# Should Duke Really Be #1?



## VERBZ (Jun 7, 2002)

...not according to Jay Bilas (oh, how I KNOW you guys "love him" around here...lol...)

After almost a month, he thinks UCONN is the best team in the country (you'll forgive me for not supplying a link...he said this on a *"Sportscenter"* segment last night)....

His reasoning? Something about UCONN having the best combination of size, athleticism and aggressiveness...he noted the lack of a true PG, but pointed to Williams's return in a few weeks....

He cited his reasonings for Duke _not_ being #1 as their _lack_ of real athleticism and aggressiveness, amongst a couple other things...

...so..._IS_ UCONN more deserving of #1 than Duke? Is Texas more deserving?

Build with me....


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

Bilas is right...
Duke didn't impress me at all against Memphis, even though they were without Nelson and Memphis is very athletic. The thing is that UCONN was never really scared at Maui (I know it took them a last second shot to beat Gonzaga, but they never really trailed) and they did it all without their PG.

UCONN is my favorite to win the NC as of right now.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

UConn is better right now. I would probably even say that Texas is better too. People ignorantly ignore the fact that two of Duke's starters are freshman. They say, "Ya, but they were the best freshman at their position coming out of high school." They're still freshman. I don't expect them to look sensational 5 games into the season. apelman is right, they weren't impressive against Memphis, but - this is not directed to anyone in particular - many people downplay Memphis' team. Remeber Katz's article about Drexel giving the rest of the country a blueprint on how to beat Duke? (BTW, that article was a joke. In essence, Katz said, "To beat Duke, you have to play hard from the beginning of the game." Come on. Are you kidding me? Great insight, Mr. Katz  ) My point: Rodney Carney gave the rest of the country a blueprint for how to shut down JJ Redick. Problem is, most teams don't have a preimeter defender like Carney... As for Bilas. He's a joke. He doesn't even tell it how it is. He goes to the extreme of Duke-hating so that he isn't accused of being bias. What ever happened to Brad Daugherty? Now that was a classy guy. He was always honest. When UNC was good, he was the first to say it, but he didn't constantly look for every weakness in their game. They need to either bring him back or hire a college basketball version of Kirk Herbstreet - another guy who loves his almamater, but just tells it how it is.

Across the board - you honestly tell me one team that looks really good right now. If you're honest, you'll be hard-pressed to come up with one. Nobody's playing the way they'll be playing in January or even late December. Give everyone, including Duke, some time. We live in an "instant society." instant ice tea, instant coffee, Fast-food, etc. Basketball doesn't work like that - especially in situations like Duke and UNC and even Illinois where a lot of your team is made up newcomers.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

There is no BCS in College Basketball.It doesn't concern me very much who is number one in November.They just need to be number one on the first tuesday in April.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

to me duke deserves #1 but its early. you just cant underestimate what coach k means to that team. without him the other night they dont beat indiana and they probably dont beat memphis last week. uconn i think is overrated, boone and gay arent at all what they're cracked up to be, i would probably pick texas as a bigger threat. as for duke they are still not there as far as quality depth is concerned, they were smart the other night to start double teaming killingsworth, something they are probably going to have to do more early in games or they are going to have problems with guys fouling out.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

rainman said:


> uconn i think is overrated, boone and gay arent at all what they're cracked up to be


Can you give some insight on why you say this or are we just supposed to take your word for this?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I miss Brad Daugherty as well. He was a great analyst.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I miss Brad Daugherty as well. He was a great analyst.


What ever did happen to Daugherty? Did he move on to another network or did he just decide he wanted to do something different? BTW, to answer to the thread topic question, I think Duke does deserve to be #1, but as rainman, and Diablo already said come March it really doesn't matter.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Daugherty used to be involved in drag racing.He owned all or part of a team and I think he at least sometimes raced it also.Not too sure but I believe he was interesting in a truck racing team as well.That may be why he isn't on ESPN right now.If you remember his uniform number you may realize that he's a big fan of a certain gentleman from Level Cross,NC.


----------



## Natedagreat12 (Nov 26, 2005)

after they play N.2 Texas (on CBS) We will know. But i have confidence that Duke is N.1 UCONN They cant be n.1! I forgot who said it but all that matters it that your N.1 in april.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Daugherty must have only done games to get some extra $ for his business


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

apelman42 said:


> Can you give some insight on why you say this or are we just supposed to take your word for this?


you get expert opinion and now you want insight, wow. i think all of college basketball is sort of going through parity right now so i certainly dont see uconn being any better than a dozen other teams out there. as for rudy gay somehow he was put at the top of most mock drafts, probably because someone has to be there, but i dont see him in that elite class of small forward, he'll make a nice pro, thats it. go badgers.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

I would take Texas over Duke and UConn, I can't wait for the Texas VS Duke Game.


