Duke guys crushing the NBA combine

[jwill133]

I wish dynasties lasted that long. In the NBA, with how contracts are, 5 year runs are about all you can expect. The Spurs are unique, having that core be good for 10+ years and not get greedy. Brad Stevens will have to make moves to stay at the top for 8 more years.

This would be year 4 for the Warriors. Considering they won the title in 2015 to be counted as year one. If the Warriors run only lasts 5 years, than I will be a very happy camper. I’m willing to bet it goes 8-10 years, not all those being titles though.

 

[jwill133]

The last 2 years featured OADs that should have been the top options on the team.
.
Duke didn't fail because the OADs were lacking. Duke didn't excel because of flawed coaching.
.
It is now GLARINGLY obvious that Tatum should have been the first option, and the second option, and the 4th option. Luke should have been the third option. Grayson should have been coming off the bench from January on in his junior year. Last year, K should have adopted a PnR offense that would have lead to a steady diet of point blank looks for either Bags or Carter, or put back chances for Bags or Carter, or finishes at the rim for TD, or WIDE open looks for Grayson and Trent. A "reduced" emphasis on Allen would have lead to a better year statistically. His overall number would have gone down in a PnR scheme, but his efficiency would have skyrocketed. A PnR would have maxed out the team's abilities, but we didn't run that.
.
In 15, the scheme matched the abilities of our team, with the correct players being featured/utilized in the correct manner/order. The last 2, and probably last 3, years featured strategies that were sub-optimal wrt to our personnel.

All of this I completely agree with, other than calling our coaching flawed.

I don’t think K sat down Luke and Tatum and said “Luke your option 1, Jayson your 2nd option.”

Jayson’s early injury really threw off the whole season, he never got the chance to establish himself as the alpha on the team. Jayson’s first game back was the Florida win at MSG, and that happened to be one of Luke’s best games of the year.

That whole season...mannnnnnn. We should have ran everything through Tatum, Grayson should have been energy off the bench.

 

[DukeDenver]

This would be year 4 for the Warriors. Considering they won the title in 2015 to be counted as year one. If the Warriors run only lasts 5 years, than I will be a very happy camper. I’m willing to bet it goes 8-10 years, not all those being titles though.

Their bench may be in peril. It depends on how much the starters want to give up to keep things rolling.

 

[PatrickYates]

I wish dynasties lasted that long. In the NBA, with how contracts are, 5 year runs are about all you can expect. The Spurs are unique, having that core be good for 10+ years and not get greedy. Brad Stevens will have to make moves to stay at the top for 8 more years.

I know. But I'm exaggerating to make a point. The title window might not be a full decade, but I think it will be longer than 5 years. 7-8 really. With the addition of Bol Bol (or Fernando from UMD if he returns to school), Boston could conceivably enter than window in 2 years while some of its most important players are still relatively cheap. Every solid performance from here out raises the likelihood of Kyrie/Heyward being turned into a slew of supporting players.
.
Towards the end of the "window" as supporting players age or price out, aging vets will take discounts to play for titles. A window is open so long as the core is capable, and the Tatum/Brown/defensive-big-to-be-named-later core will be together for nearly a decade.

 

[PatrickYates]

All of this I completely agree with, other than calling our coaching flawed.

I don’t think K sat down Luke and Tatum and said “Luke your option 1, Jayson your 2nd option.”

Jayson’s early injury really threw off the whole season, he never got the chance to establish himself as the alpha on the team. Jayson’s first game back was the Florida win at MSG, and that happened to be one of Luke’s best games of the year.

That whole season...mannnnnnn. We should have ran everything through Tatum, Grayson should have been energy off the bench.

I exaggerate for effect, but yes. I blame coaching. K should have forced the action through Tatum. Luke is more effective, wrt team success, as the secondary option. Letting Luke take the lead role on O was great for Luke's numbers.
.
Our best run of play that year was the ACCT, when we looked like serious title contenders. Luke may have won ACCT MOP, but we ALL know that Tatum was our best player that week. Luke's win was a makeup for not getting CPOY. But Tatum was the focal point that week, and we were great.
.
The offensive issues that year, which are absolutely the fault of the coaching staff, were minor concerns. Tatum should have had a much bigger role, and Luke should have had a very slightly smaller role. But that is quibbling, hindsight is 20/20, etc.
.
Grayson was bad that year. He shouldn't have been starting. I think K felt that Allen would eventually turn it around, but he never did.
.
The real problem was defense, specifically having Luke and Allen on the court at the same time. That was 2 defensive failure points on the perimeter, with the third defender being a game Matt Jones playing out of position. That year featured a lineup with 3 SGs. Of the SGs, Matt, could play SF. The other SGs, Luke and Grayson, were only SGs. No PG ability, no SF ability, and a complete inability (and unwillingness) to play any defense.
.
Tatum's year might be K's worst as a coach. He was loyal to a kid in Allen that had performed great for Duke. But Allen didn't have it last year. He had a down year, and K's inability to recognize that and respond accordingly doomed the season.

