. Shav also helped with that some at the 5. Boozer was great, Jah was great, Grant wasn't surrounded by much help, though Cherokee was a very good player and good enough to be a first round pick.

So I do agree that 5's help. I will also say those 5's were also aided by the space and attention an aggressive, versatile 4 offers.

Anyway, I think it was mentioned by Timo, our best offensive lineup will prove to be Derryck, Grayson, Luke, Ingram and Plumlee/Jefferson/Obi/Jeter, probably Amile, but Jeter may prove he's tougher to handle than we give him credit for. The kicker will be whether we are better off with D or O.

 

[skysdad]

What do you consider legit? That's the question here. Is legit jersey hanging status or is it simply a guy who can rebound and play D? Marshall is fully capable of that and Sean showed at Rice that he has potential to help.

You look back at some of the guys I mentioned, Shelden was a soph with Deng and really wasn't who he became as a junior and senior. As a soph he was good for blocks, boards and fouls. Shav also helped with that some at the 5. Boozer was great, Jah was great, Grant wasn't surrounded by much help, though Cherokee was a very good player and good enough to be a first round pick.

So I do agree that 5's help. I will also say those 5's were also aided by the space and attention an aggressive, versatile 4 offers.

Anyway, I think it was mentioned by Timo, our best offensive lineup will prove to be Derryck, Grayson, Luke, Ingram and Plumlee/Jefferson/Obi/Jeter, probably Amile, but Jeter may prove he's tougher to handle than we give him credit for. The kicker will be whether we are better off with D or O.

I am so excited about this season. We have a great blend of upper class man, leadership, youth, big guys, athletic guys, shooters, role players, chemistry and great, great coaching. It really doesn't matter who leads us in scoring or who gets the most minutes it's about team. Team is the reason we have won 5 NC's. All five of our national championships have had that team first core. Even the one's with Laettner and Hurley who did let each other know how they felt they still understood team. I will take this opportunity to once again post what I say every year. I think we have as good of a chance of winning the title again this upcoming season. OFC

 

[aah555]

K has an unbelievable track record using versatile guys at the 4. Even with the post depth, I would guess the lineup with Ingram at the 4 will be used as much or more than any other lineup.

Eh. I think we'll see it some nights when we play teams without much size, but I suspect that K is going to try and keep Amile on the court as much possible to provide veteran leadership and some general toughness / grit to an otherwise young squad that will be unaccustomed to the types of battles they'll face in the ACC. On nights when we can get away with Amile at the 5, that will mean some Ingram at the 4. However, against the better teams like UVA or UNC that have a lot of bulk down low, I doubt we see much Ingram at the 4 -- as we're going to need to play size.

Frankly, I think this is a year where there's going to be constant upheaval with the lineups we use and will rarely go according to any historical form / precedent. I could see a million different combos of lineups that will entirely depend on who's playing well and what lineup pairings work well together.

 

[skysdad]

View embedded media

I love the look on Grayson's face. Heel fans are gonna hate him him when he does that on the court just like they hated it when Singler would smile on the court. OFC

 

[aah555]

I think it could be a fair amount of the season because of things like injuries, fatigue, etc. not to mention the scouting report game that coaches play where for most if the season, you play one way with a certain lineup, then all of a sudden here a comes a change that maximizes your team's potential. K has even able to do that with his most successful teams. The teams where he couldn't, we'll the results are obvious.

And you ask what tweeners to which I'm referring? At the 4? With success?

Winslow
Parker
Kelly
Jefferson
Deng
Singler
Dunleavy
Laettner
Ferry
G. Hill (played everywhere)
Alarie

K has made a legacy out of these guys, so your convenient amnesia won't fly here.

Amile lost big minutes as a team captain down the stretch. And if Ingram and a center proves more valuable, the same will happen this season too. And Amile is the kind of captain who will be the first to tell K to make the move.

I get your point, but nearly all of those guys outweighed Ingram by a good 15-20 pounds (if not 30 pounds) by when they assumed starting roles. By his soph. year, for instance, Singler was up in the 230s when he played the 4. And when we've been forced into playing guys 200 pound guys prematurely at the 4 (Jefferson a bit as a freshman and Singler as a freshman), it didn't really go well. I also don't view all of those guys as "tweeners." Laettner, Ferry, Alarie, and Kelly were all legit 4s at the college level who could stretch the defense with their shooting ability. They were not undersized. IMO, there's a huge difference between calling a guy like Justise -- who has a wingspan of 6'10, weighs around 225 with almost no body fat, and can jump out of the gym -- and someone like Brandon Ingram -- who won't be able to hold his position and will often get crushed on the boards. I think we'll see some of Ingram at the 4 when we go against smaller teams, but I don't think he's got the size / strength to hold up against most higher-end squads.