----------



## Blink4 (Jan 17, 2005)

JJ and sheldon> the rest of college bball


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

rainman said:


> you get expert opinion and now you want insight, wow. i think all of college basketball is sort of going through parity right now so i certainly dont see uconn being any better than a dozen other teams out there. as for rudy gay somehow he was put at the top of most mock drafts, probably because someone has to be there, but i dont see him in that elite class of small forward, he'll make a nice pro, thats it. go badgers.


uconn beat arkansas, arizona, and gonzaga without their pg. they definitely have a case for being #1. i think rudy gay is getting too much hype and can't see him ever being a superstar, but that doesn't change how good this uconn team is.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> uconn beat arkansas, arizona, and gonzaga without their pg. they definitely have a case for being #1. i think rudy gay is getting too much hype and can't see him ever being a superstar, but that doesn't change how good this uconn team is.


good point, i think they're there with the contenders but nobody has really separated themselves yet. i think duke deserves the top spot until someone takes it away from them.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

It took a miracle shot for Duke to beat VIRGINIA TECH in Cameron. They aren't that great. A good team, but nothing special.


----------



## Midnight_Marauder (Dec 1, 2003)

This is why I freakin hate Duke....right here....DAMN!!! Good shot though....I respect Duke....but I absolutely hate them


----------



## HogsFan1188 (Nov 24, 2004)

Midnight_Marauder said:


> This is why I freakin hate Duke....right here....DAMN!!! Good shot though....I respect Duke....but I absolutely hate them



Agreed, Va tech and memphis have both been robbed so far.

I hope Texas beats the hell out of em.


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

lol they rushed the court for beating VT! I don't care if they win all they want now in the regular season, it will be like 1999 with crushing expectations. While I love to see them lose, them losing in the 2nd round of the tournament is more important than them losing now.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

HeinzGuderian said:


> It took a miracle shot for Duke to beat VIRGINIA TECH in Cameron. They aren't that great. A good team, but nothing special.


shut your mouth, Heinz


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

TM said:


> shut your mouth, Heinz


Do you disagree? Duke is a nice team, probably top 10, but not this juggernaut like some people would have you think. This is Virginia Tech we're talking about. In the rat lair no less.

edit- and looking at the box score, it's not like VT shot lights out from 3 or anything like what usually happens when bad teams hang with good teams.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

> A good team, but nothing special.


no, I agree, but your attempt to downplay any ACC win is stupid. i'll go ahead and make excuses for them. they just got done with a hard fought, emotion road game against a good team in a hostile stadium; they've got a game with the 2nd best team in the country (1. UConn; 2. UT; 3. Duke) so you know that's in their minds - some so much that they overlooked tonights game; you're going to tell me VT is no good?

edit - no, but they Collins and Dowdell were throwing up all sorts of junk that was going in.


----------



## HogsFan1188 (Nov 24, 2004)

Va Tech isn't really a BAD team.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

HogsFan1188 said:


> Va Tech isn't really a BAD team.


Heinz isn't going to admit that


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

HogsFan1188 said:


> Va Tech isn't really a BAD team.


Seth greenburg is one of the best coaches in the ACC imo, but they have no businiess going into Cameron against a #1 Duke team and not losing by double digits. A win's a win, and even if it was a loss it wouldn't really matter that much because Duke is a program is defined by postseason success. It's not just the VT game, they haven't looked anything special in any of their games. Good, but not special. The Texas game will be interesting to watch, Texas has alot of talent but are pretty poorly coached imo.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

*Sean Dockery!!!!*

Omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

VA Tech has given Duke trouble in a number of games. It's nothing to worry about really...VA Tech just plays Duke well. For one, I believe in the Duke magic...and Dock's shot is proof that the Duke magic is alive and well this year!! I'll tell ya I had the same premonitions in 2001....it's something I can't explain, but this is the year!


----------



## HeinzGuderian (Jun 29, 2004)

lol my dad, a Duke alumn, just called me and compared dockery to Michael Jordan. You see what I've had to put up with for my entire life?


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

HeinzGuderian said:


> lol my dad, a Duke alumn, just called me and compared dockery to Michael Jordan. You see what I've had to put up with for my entire life?


Hmmm...good comparison. Well, not really...but Dock as a senior is finally a DUKIE! First big play I can recall him making.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

Why do people think its a big deal when a top team happens to struggle against an inferior opponent...happens all the freaking time yet people act like its the apocalypose. In fact, you know from the NCAA tournament and plays like Tyus Edney over Missouri, Mike Miller against Butler, etc, etc....teams that go far often have moments like that, it bonds teams, gives them an extra boost.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

> lol my dad, a Duke alumn, just called me and compared dockery to Michael Jordan. You see what I've had to put up with for my entire life?


Ah, I see why you've turned out the way you have. :laugh: J/k, Heinz. Hey, check out the "Vote for this week's BBBnet Top 25" thread. I've got something for ya. 

I'll be honest now - they've got a long, long ways to go before they become something special. Those freshman, especially Paulus and McRoberts do some dumb, dumb things sometimes. And, I still don't understand why they don't pass McRoberts the ball when he's standing in the post with a defender on him thats at least 3inches shorter than he is and 10-20lbs lighter than he is. I have yet to see why he was ranked about Tyler Hansbrough. If McRoberts doesn't show up against Texas, it could spell big time trouble for Duke. Their bigs will kill them. Speaking of Texas - Tucker will be the difference maker. Duke doesn't have anyone that can keep up with him. With Nelson out, they have nobody with any size/strength that's quick enough to keep up with a guy like him. They're Duke, so I'm sure they'll be in it at least for most the game. It has the possibility to get ugly though... Oh, and lest I forget the reigning National D-POY. Why was he POY? His defense is horrible this year. He blocks shots, but his men are constantly getting by him and his help defense is non-existant. Again, they've got some small, but extremely important things to work out before they become a legit #1 team.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

One on One said:


> Why do people think its a big deal when a top team happens to struggle against an inferior opponent....


it's an opportunity to get a jab in at Duke. that's all it is.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

TM said:


> it's an opportunity to get a jab in at Duke. that's all it is.