 

[PatrickYates]

Name the sole go to guy on ANY of our 5 title teams? One could say Laettner, but we know who he played along side, so that's not true. He wanted to win so bad he didn't care who scored the points. Name the first option on the 01 and 10 team. There wasn't one. They were a team, and that's my point. The three one and done's on the 15 team played the game like the one's on the title teams before them, and that's exactly why Duke won the title that year.

I didn't say Tatum should have been the sole guy. But he very obviously should have been the primary option. Instead, he was about 3rd. There is a valid argument (loathe though I am to admit it) that Luke was a capable 1st option. I disagree, and I suspect we are going to be reading some rough articles about that strategy starting in 2-3 years, but Luke was at least capable as a lead option. But Luke was the clear 1st option, with Grayson as the second option.
.
Ignoring my obvious exaggeration (to make a point), Tatum should have had a much larger role, along with Luke. Grayson should have had a minor role. By mid Jan it was painfully obvious that Allen was slumping. I'm sure K thought/hoped he'd turn it around. But, as I said, by mid Jan it was apparent that Allen just didn't have it last year.

 

[PatrickYates]

This would be year 4 for the Warriors. Considering they won the title in 2015 to be counted as year one. If the Warriors run only lasts 5 years, than I will be a very happy camper. I’m willing to bet it goes 8-10 years, not all those being titles though.

The "window" for the GSW didn't really open until Curry and Klay were out of their rookie deals. Further, both played multiple years in college. Igoudala was a FA acquisition, and he's on the verge of a decline due to age. Green was another guy who graduated from college. And they had to add KD to unlock Super Saiyan. He's now making noise about wanting a max deal, wo who knows.
.
Point being, the Celts might enter their title window with stars who are younger than when each OG GSW (Curry, Green, Klay) was when the GSW players ENTERED the league. With each of those GSW players and the team being a few years from contention after entering the league.
.
Teams today are built on versatile wings and rim protection (or LBJ, but that might be hard to emulate). The Celts have two all star caliber Wings on rookie deals. They've got good rim protection D now, but it is aging and needs to be upgraded next year. After that, you need shooting and D from PFs and PGs, and that is obtainable over the next few years. As I said, IMO the celts will use Heyward and Kyrie as trade bait to stock the roster with supporting players.

 

[bullcity gamer]

Coach K did bring Allen off the bench towards the end of the season along with Giles. He started Jackson, Kennard, Jones, Tatum, and Jefferson. It worked in the ACC Tournament and then South Carolina happened.

 

[Mac9192]

I didn't say Tatum should have been the sole guy. But he very obviously should have been the primary option. Instead, he was about 3rd. There is a valid argument (loathe though I am to admit it) that Luke was a capable 1st option. I disagree, and I suspect we are going to be reading some rough articles about that strategy starting in 2-3 years, but Luke was at least capable as a lead option. But Luke was the clear 1st option, with Grayson as the second option.
.
Ignoring my obvious exaggeration (to make a point), Tatum should have had a much larger role, along with Luke. Grayson should have had a minor role. By mid Jan it was painfully obvious that Allen was slumping. I'm sure K thought/hoped he'd turn it around. But, as I said, by mid Jan it was apparent that Allen just didn't have it last year.

You're missing the point. No one can deny how good Tatum was at Duke, nor how good Kennard was offensively either. My point is and will always be that, in Duke's five title teams, no one person was ball dominant, or whatever you want to call them, over the other stars. They were all great players that did what was needed to win.
I stand by my opinion that when a player "must" get so many looks for the team to do well, then you don't have a chance to win.
Tatum had the ball in his hands enough. How did it work out for Duke during the JJ years come ncaa tournament time? He had the ball in his hands almost all the time.
By the way, Allen started coming off the bench a little before the acc tournament, and stayed there.

