With the virtual free agency in college hoops now (transfer w/ immediate eligibility), isn't there a plausible debate here? Loading up on Hs phenoms for one year or should coaches hit the portal hard? Perhaps it's best to blend? Nonetheless time and again on K's pregame radio interview referencing opposition, he states "They're Old." LOL, it gets "old" hearing it. Should we maybe slightly lessen our 5 star focus and get a few more QUALITY TRANSFERS?? If you were Duke head coach, what would be your approach??? OFC
Transfers or One and Dones???
- Thread starter Leo2Wes
- Start date
I'd say just get the best you can. I guess my approach would be to still chase a few of the top guys in HS but keep options open on the transfer market for role guys and maybe a potential breakout guy.
Holmgren and Banchero I'd take over whoever was the #1 and #2 transfer available this past season (I read it was Carr @ Texas and Kessler?). Tshiebwe has obviously far exceeded expectations but it's also the system he is in right now. Also and as much as this shouldn't matter, the top HS guys are going to be featured more and will put more fans in the seats and keep a program in the national picture. Even though that shouldn't matter, we want to maintain that exposure.
I think it also depends on year-to-year with HS rankings. Some years the #1-#5 players are much more dominant than the next class. Sometimes there is a huge drop off in talent after the 10th guy and fans just think any 5* guy should be able to come in and dominate. Also, I'd like to believe there is still such-a-thing as college scouts/evaluators doing a better job evaluating than our favorite recruiting analysts.
Although transfers can be "older" (and I agree sometimes I cringe hearing K say that), they still have to learn a new system just like the HS guys. And let's face it, if they were truly elite individual players, they'd be in the NBA. Last thing - if we aren't getting the Banchero's, Zion's, etc...I don't personally want to play against the team that does. I imagine UK was feeling this way after our last game with all their transfers.
Holmgren and Banchero I'd take over whoever was the #1 and #2 transfer available this past season (I read it was Carr @ Texas and Kessler?). Tshiebwe has obviously far exceeded expectations but it's also the system he is in right now. Also and as much as this shouldn't matter, the top HS guys are going to be featured more and will put more fans in the seats and keep a program in the national picture. Even though that shouldn't matter, we want to maintain that exposure.
I think it also depends on year-to-year with HS rankings. Some years the #1-#5 players are much more dominant than the next class. Sometimes there is a huge drop off in talent after the 10th guy and fans just think any 5* guy should be able to come in and dominate. Also, I'd like to believe there is still such-a-thing as college scouts/evaluators doing a better job evaluating than our favorite recruiting analysts.
Although transfers can be "older" (and I agree sometimes I cringe hearing K say that), they still have to learn a new system just like the HS guys. And let's face it, if they were truly elite individual players, they'd be in the NBA. Last thing - if we aren't getting the Banchero's, Zion's, etc...I don't personally want to play against the team that does. I imagine UK was feeling this way after our last game with all their transfers.
Last edited:
Define a quality transfer? Out of everyone who transferred in the past two years, Jordan G and Theo John would be the only ones we would need if they were on the transfer market.
The 'quality transfer' is a high need for a particular position/need.
As we saw this past off season. Duke looked at three shooters but none showed interest in Duke. Duke did good to get Johns and Jones. That said both were fifth year seniors. It all depends on recruiting . If your recruits are high ranking them transfers are going to look at who’s still there and the available minutes they could get.
you always go with the best talent and hope your returning players don’t shy away from competition.
you always go with the best talent and hope your returning players don’t shy away from competition.
Getting both is the challenge. Right now guys know Duke only plays 6 or 7 guys. We have looked pretty young our first 2 ACC games.
The man who had 26 rebounds in one game is doing it because of the system he’s in? False. Dudes a monster.
There’s nothing wrong with a healthy mixture of both. The problem is coach k would rather not step on guys toes and ensure the 5 stars get 30 min+ of playing time. I’m feeling sorry for John. Dude didn’t come this way to not play in the second half.