Bad timing...I'm on much more of a high now than when we clobbered Seton Hall by 51 so I could care less what people say...just stereotypical Duke bashing, like we aren't used to it?


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

if you dont have tough skin, don't bother cheering for Duke

BTW, looking at the box score...

Sean Dockery: 4-5 3pt. Forget him hitting that last shot. If he had done his usual thing of going 1-4 or 1-5, they wouldn't have even been in a situation to win that game.

I forgot to mention JJ Redick. Where was he tonight? 18pts, but all great players find a way to score. The guy couldn't hit a jump shot to save his life. The unfortunate thing was that most of them were misses to one side or the other. That's not a good thing. It's one thing to miss long or short, but side to side is bad, bad news.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

I don't see what you're saying about JJ Reddick. All great players find a way to score? Well, he played poorly yet still scored 18. Not too far off his average.

I don't care how JJ misses...you think he's lost his touch??  :rotf:


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

As a Duke fan I could really care less about their ranking at this stage of the season or any other.What I want to see is some defensive intensity and I would like to see it now.If we win or lose playing good tough Duke defense that's okay with me,but I do not like the way they have played defense at times this season and I don't think they will achieve the ultimate goal unless they do.I would dearly love it if Dockery (or anyone else) could shoulder part of the load offensively.That is the reason this game was ever close,Va Tech slumped off everyone except JJ and noone made them pay until Dockery started hitting shots in the second half.If they hit a few treys in the first half that game would have been completely devoid of drama.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

You're right. You saw tonight what happens when Shelden is doubled and JJ has a good defender on him. Someone has to step up and be that main third option. I was hoping McRoberts would be that guy, but I don't know. 1) They won't throw him the ball. 2) If he ever accidently gets it, he can't finish, although he does get fouled. Too bad he misses half his FT's.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Coach K is trying to turn McRoberts into the Shelden Williams of two years ago, and it just isn't going to work. McRoberts needs to catch the ball in the high post, hit the outside jumper, and utilize his athelticism facing the basket in the lane. He can't do this with Williams clogging the paint. It should be Shelden playing off of McRoberts' offensive moves in the paint. 

You would think that Coach K would figure this out and adjust the system to his players' talents, but at Duke it is about the system, and not about the players. 

McRoberts could be lighting up the high post right now, and coach K has turned him into a blue collar garbage man. It's a shame he had to pick Duke. 

The fact of the matter is that K is completely abusing the top big man recruits he does bring in. K expects Williams to guard every opponent's top big man one-on-one the entire game, and any decent big guy with a back to the basket game is going to be able to score in bundles in that type of situation. I don't care how good of a defender Williams is, the odds just aren't in his favor there.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Where is Williams going to go if McRoberts is at the high point? And why would he adjust the way a 4yr starter plays?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

TM said:


> Where is Williams going to go if McRoberts is at the high point? And why would he adjust the way a 4yr starter plays?


Have you never heard of a high post/low post frontcourt before, TM? It doesn't have to effect Williams one bit, except he would be doing more of the blue collar things that he is more comfortable with.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

> He can't do this with Williams clogging the paint


Last time I checked, the paint and the low post were pretty close to one another

and stop posting in here for a second and go check out your adam morrison thread in the draft forum :biggrin:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Have you never heard of a high post/low post frontcourt before, TM? It doesn't have to effect Williams one bit, except he would be doing more of the blue collar things that he is more comfortable with.



While I don't necessarily think that K should adjust the offense to fit one single freshman, I think his use of the freshmen has left a lot to be desired, particularly the low pt of Pocius.

But at the same time I think it is waaaaaaay too early to be second guessing McRobert's choice of school.


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

I think McRoberts has played very well for the most part. He plays aggressively unlike, say, Shav ever did. I'm not worried about a bad game early in his career.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

The Truth said:


> While I don't necessarily think that K should adjust the offense to fit one single freshman, I think his use of the freshmen has left a lot to be desired, particularly the low pt of Pocius.


Agreed. Pocius adds another dimension to the Duke offense, which currently relies too much on 2 players. If Paulus gets to play despite his defensive shortcomings, there is no reason why Pocius shouldn't be getting more minutes.

As for McRoberts, he should get more opportunities in the post, but the onus is also partly on him to become more aggressive.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Duke should probably be #1 until they lose, but Villanova is probably the best team in the country.

UConn has been absolutely unimpressive the two times I saw them in Hawaii. Gay and Boone just aren't the All-World college players some are making them out to be.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

Nimreitz said:


> Duke should probably be #1 until they lose, but Villanova is probably the best team in the country.
> 
> UConn has been absolutely unimpressive the two times I saw them in Hawaii. Gay and Boone just aren't the All-World college players some are making them out to be.


But they still won the tourney, did they not? UCONN is number one in my book.