Just out of curiosity, I went and compared Laettner's stats his senior season to Tatum's one year. Almost identical. Same shot attempts(12.6), the minutes played almost the same, as were rebounds and assists.

 

[PatrickYates]

You're missing the point. No one can deny how good Tatum was at Duke, nor how good Kennard was offensively either. My point is and will always be that, in Duke's five title teams, no one person was ball dominant, or whatever you want to call them, over the other stars. They were all great players that did what was needed to win.
I stand by my opinion that when a player "must" get so many looks for the team to do well, then you don't have a chance to win.
Tatum had the ball in his hands enough. How did it work out for Duke during the JJ years come ncaa tournament time? He had the ball in his hands almost all the time.
By the way, Allen started coming off the bench a little before the acc tournament, and stayed there.

Just out of curiosity, I went and compared Laettner's stats his senior season to Tatum's one year. Almost identical. Same shot attempts(12.6), the minutes played almost the same, as were rebounds and assists.

Christian's teammates were Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill. On a team wherein K went deeper then than he does now.
.
The real failure was playing Allen so much. Sure, he came off the bench later in the season. But he was still getting starter minutes while getting a solid number of shots. By the end of his junior year, he should have been sub 20 MPG. He and Luke did a lot of the same things on the court, only Luke was way better at it last year.
.
As plenty of folks say, don't get caught up in who starts, it is who finishes that matters. Despite not actually starting, Allen played as much as any starter at the end. Or very nearly so. Instead he should have had a much smaller role by the end of January. Frankly, such a move might have encouraged better effort and effectiveness on D, as that would have been a way to get back on the court.
.
Allen had a really bad year as a junior. He turned it around to a large extent as a Senior. But he played way too much as a junior. In almost any other year that wouldn't have been as glaring. But his usage stole shots from a guy that looks like a perennial all star in Tatum.

 

[Mac9192]

Christian's teammates were Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill. On a team wherein K went deeper then than he does now.
.
The real failure was playing Allen so much. Sure, he came off the bench later in the season. But he was still getting starter minutes while getting a solid number of shots. By the end of his junior year, he should have been sub 20 MPG. He and Luke did a lot of the same things on the court, only Luke was way better at it last year.
.
As plenty of folks say, don't get caught up in who starts, it is who finishes that matters. Despite not actually starting, Allen played as much as any starter at the end. Or very nearly so. Instead he should have had a much smaller role by the end of January. Frankly, such a move might have encouraged better effort and effectiveness on D, as that would have been a way to get back on the court.
.
Allen had a really bad year as a junior. He turned it around to a large extent as a Senior. But he played way too much as a junior. In almost any other year that wouldn't have been as glaring. But his usage stole shots from a guy that looks like a perennial all star in Tatum.

Patrick, I think you're a true fan, and I appreciate that you don't throw wild insults at someone else's opinion, but honestly, you've lost me on this one.

 

[bullcity gamer]

Allen was one of our better players along with Kennard and Tatum towards the end of the season, but you didn’t want him playing very much? Wasn’t he the leading scorer against South Carolina?

 

[jwill133]

Allen was one of our better players along with Kennard and Tatum towards the end of the season, but you didn’t want him playing very much? Wasn’t he the leading scorer against South Carolina?

He was definitely one of our better players, but he was best suited to come off the bench. Once K brought him off the bench, we made our end of season run. He didn't fit well with Kennard, and not having a true PG to distribute to all the weapons really threw everything off.

 

[PatrickYates]

Allen was one of our better players along with Kennard and Tatum towards the end of the season, but you didn’t want him playing very much? Wasn’t he the leading scorer against South Carolina?

