Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
3 or 4 years of good pg play in last 11 in my estimate... but hey, those are just my standard of excellence
When you are wealthy you eat quality food consistently because you can and that's what you want. duke is a wealthy school of quality with coach k, and good PGs thrive in our system. I get shocked that we don't have better consistency at the pg position. We're all spoiled as duke fans, k has set the bar, not us. Yes, I expect it consistently. I don't expect a championship every year because that's tough no matter the talent, but I expect a team that has a good chance. Pg play has held us back a lot.With the success we've had, this sounds like the comments of a spoiled child to me.
I didn't say you need a true pg, we had good consistent play at that position in 2010 and 2011. Then not again until 15. Our play at the position last year was poor.2010 No true PG
2010 National Champions
OFC
I didn't say you need a true pg, we had good consistent play at that position in 2010 and 2011. Then not again until 15. Our play at the position last year was poor.
I'm huge on Jackson, and think he will be a one and done.I'm gonna wait and see what Frank Jackson does before I write him off, I think he's gonna be amazing.
i agree with this and agree pg play is definitely not the only reason we've lost in the past. My point was it should be one of the easiest positions for duke to recruit having k, and the system we run. We've won championships without great center play, but not without good play at the 1.True, but I think last year's team actually overachieved despite not having good point guard play.
I'm not trying to say having a good point guard isn't something that isn't needed, but I don't think our point guards between Hurley and Williams and Irving and Jones have been poor, or the cause of the problems some of those teams faced. They just weren't necessarily All-Americans. Just like I think some the championship winning point guards we had weren't the only reasons we won titles.
In K's 36 seasons at Duke he's had what, maybe 12 seasons of sub par point guard play. They just happen to be stacked around the time he was transitioning into recruiting one and dones. I think we've been fine with what we've had to deal with, and the guys who played for him, gave what they had. They can't all be Jason Williams or Bobby Hurley or Johnny Dawkins, but the sure as heck weren't the sole reason some of those teams underachieved.
i agree with this and agree pg play is definitely not the only reason we've lost in the past. My point was it should be one of the easiest positions for duke to recruit having k, and the system we run. We've won championships without great center play, but not without good play at the 1.
Quinn is a very interesting case study. He didn't have anyone elite to learn from so was kind of just thrown into the fire. He wasn't an elite player so had to go threw the hardships and rigors. He had his ups and downs- had some flashes of brilliance in his soph and junior year but never consistent. Senior year he moved off the ball and became a true leader, pretty impressive.
"We" might have another banner if someone not named JJ or Shelden hit some shots in that LSU game that knocked Duke out. JJ was drawing 2 defenders at all times and even 3 at times. Nobody could hit a shot outside of Shelden. Duke could have won a title in 2006 if someone else had stepped up and made some open looks that were there all game long.Our 2006 team (JJ and Shelden SR year) we have another banner if that team had an NBA caliber point guard. That simple. I know that's asking for alot, but we're Duke.
Don't disagree, but we struggled to get easy good looks that game. Pg would have been huge with the way they defended duke."We" might have another banner if someone not named JJ or Shelden hit some shots in that LSU game that knocked Duke out. JJ was drawing 2 defenders at all times and even 3 at times. Nobody could hit a shot outside of Shelden. Duke could have won a title in 2006 if someone else had stepped up and made some open looks that were there all game long.
"We" might have another banner if someone not named JJ or Shelden hit some shots in that LSU game that knocked Duke out. JJ was drawing 2 defenders at all times and even 3 at times. Nobody could hit a shot outside of Shelden. Duke could have won a title in 2006 if someone else had stepped up and made some open looks that were there all game long.
I think Scheyer demonstrated this perfectly. Was he a true point guard? No. Did he play the role of a point guard when asked? Perfectly.Yeah I don't think duke needs to follow an exact perfect formula at pg, but we need good consistent play from whoever is running the show.