----------



## KoBe & BeN GoRdOn! (Aug 4, 2005)

of course they should


----------



## TwinTowers (Aug 27, 2005)

Yup thay should be #1 thay are going to win the championshop later in the season.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

TM said:


> And, I still don't understand why they don't pass McRoberts the ball when he's standing in the post with a defender on him thats at least 3inches shorter than he is and 10-20lbs lighter than he is. I have yet to see why he was ranked about Tyler Hansbrough. If McRoberts doesn't show up against Texas, it could spell big time trouble for Duke.


How hard is it to understand that Josh McRoberts is a face-up post player? 

The guy isn't a natural with his back to the basket. He's never going to be Shelden Williams, Carlos Boozer, or Elton Brand. Put him in the high post and give him some space to operate, and you will change your mind about McRoberts very quickly. He has a smooth jumper, is relatively quick off his feet, and knows how to put the ball in the basket on midrange hook/floater moves. 

Coach K is very obviously utilizing him the wrong way. It will pay off, because now he gets McRoberts for another year. Still, eventually Coach K is going to have to bend his system.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

apelman42 said:


> But they still won the tourney, did they not? UCONN is number one in my book.


Gay did not no. And I think it's becoming more and more clear exactly how artificially good Boone looked next to Okafor.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> How hard is it to understand that Josh McRoberts is a face-up post player?
> 
> Put him in the high post and give him some space to operate, and you will change your mind about McRoberts very quickly. He has a smooth jumper, is relatively quick off his feet, and knows how to put the ball in the basket on midrange hook/floater moves.


You are misunderstanding what I'm saying. When I'm talking about the post, I'm talking anywhere on the court 15' and in. Obviously, he's gonna either have his back to the basket or the basket to the left or right of him if he's gonna receive it from anybody standing outside the 3pt line. I know he can shoot. I know he's quick. and I know he has handles. Don't forget who you're talking to too - they guy who spends way too much time reading about these kids when they're in 10th grade. What I'm saying is that they're not even giving him a chance to face-up. You can't face up when you don't get the ball. And even when he does have the ball in that area, generally Shelden Williams and his man are taking up the space 6' around the entire basket.



> Still, eventually Coach K is going to have to bend his system.Still, eventually Coach K is going to have to bend his system.


I have a feeling he won't be changing his system. But McRoberts is undoubtedly going to look better - if not for anything else, it'll be because he'll be the #1/#2 option.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

TM said:


> What I'm saying is that they're not even giving him a chance to face-up. You can't face up when you don't get the ball. And even when he does have the ball in that area, generally Shelden Williams and his man are taking up the space 6' around the entire basket.


So basically you agreed with everything I have said on this thread, but just wanted to disagree. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. 

If you spent too much time watching him in 10th grade, then you know he's a high post player and that he's not getting those touches. Thus, I don't understand comments like this: 



> And, I still don't understand why they don't pass McRoberts the ball when he's standing in the post with a defender on him thats at least 3inches shorter than he is and 10-20lbs lighter than he is. I have yet to see why he was ranked about Tyler Hansbrough.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Let's start over here...

My initial response was to this comment:



> He can't do this with Williams clogging the paint.


My response:



> Where is Williams going to go if McRoberts is at the high point?


If you're talking about Williams getting out of the way instead of just stading down there getting in the way, then I agree.

Since that post, I've seen several ocasions where Williams has been outside the paint (but still "posting up"), and McRoberts has caught the ball around the free throw lane then driven to the basket.

I also think it's inaccurate to act like K is the only one holding McRoberts back. K's not out there on the court. McRoberts has to make the plays. He hasn't to this point.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Thus, I don't understand comments like this:
> 
> 
> TM said:
> ...


What don't you understand? A guy can catch the ball 15' in, pivot around (creating your "face-up" play), then either 1) pull up over the guy that's 3inches shorter than he is and show off his "smooth jumper" or 2) use his "relatively quick... feet" to take it the basket.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

TM said:


> What don't you understand? A guy can catch the ball 15' in, pivot around (creating your "face-up" play), then either 1) pull up over the guy that's 3inches shorter than he is and show off his "smooth jumper" or 2) use his "relatively quick... feet" to take it the basket.


Actually, TM, I was more referring to the part of the quote about you not understanding why McRoberts was rated ahead of Hansbrough. We are basically agreeing that McRoberts hasn't had the chance to show that yet, as he is being forced to play away from his strengths. So what exactly is your issue? 

My point is that McRoberts isn't getting a chance to show what he can do, because K is making him play like a traditional low-post big man, instead of giving him touches in the high post area, where he can show off his true skills. 

The fact that Shav is contributing as much for the 76ers as he did for the Blue Devils siginficantly strengthens my point...


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

I just didn't agree that Duke should change their offense to adjust to McRoberts. But after reading it several times and knowing you - I know that you're probably saying is that Williams needs to be a little smarter and adjust where he positions himself so that McRoberts can have a chance to blossom. Am I accurage with that comment?

I also agree with you about Shav. He was a good kid and he had skills. It's good to see him getting a chance.

Sorry for my misunderstand.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

TM said:


> I just didn't agree that Duke should change their offense to adjust to McRoberts. But after reading it several times and knowing you - I know that you're probably saying is that Williams needs to be a little smarter and adjust where he positions himself so that McRoberts can have a chance to blossom. Am I accurage with that comment?