And he, along with Luke, gave up far more points than they scored in that game. Which was a recurring theme for most of the season.
.
Last year should have been a choice between Luke and Grayson being on the court. Both were ball dominant SGs who were not great at getting their teammates involved. Neither player made the people around them any better, nor did their respective offensive successes lead to open shots or better looks for the rest of the team.
.
And they were probably two of the worst defenders ever to play major minutes at Duke. Hiding one of them would have been tough, but doable, with an effective post/rim defender. Which Amile was not, in any way, shape, or form. Hiding ONE of Luke or Grayson on D was essentially impossible without quality rim protection.
.
Playing both of them at the same time was catastrophic defensively. They should only have been on the court alone, barring situational moments or extreme foul trouble. When they were both on the court, with no rim protector behind them, they gave up too many points. That was a loaded team that finished SIXTH in the standings, moving up 1 thanks to UL's post season bad. Sixth.
.
In retrospect, Luke should have logged 25ish MPG, and Allen 16-17 mpg. Given that playing them both was defensively untenable strategically, Luke should have played more last year. It wasn't Allen or Luke (or any one player) that killed the team last year. It was playing Allen and Luke together.
.
As for the USC game, the same rules apply. Only 1 should have logged heavy minutes, and that should have been Allen. Luke was subpar on O, and even worse than usual on D. My rule about only 1 playing at a time was and is spot on. Who that player is should have changed from game to game. By mid way through the first half, it was obvious that Luke was not having a good game. Allen, while not lighting the world on fire his own self, was better than Luke. Ergo, Allen plays more in the second half with Luke off the bench.
.
Unless you've got Shel Williams or Rudy Gobert or Bill Russell in the paint, no team can survive playing two terrible defenders at the same time. And Luke and Grayson were terrible, terrible defenders. Their defensive effort was atrocious, and they were even less effective. Only one should have been on the court at any given moment, but they played together for 20-25 mpg last year. Vs good teams that was usually disastrous.

 

[GillJET]

And he, along with Luke, gave up far more points than they scored in that game. Which was a recurring theme for most of the season.
.
Last year should have been a choice between Luke and Grayson being on the court. Both were ball dominant SGs who were not great at getting their teammates involved. Neither player made the people around them any better, nor did their respective offensive successes lead to open shots or better looks for the rest of the team.
.
And they were probably two of the worst defenders ever to play major minutes at Duke. Hiding one of them would have been tough, but doable, with an effective post/rim defender. Which Amile was not, in any way, shape, or form. Hiding ONE of Luke or Grayson on D was essentially impossible without quality rim protection.
.
Playing both of them at the same time was catastrophic defensively. They should only have been on the court alone, barring situational moments or extreme foul trouble. When they were both on the court, with no rim protector behind them, they gave up too many points. That was a loaded team that finished SIXTH in the standings, moving up 1 thanks to UL's post season bad. Sixth.
.
In retrospect, Luke should have logged 25ish MPG, and Allen 16-17 mpg. Given that playing them both was defensively untenable strategically, Luke should have played more last year. It wasn't Allen or Luke (or any one player) that killed the team last year. It was playing Allen and Luke together.
.
As for the USC game, the same rules apply. Only 1 should have logged heavy minutes, and that should have been Allen. Luke was subpar on O, and even worse than usual on D. My rule about only 1 playing at a time was and is spot on. Who that player is should have changed from game to game. By mid way through the first half, it was obvious that Luke was not having a good game. Allen, while not lighting the world on fire his own self, was better than Luke. Ergo, Allen plays more in the second half with Luke off the bench.
.
Unless you've got Shel Williams or Rudy Gobert or Bill Russell in the paint, no team can survive playing two terrible defenders at the same time. And Luke and Grayson were terrible, terrible defenders. Their defensive effort was atrocious, and they were even less effective. Only one should have been on the court at any given moment, but they played together for 20-25 mpg last year. Vs good teams that was usually disastrous.

I am completely over the 2016-17 season. Completely over it. Beginning with all the injuries, the whole season was a mess. We barely scraped by in that ACC Tournament. Yes we won it, but it was by no means some dominate performance by Duke that week. My only “what if” about that season is Giles. If he was healthy then maybe the season turns out better. Either way, I’m over it.

 

[jwill133]

I am completely over the 2016-17 season. Completely over it. Beginning with all the injuries, the whole season was a mess. We barely scraped by in that ACC Tournament. Yes we won it, but it was by no means some dominate performance by Duke that week. My only “what if” about that season is Giles. If he was healthy then maybe the season turns out better. Either way, I’m over it.

All true. Giles being the biggest "what if" for sure.
I'd also say that if we got a fully healthy Tatum beginning in November that the whole season could have flipped. Would have given him the chance to establish himself as the clear best player. Instead he had to try to "fit in" with Luke and Grayson.
Tatum also wouldn't have had to play himself into shape in January if he never got hurt.

 

[bullcity gamer]

No disagreement from me in regards to Allen and Kennard being Duke’s worst defenders.

 

[Mac9192]

No disagreement from me in regards to Allen and Kennard being Duke’s worst defenders.