 

[dukehokie]

I get your point, but nearly all of those guys outweighed Ingram by a good 15-20 pounds (if not 30 pounds) by when they assumed starting roles. By his soph. year, for instance, Singler was up in the 230s when he played the 4. And when we've been forced into playing guys 200 pound guys prematurely at the 4 (Jefferson a bit as a freshman and Singler as a freshman), it didn't really go well. I also don't view all of those guys as "tweeners." Laettner, Ferry, Alarie, and Kelly were all legit 4s at the college level who could stretch the defense with their shooting ability. They were not undersized. IMO, there's a huge difference between calling a guy like Justise -- who has a wingspan of 6'10, weighs around 225 with almost no body fat, and can jump out of the gym -- and someone like Brandon Ingram -- who won't be able to hold his position and will often get crushed on the boards. I think we'll see some of Ingram at the 4 when we go against smaller teams, but I don't think he's got the size / strength to hold up against most higher-end squads.

Two things. First you are completely undervaluing Brandon Ingram to make a point. I think you'll be surprised at how well he'll create mismatches. He's not Jah, but that's not why he was recruited.

Also, "tweener" is a valid comment. The 80's and 90's saw the major use of two post players, typically copying the UCLA high post formation, but two posts working together down low. Ferry and a few other versatile forwards changed the game. Laettner continued it and then the Europeans started showing up. The late '90's and early 2000's saw better shooting power forwards who could still rebound and play in the post on D and O. The late 2000's saw power forwards creep out to the three point line with a solid handle a la Durant. The game and position has changed. Now you have everyone talking about "position-less basketball" so the term may not even matter anymore.

But it's still valid in the college game for now. Brandon is a versatile player who can play where he needs to on the floor, which is why others and I refer to him as a tweener. We're probably using antiquated vernacular, but the term is meant as a description of how versatile he is.

 

[aah555]

Two things. First you are completely undervaluing Brandon Ingram to make a point. I think you'll be surprised at how well he'll create mismatches. He's not Jah, but that's not why he was recruited.

Also, "tweener" is a valid comment. The 80's and 90's saw the major use of two post players, typically copying the UCLA high post formation, but two posts working together down low. Ferry and a few other versatile forwards changed the game. Laettner continued it and then the Europeans started showing up. The late '90's and early 2000's saw better shooting power forwards who could still rebound and play in the post on D and O. The late 2000's saw power forwards creep out to the three point line with a solid handle a la Durant. The game and position has changed. Now you have everyone talking about "position-less basketball" so the term may not even matter anymore.

But it's still valid in the college game for now. Brandon is a versatile player who can play where he needs to on the floor, which is why others and I refer to him as a tweener. We're probably using antiquated vernacular, but the term is meant as a description of how versatile he is.

The problem is I think you're using the word "tweener" to denote style of play, whereas I'm using it in the more traditional sense -- i.e., physical stature. You're right about style of play. But Laetter was listed at 6'11 225-230 and Danny Ferry at 6'10 225. They were not physically tweeners -- I mean Laettner eventually played C. The problem with BI playing the 4 is not on the offensive end. It's on the defensive end. While I'm sure our best offensive lineup would have him at the 4 offensively, it's going to really weaken us on both the offensive / defensive glass and create havoc defensively -- and probably wear BI down. At 21, BI could play the college 4. I just don't buy that we'll be able to get away playing him at the 4 against teams like UNC, UK, UVA, and many other teams that are on our schedule.

My post doesn't even address BI's offense, let alone undevalue BI. With that said, personally, I think the fact that BI was ranked #3 in last year's class says more about last year's class than it does about BI. BI's good. But, IMO, it's silly to be using him in the sentence of Parker, Jah, or even Tatum or Giles. Those players are on a different level. He'll be a good offensive scorer for us. But, I think he'll end up having more of an Austin Rivers type freshman year than (not necessarily in team results, but in terms of individual performance).

 

[dukehokie]

The problem is I think you're using the word "tweener" to denote style of play, whereas I'm using it in the more traditional sense -- i.e., physical stature. You're right about style of play. But Laetter was listed at 6'11 225-230 and Danny Ferry at 6'10 225. They were not physically tweeners -- I mean Laettner eventually played C. The problem with BI playing the 4 is not on the offensive end. It's on the defensive end. While I'm sure our best offensive lineup would have him at the 4 offensively, it's going to really weaken us on both the offensive / defensive glass and create havoc defensively -- and probably wear BI down. At 21, BI could play the college 4. I just don't buy that we'll be able to get away playing him at the 4 against teams like UNC, UK, UVA, and many other teams that are on our schedule.

My post doesn't even address BI's offense, let alone undevalue BI. With that said, personally, I think the fact that BI was ranked #3 in last year's class says more about last year's class than it does about BI. BI's good. But, IMO, it's silly to be using him in the sentence of Parker, Jah, or even Tatum or Giles. Those players are on a different level. He'll be a good offensive scorer for us. But, I think he'll end up having more of an Austin Rivers type freshman year than (not necessarily in team results, but in terms of individual performance).