I guess I would go more along the lines of Coach K needing to develop an offense that takes advantage of more than one big man. 

I would also like to see Williams, at least some of the time, play the role of blue collar, complementary big man, to get McRoberts some post touches. I'm not saying McRoberts should take over, but just that he should have some role in the offense. He is too talented not to. Complemetary banger/rebounder is where Williams is at his best anyways.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I guess I would go more along the lines of Coach K needing to develop an offense that takes advantage of more than one big man.
> 
> I would also like to see Williams, at least some of the time, play the role of blue collar, complementary big man, to get McRoberts some post touches. I'm not saying McRoberts should take over, but just that he should have some role in the offense. He is too talented not to. Complemetary banger/rebounder is where Williams is at his best anyways.



Shelden SHOULD NEVER be a "complementary" player to _any_ big man.


----------



## Natedagreat12 (Nov 26, 2005)

after Duke raped Texas i am really a beliver that they are n.1


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Shelden SHOULD NEVER be a "complementary" player to _any_ big man.


That is what he is going to be his entire professional career.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> That is what he is going to be his entire professional career.



I guess we'll see about that...

But of course his professional career isn't what we're discussing, is it?

Great way of backing up a silly statement.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

I never said Shelden Williams should become a complementary player to McRoberts. Read what I wrote again, please. 

But if you insist -- Shelden Williams has blue collar, complementary type of game. He is a great offensive rebounder, a physical defender, an outstanding weakside shot blocker. He can score in the paint when he gets one-on-one coverage, but so can McRoberts. Williams is better at the blue-collar stuff, however. 

I know you can't handle hearing anything bad about your precious Dookie, but what I say is true. If you are looking for people to lay down the red carpet for your team, I would direct you to The Devil's Den. We attempt to engage in more rational, unbiased discussion around here.


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

sheldon williams at best becomes a poor mans elton brand.
he plays center for duke but will have to play PF and defend a bit more on the perimeter against guys like rasheed wallace in the nba and i doubt he has the foot speed.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

> sheldon williams at best becomes a poor mans elton brand.


if that's the case, he's in for a decent career.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I never said Shelden Williams should become a complementary player to McRoberts. Read what I wrote again, please.
> 
> But if you insist -- Shelden Williams has blue collar, complementary type of game. He is a great offensive rebounder, a physical defender, an outstanding weakside shot blocker. He can score in the paint when he gets one-on-one coverage, but so can McRoberts. Williams is better at the blue-collar stuff, however.
> 
> I know you can't handle hearing anything bad about your precious Dookie, but what I say is true. If you are looking for people to lay down the red carpet for your team, I would direct you to The Devil's Den. We attempt to engage in more rational, unbiased discussion around here.



You said that Shelden Williams should take a complementary role to McRoberts at times. I think that's absurd. What's biased about that? It's one Duke player vs. another Duke player. How does my Duke bias play into that?

You failed to mention that Shelden can score consistently from out to 18 feet in your nice little scouting report.

Shelden Williams is one of the best big men (if not the best big man) in the country. To say that he should play a complementary role at any time this season is absolutely silly. Unless, of course, the person making that statement has a curious affinity for white big men.

If _you_ can't handle someone questioning your silly statements, maybe _you_ should go elsewhere. We don't bow down to self-proclaimed talent evaluation experts around here.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

This is a pretty silly argument about McReynolds and Williams.Shelden is a consensus first team All American and he's playing like one each and every game.McReynolds has only recently shown signs of being a really good player.It isn't up to anyone else to make oppurtunities for McReynolds.If he wants to be a player he should consistently show up and play.Coach K probably know a little more than anyone here.When McReynolds deserves to have more of the offense revolve around him Coach K will know it.By the end of the season he's going to be an integral part of the offense,but only if he earns it himself.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> You said that Shelden Williams should take a complementary role to McRoberts at times. I think that's absurd. What's biased about that? It's one Duke player vs. another Duke player. How does my Duke bias play into that?
> 
> Shelden Williams is one of the best big men (if not the best big man) in the country. To say that he should play a complementary role at any time this season is absolutely silly. Unless, of course, the person making that statement has a curious affinity for white big men.
> 
> If _you_ can't handle someone questioning your silly statements, maybe _you_ should go elsewhere. We don't bow down to self-proclaimed talent evaluation experts around here.


Unfortunately, this isn't about evaluating Shelden Williams' game for you. It is about somebody saying something slightly negative about your favorite player. (It really isn't even a negative, it is just an observation about his game). I really think Shelden can handle it - he doesn't need a bbb.net crusader.



> You failed to mention that Shelden can score consistently from out to 18 feet in your nice little scouting report.


95% of his field goals this season have come directly underneath the basket. He doesn't have much of a perimeter game, and even if he did, Coach K wouldn't let him use it.

Please proceed with all savagry attempts at this time...


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Diable said:


> This is a pretty silly argument about McReynolds...


Who in the world is McReynolds? :laugh:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Unfortunately, this isn't about evaluating Shelden Williams' game for you. It is about somebody saying something slightly negative about your favorite player.