That team had more problems than Allen and Kennard's bad defense.
In a weird way, the injuries that happened before the season to a handful of really good players made for a better reason Duke came up short than had nothing negatively happened to Giles, Tatum, Bolden and Allen.
No one wants to probably hear this, but, I think we had way too many good players to have chemistry.
I don't think Kennard and Tatum got along. Allen tried fitting in, but screwed up royally. Jackson's dad didn't like the way his son was played, or so we've heard. Bolden seemed disinterested at times, and wasn't even there, I think, at the game against SC.
The best three players were Matt Jones, Jefferson, and Giles. At least from a team standpoint they were. Now a healthy Giles would have added an elite talent for sure, but would have presented a whole different problem than our injuries caused.
We must remember there's only one basketball to go around, and that was a lot of studs loaded up on one team. One who's coach plays basically 7, and at least 3-4 log heavy minutes. The injury excuse is legit, but I think spared us embarrassment from another way.

 

[Fresh1972]

On this year's team Grayson as not a poor defender... He hustles and gets a lot of loose balls. And jumps into the passing lanes every so often. I think he plays hard and while not a great defender, I saw Bagley as a much worse defender. He had his hands don all the time on the perimeter and could be shot over at will. With that length, he has to get wide when off the ball and keep a hand up when the guy in his area had the ball. He had "alligator arms" when defending the shooter, with his hands at his hips... By the time the shot was off his hands were at his hips and he was too late in getting up. Hand down, man down! 6-1 guys could shoot over him at will on the perimeter. I worry more about Bagley's defensive deficiencies than Grayson's at the next level.

 

[PatrickYates]

That team had more problems than Allen and Kennard's bad defense.
In a weird way, the injuries that happened before the season to a handful of really good players made for a better reason Duke came up short than had nothing negatively happened to Giles, Tatum, Bolden and Allen.
No one wants to probably hear this, but, I think we had way too many good players to have chemistry.
I don't think Kennard and Tatum got along. Allen tried fitting in, but screwed up royally. Jackson's dad didn't like the way his son was played, or so we've heard. Bolden seemed disinterested at times, and wasn't even there, I think, at the game against SC.
The best three players were Matt Jones, Jefferson, and Giles. At least from a team standpoint they were. Now a healthy Giles would have added an elite talent for sure, but would have presented a whole different problem than our injuries caused.
We must remember there's only one basketball to go around, and that was a lot of studs loaded up on one team. One who's coach plays basically 7, and at least 3-4 log heavy minutes. The injury excuse is legit, but I think spared us embarrassment from another way.

The 2016-17 season was effectively ruined at the exact moment the 15-16 season was ruined: When Amile hurt his foot. His redshirt ruined 2 seasons. He was EXACTLY what the team needed in 15-16. An extra defender who would have allowed Ingram to play SF. It would have further prevented the afore mentioned disastrous pairing of Allen and Luke so much that season. With Amile on that team, Duke has a better year, and goes much further in March. Allen solidifies his first round status and goes pro. He would just now be finishing up a solid second season, probably on a playoff team, being lauded for his shooting off the bench.
.
Amile, without redshirting, probably finishes his senior season with a top 2-3 ACC finish, and maybe an elite 8 or FF appearance.
.
Last year, Luke is the lone SG. There are no more disastrous Allen/Luke pairings that implode the defense. Further, K is forced to play either Giles or Bolden at C. Yes, the first few months of the season wouldn't have been great. But forcing K to play them early would probably have lead to better rim protection by March.
.
Regardless, an O that featured Luke and Tatum as the main options would have been ample, considering that we wouldn't have had to overcome a horrific D. Frank plays the nominal 1, and Matt plays his ideal role as a perimeter defender and shooter, without having to deal with the twin tasks of running the O, which he couldn't do, or trying to defend opposing PGs, which he couldn't do.
.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm not sure how much folks are looking at non-playoff related NBA news. There are a plethora of potential trade deals involving NBA superstar being floated. Given their abundance of assets, the Celts are naturally being mentioned. On a team with Kryie, Heyward, and a potential number 1 overall pick next year (courtesy of the Kings), Tatum is the player that is essentially a non-starter. There are whispers that Tatum is the only guy unavailable, no matter who is on the other side of the deal (barring LBJ, I'm sure). Given that, this fan base is likely to start seeing a bunch of articles wondering how K didn't get more out of what looks like a borderline MVP candidate. KAT went to the FF after going undefeated all year in college. Ben Simmons was one of 2 high level college players (ie the others were mid level quality) on his team. And those guys were the featured players on their respective teams.
.
Tatum was the third option at Duke. Given Luke's overall play, no one is going to question his role.
.
But media reports from sources that are hostile to Duke might start asking why Allen was featured so prominently while a guy like Tatum wasn't shooting the ball 20 times.