Yes and yes. Definitely a monster but wasn't even the leading rebounder at WVU last year if you can believe it. I think Huggy changed up the style of play and now Oscar is essentially being featured at UK.
I thought we looked really damn good against VT in the 2nd half. Struggled coming off the pause against GT and thankfully pulled it out. And definitely didn't look good for most of the loss against Miami.
On the topic, I'll take the 5 stars over the transfers every time. But I definitely think you need seasoned players to blend with them to win a title. One and done teams like '12 Kentucky and '15 Duke had "old" players to compliment the young superstar talent in order to cut down the nets. It also takes great coaching and a little luck in the end to make it happen too.
Agreed. Give me all the 5 star talent we can get.
Same here. I don't get the fans who say otherwise. Are we really suppose to say no to top tier talent? Doesn't make a lick of sense to me.
Was just reading about a game last week where Patrick Baldwin was 5 of 5 from three in the first half and scored 26 for the game. Can you imagine how good we'd be if we got him?
He’s been awful this year..shooting 37%from the field! One n done players don’t blend well with other 5 stars!
I guess that 26 point game was in December. He does have a lot of 6 for 20 type games when I look at his stats. He's still going to be good though.
You don’t have to be the leading rebounder to be a good rebounder lol. Dude averaged 9.3 boards his freshmen year and 7.8 sophomore year. that’s pretty big numbers and the kid hasn’t been playing basketball very long either. You don’t get “featured” as a rebounder either. If you can’t see the dudes talent rebounding after he killed us on the boards first game of the season I’m not sure anything will change your mind.
We don’t have to play them 30-35 min a game either to keep them “ happy” Chet holmgren only plays 25. In fact, there’s quite a few guys who play 20-25. I actually want to look more into it and compare with Duke when I get some free time
C'mon man what are you doing lol
All good. We are both Duke fans so really not that big of a deal. I respect that you don't think he is in a better system now...no prob. Also and way more importantly, we both agree with the main point of this thread.
Where you getting this from or were you just stating it? If just stating, I agree with you but remember we were discussing whether he was in a better system in post #8 that allows him to get better reb numbers from the cherry-picked line in my post - not if he was an elite rebounder or not, which we agree on (ref: him being a monster)
Context of post #2 was him being featured in his respective system now, all inclusive (you went on the rebounding kick). He was NOT being featured at WVU, pretty much a fact. Now with UK - way more mpg, green light on offense, no other guys worth a crap in the front court to mess with his numbers, etc etc. Just seems obvious to me he is being showcased, that's all.
All good. We are both Duke fans so really not that big of a deal. I respect that you don't think he is in a better system now...no prob. Also and way more importantly, we both agree with the main point of this thread.
If my Center is Drew Timme, and I have others that can play the power forward, not only are my minutes 25, but I may play time at the wing!
Some schools have built in luxuries that get you there. At DUKE, it's status and legacy. At Zags, it's coaching and mature depth!
Just looking at the teams that are ranked above us, they all seem to be older and have some transfer experience mixed in...I also don't recognize many names that we were chasing on the recruiting side but I don't follow that very closely. I'd say a blend would be best...too many new players each year seems to just create inconsistency and no identity for the program. That has to be hard on the coaches and the players.
I don't like the transfer rule as currently constructed, but it looks like we are stuck with it. In that case, I agree that a blend is best. Just look at teams like Wake Forest and Miami, both of which have surpassed pre-season expectations, They are dominated by tranfers, and not necessarily the big-name ones either. Their transfers have vastly outperformed the more heralded ones at UNC.
It's an interesting question. Not sure why you have to go all in on one or the other. Kansas and Gonzaga have done okay mixing both. UCLA got a good center transfer despite being loaded, so it can be done. They also got Juzang the year before. We seem to bring in guys who are banged up. I know someone will bring up Rodney Hood, but how long ago was that?
Given the rules, I'd like to see us pull in about 3 5-stars and 2-3 transfers every year, generally speaking.