Coleman >< Thornton.Also I don't agree with the Coleman/Thornton comparison. Coleman looks to be much more offensively talented. I'm not sure it an apples to apples thing with those two. Just my two cents.
I'd like to say I agree with you but Duke had a ton of open looks that game. Certainly enough that they could have won the game. They didn't need anyone else to win that game, they needed to make open looks.Don't disagree, but we struggled to get easy good looks that game. Pg would have been huge with the way they defended duke.
Every coach is better equipped with a star player. At any position. I would think that was obvious. My point was that 2006 team could have won that LSU game wif they hit more open looks. What did they shoot, 29%?That's the thing. Duke actually played decent defense. But we couldn't grab a rebound outside of Shelden and no one could hit a shot. DeMarcus was injured that year and never became the scoring we hoped he would be, Lee only took two shots, JJ was 3-18, Shelden was 8-18 and Josh was 4-10. That team could have used an NBA caliber point guard (basically the same team went to the Final Four in 2004), but most really good teams with NBA caliber point guards go to the Final Four. That's a blanket statement. Add Daniel Ewing to the 2006 squad and they probably win a title. It is what it is.
I think there's some weird debate happening where one side thinks the other side is saying Duke won't succeed without an NBA Hall of Fame John Stockton point guard and one side thinks the other side is saying any team could win with steat as a point guard.
My point has always been that K seems better equipped to win with what he has at his disposal better than he has been in the past. The 2012 Olympic squad seemed to do him more good than all the others IMO. He came back with some really good, really versatile offensive sets, and his willingness to experiment on D has proved important as well.
I tend to agree to an extent. Only having Kyrie and Tyus for one year is what makes it tough for me. Other than those two, our PG play has been average at best by Duke standards over the past decade. We even had issues at PG in 2010 when we won it all. Scheyer was just our primary ball-handler, he did very little in terms of creating and distributing.3 or 4 years of good pg play in last 11 in my estimate... but hey, those are just my standard of excellence
I think that is a bit misleading. Duke's offense was as efficient as anyone that year. Especially after Scheyer was inserted as the guy who brought the ball up the court and initiated the offense. Sure Scheyer was not the prototypical PG, (neither was Kyrie BTW) but the offense sure got a lot better with his move to the point. Stats aside, something was better with him at that position rather than Nolan. I loved that 2010 team! A bunch of really solid players who played well together.We even had issues at PG in 2010 when we won it all. Scheyer was just our primary ball-handler, he did very little in terms of creating and distributing.
I agree with they were open looks but they were all from 3, and they were shot by Dockery, Nelson, and Paulus (maybe Lee shot some too, can't remember). I remember dockery and nelson hitting 3's that year but not a ton of them, and paulus struggling shooting. I just don't think you can rely on the 3 ball come tournament time when playing in these huge arena's/football stadiums.I'd like to say I agree with you but Duke had a ton of open looks that game. Certainly enough that they could have won the game. They didn't need anyone else to win that game, they needed to make open looks.
I get that. However, just make something more than 20 something % of your shots and it opens up the floor for others like JJ to get better looks. LSU threw every gimmick they could at him and made the others beat them. They didn't. Failed badly doing so. I think these guys are D-1 players for a reason and they had a poor night shooting. Heck a mediocre night shooting and Duke could have won that game. I am salty about that game BTW, if you can't tell. LOL. I felt so bad for JJ and Shelden to have to go out like that.I agree with they were open looks but they were all from 3, and they were shot by Dockery, Nelson, and Paulus (maybe Lee shot some too, can't remember). I remember dockery and nelson hitting 3's that year but not a ton of them, and paulus struggling shooting. I just don't think you can rely on the 3 ball come tournament time when playing in these huge arena's/football stadiums.
Every coach is better equipped with a star player. At any position. I would think that was obvious. My point was that 2006 team could have won that LSU game wif they hit more open looks. What did they shoot, 29%?