 

[bullcity gamer]

That team had more problems than Allen and Kennard's bad defense.
In a weird way, the injuries that happened before the season to a handful of really good players made for a better reason Duke came up short than had nothing negatively happened to Giles, Tatum, Bolden and Allen.
No one wants to probably hear this, but, I think we had way too many good players to have chemistry.
I don't think Kennard and Tatum got along. Allen tried fitting in, but screwed up royally. Jackson's dad didn't like the way his son was played, or so we've heard. Bolden seemed disinterested at times, and wasn't even there, I think, at the game against SC.
The best three players were Matt Jones, Jefferson, and Giles. At least from a team standpoint they were. Now a healthy Giles would have added an elite talent for sure, but would have presented a whole different problem than our injuries caused.
We must remember there's only one basketball to go around, and that was a lot of studs loaded up on one team. One who's coach plays basically 7, and at least 3-4 log heavy minutes. The injury excuse is legit, but I think spared us embarrassment from another way.

it looked like to me during the ACC Tournament Luke and Jayson were getting along fine. Also, I have seen many times on Twitter they like/retweet each other posts aka they support one another.

 

[jwill133]

On this year's team Grayson as not a poor defender... He hustles and gets a lot of loose balls. And jumps into the passing lanes every so often. I think he plays hard and while not a great defender, I saw Bagley as a much worse defender. He had his hands don all the time on the perimeter and could be shot over at will. With that length, he has to get wide when off the ball and keep a hand up when the guy in his area had the ball. He had "alligator arms" when defending the shooter, with his hands at his hips... By the time the shot was off his hands were at his hips and he was too late in getting up. Hand down, man down! 6-1 guys could shoot over him at will on the perimeter. I worry more about Bagley's defensive deficiencies than Grayson's at the next level.

Hmmm. Grayson and Bagley were both bad at man-to-man defense.
Grayson was much better in the zone than he was in man. Bagley still struggled in the zone. However, Grayson was assigned a much easier task in the zone. Playing at the top of a zone is WORLDS easier than playing at the bottom. At the bottom, you have to cover a lot more ground (the corner to the basket), whereas at the top, you rotate from the wing to top of the key. Grayson did great though, mainly based off communication, but again, his task was much easier. (Gary had the toughest role, because he was a perimeter guy asked to play down low a lot.)

But at the next level....it ain't close. Bagley is 19 years old, he is a freak of nature. He may or may not be great, but the tools are there, he just needs to learn basic defensive principles.
Grayson is who he is at this point, he will always need to be hidden on D against an NBA offense. This is common for every team though, every team has a rotation guy who always gets to hide on the opposing teams least threatening player. Curry, Harden, Redick, Korver, etc. All these guys are the weak links.

 

[bullcity gamer]

Tatum had his struggles early on in the season at Duke (again his injury and the speed of the college game had to do with it imo), it wasn’t until February where he let the game come to him and he took off. He was one of the better players in the country from February 2017 and onward and the kid has not looked back since.

 

[PatrickYates]

On this year's team Grayson as not a poor defender... He hustles and gets a lot of loose balls. And jumps into the passing lanes every so often. I think he plays hard and while not a great defender, I saw Bagley as a much worse defender. He had his hands don all the time on the perimeter and could be shot over at will. With that length, he has to get wide when off the ball and keep a hand up when the guy in his area had the ball. He had "alligator arms" when defending the shooter, with his hands at his hips... By the time the shot was off his hands were at his hips and he was too late in getting up. Hand down, man down! 6-1 guys could shoot over him at will on the perimeter. I worry more about Bagley's defensive deficiencies than Grayson's at the next level.

He wasn't AS bad. At least, not in the zone. He was still plenty bad in the man defense. And it the zone, he was helped by better rim defenders in Carter and Bagley.
.
That said, one of the reasons we had to switch to a zone was that teams were starting to figure out that a PnR run by the guys being guarded by Allen and Bagley was good for about 90% effectiveness wrt getting points. Bags wasn't the only culprit there.
.
Even so, Allen wasn't a good defender last year, even as a senior. He was better than in previous years. But being better on D than in his soph and jr years isn't a huge compliment. He was, at best, mediocre on D last year.
.
The upsetting thing is that Allen has all the physical tools to be a very good defender. The effort on D was never present. Which, to me, is the fault of the coaching staff.