Like I said before, Shelden Williams is one of the best if not the best big man in the country. He should not take a complementary role to a freshman big man at any point this season. If you would like to back up that statement, please feel free. It seems to me that you are avoiding a response.

And it is about evaluating Shelden's game, you made it about that when you posted your little talent assessment.



> (It really isn't even a negative, it is just an observation about his game). I really think Shelden can handle it - he doesn't need a bbb.net crusader.


This is a discussion board. You made a comment that I thought was ridiculous, and I told you such. That's the point of a discussion board. Of course Shelden Williams doesn't need a bbb.net crusader, but at the same time neither does McRoberts. I could say the same exact thing to you about McRoberts (or Shav Randolph for the last few years for that matter).



> 95% of his field goals this season have come directly underneath the basket. He doesn't have much of a perimeter game, and even if he did, Coach K wouldn't let him use it.



Can you please post your source for the 95% statistic. And no, they haven't come from "directly underneath the basket."

All I was saying is that a comprehensive scouting report on Shelden Williams would say that he has a very consistent jump shot out to 18 feet.

I have never claimed that Shelden will be a great pro (I think he'll be an adequate player, a border line starter). However, I won't deny that he has improved immensely during his time at Duke, and while he'll never a graceful post player, his footwork has improved a ton (especially since last season). So I'm not sure how my Duke bias is playing into this, as I think we can agree that this is a fair projection of Shelden's pro career. What I am taking issue with is your statement that he should play a complementary role at times to Josh McRoberts.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Can you please post your source for the 95% statistic. And no, they haven't come from "directly underneath the basket."


It comes from watching Duke play. Half of Williams' baskets come on drive and kicks from Duke guards who draw an extra defender and find him wide open under the basket. The majority of the rest of his baskets come on short hook shots where he shields the defender with his bulky frame. You know as well as I do that this is the case. 



> All I was saying is that a comprehensive scouting report on Shelden Williams would say that he has a very consistent jump shot out to 18 feet.


Where in the world did you ever get the impression that two sentences about the roles of Williams and McRoberts in the Duke offense was supposed to be a comprehensive scouting report? 

But if he has a consistent jump shot out to 18 feet, I just haven't seen enough of it. Obviously he can hit a jumper when he is wide open, but most players can. Not even close to a strength for him. 



> I have never claimed that Shelden will be a great pro (I think he'll be an adequate player, a border line starter).


Maybe a Brian Grant or Kurt Thomas type career...



> However, I won't deny that he has improved immensely during his time at Duke, and while he'll never a graceful post player, his footwork has improved a ton (especially since last season). So I'm not sure how my Duke bias is playing into this, as I think we can agree that this is a fair projection of Shelden's pro career. What I am taking issue with is your statement that he should play a complementary role at times to Josh McRoberts.


I don't see what is so bad about my assessment. My point is that Josh McRoberts isn't a blue-collar big man. He won't get to a lot of the rebounds that Williams will. He dosen't the low-post toughness that Williams has. At the same time, McRoberts has the go-too scoring ability of a Shelden Williams. Why not play both of them in a way that emphasizes their strengths? You appear to think that Williams deserves 100% of the post scoring touches, and while it would be stupid to argue that McRoberts is better than Williams at anything at the moment (I certainly have not done that), I just think that Coach K is going to regret not developing McRoberts as a go-to scorer late in the season when a team is able to get Williams in foul trouble. 

I have no problem with you disagreeing, but I do take issue when you misconstrue what I am saying, blow my conclusions completely out of proportion, and totally blast me. 

And I will be honest - the fact that you only show up around here when somebody has something negative to say about Duke doesn't exactly do positive things for your credibility.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> It comes from watching Duke play. Half of Williams' baskets come on drive and kicks from Duke guards who draw an extra defender and find him wide open under the basket. The majority of the rest of his baskets come on short hook shots where he shields the defender with his bulky frame. You know as well as I do that this is the case.


No, actually most of Williams' baskets come from when he catches the ball in the low post with his back to the basket.





> Where in the world did you ever get the impression that two sentences about the roles of Williams and McRoberts in the Duke offense was supposed to be a comprehensive scouting report?


I didn't get that impression. Nor did I give that impression. I said that a comprehensive scouting report would include his ability to shoot consistently out to 18 feet. I was basically adding to what you had to say about his ability, I was not asserting that your assessment was intended to be a comprehensive scouting report.



> But if he has a consistent jump shot out to 18 feet, I just haven't seen enough of it. Obviously he can hit a jumper when he is wide open, but most players can. Not even close to a strength for him.


He hasn't displayed it a lot, because he spends most of his time in the low post. However, watching him play for 4 years and seeing him nail 15-18 foot jump shots when he has had the opportunity, I can positively say that he has a consistent jump shot out to 18 feet.




> Maybe a Brian Grant or Kurt Thomas type career...


I think Brian Grant would be fair--I think he could possibly be better, but I don't have a problem with that. I don't think Thomas would be accurate, though, as I think he's much softer than Williams.




> I don't see what is so bad about my assessment. My point is that Josh McRoberts isn't a blue-collar big man. He won't get to a lot of the rebounds that Williams will. He dosen't the low-post toughness that Williams has. At the same time, McRoberts has the go-too scoring ability of a Shelden Williams. Why not play both of them in a way that emphasizes their strengths? You appear to think that Williams deserves 100% of the post scoring touches, and while it would be stupid to argue that McRoberts is better than Williams at anything at the moment (I certainly have not done that), I just think that Coach K is going to regret not developing McRoberts as a go-to scorer late in the season when a team is able to get Williams in foul trouble.