If he averages 15.5 ppg and 3 assists to go with however many rebounds he'll grab, I'd say mission accomplished.

No one and nowhere are there comparisons with him to any past players. The only thing can and will be compared is role. Versatile 4. Period. Ingram's length will help reduce the affect of any weight deficiencies he might have.

Not every team is toting out 3 capable 6'10 280 lbs behemoths. Of the three to four teams we'll play who has anything close to that size, I'll take Brandon's offense over theirs all day. Sometimes it's not about how many stops you can get, but if you can just outscore people. Points solve a lot of problems.

 

[sheyduke]

Ingram against smaller line will most likely see time at the 4 but even with big V possibly red shirting we still have MP3, Amile, Obi and Jeter in the front court so if we're saying that out of those four Ingram will still spend a lot of time at the 4 we got problems.

I think you could easily run Marshall and jeter on the floor together or Amile and Obi or any combination. Are any of them gonna put up a lot of offense? Who knows with jeter or Obi but Marshall and Amile we know what we got.

I think Ingram stays primary at the three with kennard backing him up with the other two guard spots being decided between GA, Matt jones, kennard and Thorton at pg. we have plenty rotational parts and I thing Ingram is best suited for the three spot.

 

[dukehokie]

Ingram against smaller line will most likely see time at the 4 but even with big V possibly red shirting we still have MP3, Amile, Obi and Jeter in the front court so if we're saying that out of those four Ingram will still spend a lot of time at the 4 we got problems.

I think you could easily run Marshall and jeter on the floor together or Amile and Obi or any combination. Are any of them gonna put up a lot of offense? Who knows with jeter or Obi but Marshall and Amile we know what we got.

I think Ingram stays primary at the three with kennard backing him up with the other two guard spots being decided between GA, Matt jones, kennard and Thorton at pg. we have plenty rotational parts and I thing Ingram is best suited for the three spot.

I agree shey that if 2 out of 5 bigs don't show the capability to supplant a freshman Ingram at the 4, then we're looking at a Jabari type of season. And I hope our bigs show an ability to play right away. But other than Jeter, Amile, Sean and Marshall haven't shown to be offensive players and Jeter will have to adjust to college. That was hard enough before, but now that the game is changing, the learning curve for bigs is even tougher, unless you're a Joel Embiid freak athlete, or have the every generation skill set of Jahlil Okafor. Jeter isn't that. Doesn't mean he can't produce something, just trying to stay level.

 

[LetsGoDuke301]

Points do solve a lot of problems. But trying to simply outscore your opponent can catch up to you. As seen in 2014. A player's offensive game should never excuse bad defense. Of course we are talking about something that hasn't happened yet, so we don't know what kind of defense Ingram will play, but if he struggles defensively it will be hard to trust him as a leader regardless of his offense. It may win games in December and January, but those wins won't translate in March if he's not contributing on defense.

 

[aah555]

Points do solve a lot of problems. But trying to simply outscore your opponent can catch up to you. As seen in 2014. A player's offensive game should never excuse bad defense. Of course we are talking about something that hasn't happened yet, so we don't know what kind of defense Ingram will play, but if he struggles defensively it will be hard to trust him as a leader regardless of his offense. It may win games in December and January, but those wins won't translate in March if he's not contributing on defense.

Agreed. I think the notion of "positionless" basketball with undersized players at the 3-4 is still very overstated at the collegiate level. Duke has always been at the cutting edge of the style of play that Golden State played at the NBA level, but reality is that UK started last year 38-0 by dominating the lane, Wisconsin was a very big & physical team that started a front line that had a 6'9 220 SF, a 6'8 235 PF, and a 7'0 240 C, and Duke won the title with a squad that heavily featured a 6'10 270 pound center, and played large portions of last season with a starting lineup that went 6'6 225, 6'8 225, and 6'10 270. Obviously, our title team in 2010 featured a frontline of 6'8, 6'8, and 7'0 with two 6'11 backups. While there have certainly been some exceptions (see Michigan's run in 2013 or UConn in 2014), I tend to be of the mindset that I'd rather concede some offense spacing and continuity if it means controlling the backboard and making it tough on teams to finish at the rim. I think Ingram may be an interesting defender at the 3, but there's no way around the fact that he's got little chance to hold his position against any PF who weighs 225+ -- which most top 25 teams have.

 

[dukehokie]

Weight doesn't equal strength aah. Nor does it equate to talent. But we're just going back and forth at this point.

Letsgo, I fully understand the importance of defense. However, I do know there are games where each team is playing at a high level and stops are few and far between. Not every game will be in the 60's nor will they always be in the '90's. Balance is key. This team can't be offense all of the time and they can't be defense all of the time.

My point has always been this team will have different personalities all year unlike some of our one and done in the tournament teams. That has been lost throughout this debate I think.