 

[jwill133]

Tatum had his struggles early on in the season at Duke (again his injury and the speed of the college game had to do with it imo), it wasn’t until February where he let the game come to him and he took off. He was one of the better players in the country from February 2017 and onward and the kid has not looked back since.

I'd actually say he was the best player in the country once it hit late February and on to March. He just didn't get the chance to show everything in the arsenal. Mainly due to the immense offensive talent we already had, and how poorly the pieces fit together.

 

[hart2chesson]

That team had more problems than Allen and Kennard's bad defense.
In a weird way, the injuries that happened before the season to a handful of really good players made for a better reason Duke came up short than had nothing negatively happened to Giles, Tatum, Bolden and Allen.
No one wants to probably hear this, but, I think we had way too many good players to have chemistry.
I don't think Kennard and Tatum got along. Allen tried fitting in, but screwed up royally. Jackson's dad didn't like the way his son was played, or so we've heard. Bolden seemed disinterested at times, and wasn't even there, I think, at the game against SC.
The best three players were Matt Jones, Jefferson, and Giles. At least from a team standpoint they were. Now a healthy Giles would have added an elite talent for sure, but would have presented a whole different problem than our injuries caused.
We must remember there's only one basketball to go around, and that was a lot of studs loaded up on one team. One who's coach plays basically 7, and at least 3-4 log heavy minutes. The injury excuse is legit, but I think spared us embarrassment from another way.

The injury excuse is legit as you say, but also quite convenient.For much of the year we were plauged by injuries as you noted, but 4 days in Brooklyn I felt we were on top of our game. We manhandled UNC in the semi-final, and had enough in the tank to defeat Notre Dame in the final.

I felt we were on our way. I knew we had a tough draw, but was thinking final four. You mentioned Tatum and Kennard "not getting along." I think its a valid point, and I think Jayson felt snubbed for the tourney MVP award. I think this manifested itself in the 1st NCAA weekend, and contributed to our early demise. Kennard was NO WAY the same player after the ACC TOURNAMENT.

OFC

 

[jwill133]

The injury excuse is legit as you say, but also quite convenient.For much of the year we were plauged by injuries as you noted, but 4 days in Brooklyn I felt we were on top of our game. We manhandled UNC in the semi-final, and had enough in the tank to defeat Notre Dame in the final.

I felt we were on our way. I knew we had a tough draw, but was thinking final four. You mentioned Tatum and Kennard "not getting along." I think its a valid point, and I think Jayson felt snubbed for the tourney MVP award. I think this manifested itself in the 1st NCAA weekend, and contributed to our early demise. Kennard was NO WAY the same player after the ACC TOURNAMENT.

OFC

I do agree that the "silent tension" between Tatum and Kennard is a big reason for our failure throughout the season, and yes it manifested in the NCAA's.
But we "survived" the ACC tournament IMO. We barely beat Clemson that Wednesday, I think we were up 2 with 4 minutes to go, eeeeked it out. Then the Louisville game was back and forth, we trailed around the 10 min mark, then made a big run. Ditto with UNC and ND. ND was tied till the very end if I'm not mistaken.

Don't get me wrong, I was happy when we won it, but it wasn't "Duke domination."

 

[PixelDevil]

Well this thread went in a weird direction

 

[Laettner]

Scouts noted Trent looked better defensively at combine than during season. Good for him. Just don't see why Gary left when looking at mid-to-late 2nd rd selection. No guarenteed $, make $35k in G-League riding buses to high school gyms or be Duke main gunner, play on national tv 40 times plus a weak draft in 2019. Makes no sense to me.

 

[jwill133]

Scouts noted Trent looked better defensively at combine than during season. Good for him. Just don't see why Gary left when looking at mid-to-late 2nd rd selection. No guarenteed $, make $35k in G-League riding buses to high school gyms or be Duke main gunner, play on national tv 40 times plus a weak draft in 2019. Makes no sense to me.

I think Gary makes sense. I'm not too sure what he would improve on in 1 year to raise his draft stock. He lacks elite athleticism (not really fixable) and is a poor passer/ball-handler (those can be improved upon, but no one becomes a great passer in 1 year.) Plus being a professional is easier to improve on things than being a student/athlete, just my opinion.

Gary can really shoot the 3-ball, and that has never been valued higher than in the modern NBA. I also think he still ends up being picked anywhere from 20-30 (most mocks still have him as a 1st rounder, nbadraft.net has him 18, updated yesterday.) So yes, makes complete sense if he goes in the 1st round.