I never said Williams should get all of the touches, just that he should never take a complementary role to another post player...as in, he should always be the number 1 option in the post. Actually, I would like to see McRoberts get a little more involved, just not if it comes at Shelden's expense.




> I have no problem with you disagreeing, but I do take issue when you misconstrue what I am saying, blow my conclusions completely out of proportion, and totally blast me.


You are every bit as guilty of misconstruing what I said.



> And I will be honest - the fact that you only show up around here when somebody has something negative to say about Duke doesn't exactly do positive things for your credibility.


Uh oh, Jonathan Watters doesn't think I have message board credibility. You know what, I don't give a damn if you think I have credibility. I'm a Duke fan. I'm interested in Duke. I post on Duke-related topics. What the hell is wrong with that? I never purported to be a national college basketball guru. I'll leave that to guys like you.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> No, actually most of Williams' baskets come from when he catches the ball in the low post with his back to the basket.


1 + 1 = 2. No, 1+1=2

OK, you are right. One plus one equals two. You got me. 

:banghead: 



> I never said Williams should get all of the touches, just that he should never take a complementary role to another post player...as in, he should always be the number 1 option in the post. Actually, I would like to see McRoberts get a little more involved, just not if it comes at Shelden's expense.


And this is almost EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. Admit it. You are simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. 



> Uh oh, Jonathan Watters doesn't think I have message board credibility. You know what, I don't give a damn if you think I have credibility. I'm a Duke fan. I'm interested in Duke. I post on Duke-related topics. What the hell is wrong with that?


If you are nothing more than a Duke fan, you can't take it personally when people following national college basketball have something to say other than the Duke player in question is the best at whatever the issue in question is. 

You honestly expect people to take you seriously about a Duke player's national standing when the only thing you do is belligerently defend Duke at every turn, no matter the context? 



> I never purported to be a national college basketball guru. I'll leave that to guys like you.


Please show me where I did. 

I am here for balanced hoops discussion. If I have something negative to say about Duke, I will say it. If I have something positive to say about Duke, I will say it. I'm sorry if you can't handle that. If you want to debate me with an actual agrument instead of stooping to personal attacks, we can keep it above the belt. It not, that is fine too.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> If you are nothing more than a Duke fan, you can't take it personally when people following national college basketball have something to say other than the Duke player in question is the best at whatever the issue in question is.


Now I didn't say that either, did I. I do "follow" national college basketball as well. I'm sorry, I guess I'll have to start posting in every thread. Would you like to establish a minimum non-Duke posting limit for me. Just tell me the minimum number of non-Duke posts I need to make in order to establish my credibility.



> And this is almost EXACTLY what I have been saying all along. Admit it. You are simply disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.


No, you said that Shelden should focus on rebounding and "banging," while they get McRoberts more involved on offense.



> You honestly expect people to take you seriously about a Duke player's national standing when the only thing you do is belligerently defend Duke at every turn, no matter the context?


So what exactly have I said in this conversation that is skewed by my pro-Duke bias? You still haven't told me how my statement was biased. Do you disagree that Shelden is one of the best big men in the country?





> I am here for balanced hoops discussion. If I have something negative to say about Duke, I will say it.


And if I have something to say about your statement, I will say it.



> If I have something positive to say about Duke, I will say it.


And if i have something to say about your statement, I will say it.



> If you want to debate without stooping to personal attacks, we can keep it above the belt. It not, that is fine too.


This is grand coming from the person who posted this:



> I know you can't handle hearing anything bad about your precious Dookie, but what I say is true. If you are looking for people to lay down the red carpet for your team, I would direct you to The Devil's Den. We attempt to engage in more rational, unbiased discussion around here.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

You know what, Jonathan Watters, I would appreciate it if you could provide me with a post that I made about Duke this season that is unreasonably biased.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> This is grand coming from the person who posted this:
> 
> 
> 
> > I know you can't handle hearing anything bad about your precious Dookie, but what I say is true. If you are looking for people to lay down the red carpet for your team, I would direct you to The Devil's Den. We attempt to engage in more rational, unbiased discussion around here.


And this came after you called a statement I made "silly", and made no attempt to state why you thought it was silly.

I don't understand all the anger, man. You post a barrage of personal attacks every time somebody says something negative about Duke or a Duke player, and seem to wonder why people send it right back at you. As a Blue Devil fan, do you think you command more respect than the average poster?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> And this came after you called a statement I made "silly", and made no attempt to state why you thought it was silly.


I disagreed with you and said that Shelden should never take a complementary role. You replied with a post about his NBA potential, which had nothing to do with what was being discussed. 



> I don't understand all the anger, man. You post a barrage of personal attacks every time somebody says something negative about Duke or a Duke player, and seem to wonder why people send it right back at you.


Hey man, look in the mirror. You got upset because I called your statement "silly"



> As a Blue Devil fan, do you think you command more respect than the average poster?


What the hell do you mean by this? What are you insinuating? What are you trying to back me into saying? 