 

[Laettner]

I think Gary makes sense. I'm not too sure what he would improve on in 1 year to raise his draft stock. He lacks elite athleticism (not really fixable) and is a poor passer/ball-handler (those can be improved upon, but no one becomes a great passer in 1 year.) Plus being a professional is easier to improve on things than being a student/athlete, just my opinion.

Gary can really shoot the 3-ball, and that has never been valued higher than in the modern NBA. I also think he still ends up being picked anywhere from 20-30 (most mocks still have him as a 1st rounder, nbadraft.net has him 18, updated yesterday.) So yes, makes complete sense if he goes in the 1st round.

Hope he goes 1st rd as you say. Enjoy the "poor passer/ball handler & not elite athleticism" but will go 20-30. That's like saying let's hire an accountant who doesn't add or subract very well.

 

[jwill133]

Hope he goes 1st rd as you say. Enjoy the "poor passer/ball handler & not elite athleticism" but will go 20-30. That's like saying let's hire an accountant who doesn't add or subract very well.

Or if he had elite athleticism or a great handle that he would be a lottery pick?? Generally a guy picked in the 20's has flaws in his game, I'm sorry but I don't understand your point?

 

[Laettner]

I was being overly sarcastic. A player with dribbling & passing flaws goes in 1st rd of NBA draft. Compared it to hiring an accountant out of college who struggles with basic math.

 

[PatrickYates]

I think Gary makes sense. I'm not too sure what he would improve on in 1 year to raise his draft stock. He lacks elite athleticism (not really fixable) and is a poor passer/ball-handler (those can be improved upon, but no one becomes a great passer in 1 year.) Plus being a professional is easier to improve on things than being a student/athlete, just my opinion.

Gary can really shoot the 3-ball, and that has never been valued higher than in the modern NBA. I also think he still ends up being picked anywhere from 20-30 (most mocks still have him as a 1st rounder, nbadraft.net has him 18, updated yesterday.) So yes, makes complete sense if he goes in the 1st round.

I love how people think Gary would have been the lead gunner on next year's team. Really? Really.
.
Folks here think he plays over either of Cam or RJ? Because that is his competition.
.
There was a legit chance that TD would have started over Jones. I'm not saying TD would definitely start over TJ, nor would I say the opposite. Gun to my head, TJ probably starts unless TD fixed his J. But there was some uncertainty.
.
There was and is no way that Gary starts over either of CJ or RJ. Zion starts at PF, and the two wing spots are set.
.
Gary would have faced serious minute reduction next year, as well as unflattering comparisons to two far better players.
.
Also, if GT returns, combined with what we already have, AOC transfers out. He'd have faced a de facto red shirt year next season.
.
No, GT had to go. Sports is a meritocracy, and the hammer of god was about to descend next year.

 

[PatrickYates]

I was being overly sarcastic. A player with dribbling & passing flaws goes in 1st rd of NBA draft. Compared it to hiring an accountant out of college who struggles with basic math.

Do you know how many starters, in the playoffs, struggle with dribbling and passing?
.
The term is "3 and D" not "3 and D and passing and ball handling and team running."
.
Gary is a guy that can guard opposing wings. Including the Draymond Green type of combo Fs that are so prevalent now. And he can make 3s. Regardless of his draft selection, GT will be on an opening day roster, and will likely get actual game minutes from day 1.
.
He doesn't have the tools to be an all star. But he'll be a quality defender making 40% of his threes within 2-3 years, and he'll spend a decade in the pros. I wouldn't be surprised if he has the longest career out of anyone on last year's team. Not best career, but longest.

 

[dukiejay]

Gary should play a long time in the NBA. He's an above-average M2M defender and a really good shooter. Those two attributes alone should allow him to hang around for a while. I actually agree with some others above who feel he could have the 'longest' NBA career of all our guys going into the draft this season. He won't be the best, but he has the tools to play a long time.

 

[Liftee]

I'm not sure he'll be able to get off his shot now that everyone guarding him will be just about the same size, and more athletic. Will his team run plays for him to get him open? That didn't happen for JJ until he was in the league for at least 8 years.

I'll be rooting for him though. Seems like a good guy with a great pedigree.

 

[CRAZIE4LIFE]

 

[TheDude1]

Good stuff.

 

[dukiejay]

I struggle to see a scenario where Grayson isn’t a successful nba player....barring injuries, of course.