I think this is probably a way for you to navigate around actually supplying me with an answer to my question.

You question my objectivity, yet you can't point to a sinlge post that I've made this season that is hindered by my supposed Duke bias--and you can't tell me how the statements I've made in this discussion are biased.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Hey man, look in the mirror. You got upset because I called your statement "silly"


Upset? I wouldn't call it upset. I merely responded in the manner in which I was spoken to. This kind of stuff doens't work me up in the least bit. 



> What the hell do you mean by this? What are you insinuating? What are you trying to back me into saying?


I'm not trying to trick you into anything. I would prefer it if you would stick to the discussion, and drop the "holier than thou because I am a Duke fan" attitude. The fact of the matter is that we essentially agree on the issue, but you are continuing this argument on some sort of semantics basis. 



> You question my objectivity, yet you can't point to a sinlge post that I've made this season that is hindered by my supposed Duke bias--and you can't tell me how the statements I've made in this discussion are biased.


I know what kind of reaction this statement is going to elicit, but nearly every post you make shows Duke bias. Would you like me to link to all of your posts?


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

fellas, stop with the :argue:, please


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I'm not trying to trick you into anything. I would prefer it if you would stick to the discussion, and drop the "holier than thou because I am a Duke fan" attitude. The fact of the matter is that we essentially agree on the issue, but you are continuing this argument on some sort of semantics basis.


haha...holier than thou because I'm a Duke fan? Where did that come from?

It's interesting that you think that after posting all that "holier than thou because I follow all college sports" comment earlier.


And no, we don't agree...because I don't think that Shelden is best utilized as a "rebounder and banger," and I don't think that he should ever be anything but the first option for Duke in the post.




> I know what kind of reaction this statement is going to elicit, but nearly every post you make shows Duke bias. Would you like me to link to all of your posts?


Example? Like I said, show me where I've made a statement that is unreasonably biased this season.

I guess I have no credibility because I didn't think the JJ Redick was overrated at the beginning of the season...which seems to look pretty reasonable right now. And because I think Shelden Williams is one of the best big men in the country.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> And no, we don't agree...because I don't think that Shelden is best utilized as a "rebounder and banger," and I don't think that he should ever be anything but the first option for Duke in the post.


And where did I say Shelden is best utilized as a rebounder and banger? I said that those are his strengths, and you really can't deny that. 



> I guess I have no credibility because I didn't think the JJ Redick was overrated at the beginning of the season...which seems to look pretty reasonable right now. And because I think Shelden Williams is one of the best big men in the country.


I agreed with you on Redick. And the funny thing is, I might just agree with you about Williams as well. But I absolutely don't think that Williams is the best big in the nation at everything he does. You seemed to really take it as a personal insult that I think Williams might not be ultimate example of a go-to big man. What it comes down to is that the minute you saw something negative about the Blue Devils, you worked yourself up into such a lather that you can't even think clearly anymore. 

If this thread isn't enough of an example, I would cite the maybe three times over the past several years that I have commented on poor officiating and Duke. Every time, I barely have time to hit submit before you are on here blasting me. I know, it is absurd to think that the man in the AmEx commercials could get the benefit of a call from time to time...


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I know, it is absurd to think that the man in the AmEx commercials could get the benefit of a call from time to time...


i sure do hope kevin love & kyle singler saw those :biggrin:


----------



## JuniorNoboa (Jan 27, 2003)

While I will have Duke moved up from #4 to #1 in my weekly rankigns (last week there was not much to separate 1-4) I think the Saturday game proves much more that Texas was not the #2 team in the country.

I think Texas may have been overhyped this year. They "justified" this hype with victories against Kentucky and Iowa which looked good about two weeks ago... now those wins don't look so great.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

JuniorNoboa said:


> I think Texas may have been overhyped this year. They "justified" this hype with victories against Kentucky and Iowa which looked good about two weeks ago... now those wins don't look so great.


west virginia and iowa. though the point still stands as west virginia dropped out of the polls.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

In fairness West Virginia never should have fallen out of the polls. They are clearly one of the best 25 teams in the country.


----------



## mullet-headed-playa (Dec 21, 2005)

i think ohio state are very underated this year,i think will make the elite eight


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

When someone guards the three and pounds them inside (Wisconsin, MSU, Michigan), they'll get crushed.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

right. just like IU did to them


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

I don't know if you're talking about Indiana or Illinois, but Ohio State have played neither this year. If you are refering to the Illinois upset last year it has really nothing to do with anything especially since Illinois was a perimeter oriented team and didn't pound them inside.

Ohio State just isn't that good. They are a fantastic shooting team for sure, but if you take that away they can't fall back on anything. They will lose to Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Michigan a combined 4 times this season at least, mark it down. I didn't include Indiana because I don't really know anything about their perimeter defense, but they will very likely lose that game as well.

Ohio State fans, just wait 'till next year.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

TM meant Duke, not Ohio State.


----------



## mullet-headed-playa (Dec 21, 2005)

why is this not called the "post your OPINION so we can ridicule it and tell you that your wrong" thread

wixer numnutz


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

Nimreitz said:


> Ohio State fans, just wait 'till next year.


sorry, nim... i didn't even read that post about OSU... how in the world did OSU even get mentioned in th first place


----------

