NCAA hoops question?

#26
#26
VKAman said:
Exactly. That matters a lot when you're trying to run your offense through the post, which is the best way to win in the tourney.
Click to expand...

Do you watch Duke? With Kelly, they don't pay attention to Plumlee down low, so them spreading the doesn't matter because they will never be an inside out team. They don't usually dont land marquee low post players because K's teams always live and die by the 3 ball.
 
#27
#27
allvol_12 said:
They didn't play a road game till conference schedule started.
Click to expand...

They played and beat plenty of high-caliber opponents on neutral courts. Feel free to say that does not matter, but seeing as how the entire NCAA Tournament takes place on neutral courts, I doubt your argument gets very far.

Duke with Kelly was a great team. Duke without Kelly is a team that has a much harder time feeding the post and penetrating; and, therefore, also must take more contested threes. Further, with Kelly on the perimeter and a large-sized defender out there with him, offensive rebounds are easier for Duke to grab. With Kelly on the floor on defense, as opposed to Hairston, more defensive rebounds are going to be grabbed by Duke (5.4 rpg v. 2.2 rpg). Kelly is 6'11" and is an ******* on defense.

Denying that the loss of Kelly is anything but a huge impact for Duke is ridiculous. Denying that Duke was a great team with Kelly is also borderline ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
allvol_12 said:
Do you watch Duke? With Kelly, they don't pay attention to Plumlee down low, so them spreading the doesn't matter because they will never be an inside out team. They don't usually dont land marquee low post players because K's teams always live and die by the 3 ball.
Click to expand...

Don't usually land marquee low post players?

Battier
Boozer
Brand
Sheldon Williams

Coach K plays to the strength of his teams. When you have a Langdon, a Reddick, a Curry, etc., you are going to look to get those guys shots. When you have solid low post players and three-point shooters, you give the defense a decision: either collapse and stop easy points down low or guard the perimeter and risk penetration and layups.

Given the choice, most coaches are going to collapse and choose to risk losing by the three-pointer. Without Kelly, it is much easier to defend both the perimeter and the post against Duke.
 
#29
#29
therealUT said:
Don't usually land marquee low post players?

Battier
Boozer
Brand
Sheldon Williams
.
Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point. This is in comparison to teams the have a traditional two big lineup. He wants a stretch 4, and I'm true guys that are a force on the low block. That's just their.style of play


They will never be an inside out team under K.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
therealUT said:
They played and beat plenty of high-caliber opponents on neutral courts. Feel free to say that does not matter, but seeing as how the entire NCAA Tournament takes place on neutral courts, I doubt your argument gets very far.

Duke with Kelly was a great team. Duke without Kelly is a team that has a much time feeding the post and penetrating; and, therefore, also must take more contested threes. Further, with Kelly on the perimeter and a large-sized defender out there with him, offensive rebounds are easier for Duke to grab. With Kelly on the floor on defense, as opposed to Hairston, more defensive rebounds are going to be grabbed by Duke (5.4 rpg v. 2.2 rpg). Kelly is 6'11" and is an ******* on defense.

Denying that the loss of Kelly is anything but a huge impact for Duke is ridiculous. Denying that Duke was a great team with Kelly is also borderline ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I've never really seen someone say he is good on defense. I didn't say it wasn't a huge loss, I'm disputing the great team argument you are making.
 
Last edited:
#31
#31
allvol_12 said:
Thanks for making my point. This is in comparison to teams the have a traditional two big lineup. He wants a stretch 4, and I'm true guys that are a force on the low block. That's just their.style of play


They will never be an inside out team under K.
Click to expand...

Because Battier, Brand, Boozer, and Williams are stretch fours in the Association, does not mean that they were not marquee low-post players for Duke. That would be like saying that Nick Collison and Scott Pollard were not marquee low-post players at KU. These guys were low-post players in college and they were great low-post players in college.

Granted, you are only 23, thus you probably have little to no memory of most of these teams, at least not in intricate detail. I suggest you go back and watch a game or two of Battier and Boozer at Duke. You will find them playing and dominating opponents in the low-post.

allvol_12 said:
I've never really seen someone say he is good on defense. I didn't say it wasn't a huge loss, I'm disputing the great team argument you are making.
Click to expand...

I said he is an ******* on defense and he gets defensive rebounds (5.2 rpg). Hairston is no better than Kelly on defense; and, Hairston is weak on the boards.

Duke was the number one team in the nation, had one of the nation's toughest schedules, was the top team in the RPI, and was undefeated with Kelly. Nobody in the country had an answer for Duke with Kelly in the lineup.
 
#32
#32
They would still be behind Miami in the ACC. Kadji would give them problems still, with or without Kelly.
 
#33
#33
Based off Style of play, and number of big time low post players brought in, compared to UNC, I'm gonna have to disagree. Battier is not a low post player. Boozer was, and is good, but when comparing they don't have as many.
 
#34
#34
allvol_12 said:
They would still be behind Miami in the ACC. Kadji would give them problems still, with or without Kelly.
Click to expand...

So, if Duke does not shoot less than 30% from the field and less than 20% from beyond the arc, and Miami does not shoot greater than 55% from the field and greater then 45% from beyond the arc, and Duke wins this coming Saturday, does Kadji have anything to do with it?

The Miami game was a prime example of Duke having to live off of contested three-point shots because they could not penetrate and dish. Knowing Coach K, I imagine that he will come out with a variety of new sets against Miami in an attempt to either get points in the paint or get open and uncontested looks from beyond the arc.

Personally, I would not put money on Miami in this rematch.
 
#35
#35
Miami will win IMO. Not because I don't root for Duke, but they have nobody that can guard Larkin or Kadji. Gamble is a tough interior defender, and Plumlee is not the greatest when he has to make a move down low. They just don't match up well with them. We shall see though.

Miami did shoot really well at home, but they play good defense, and Kadji is a true matchup nightmare. Almost seven footer, NBA range, and can drive to the basket. Kelly can't stay in front of him either. You can't say what if and discredit their performance. They are older,and better.
 
#36
#36
allvol_12 said:
Based off Style of play, and number of big time low post players brought in, compared to UNC, I'm gonna have to disagree. Battier is not a low post player. Boozer was, and is good, but when comparing they don't have as many.
Click to expand...

Battier was a low-post player in college. Who are these big-time low-post players that UNC has brought in?

What I interpret to be happening is that you are somehow equating NBA position to college position. This is ridiculous. Thomas Robinson will continue to develop as a stretch four in the NBA; he was solidly a low-post player at KU. Hansbrough is turning into less of a low-post player everyday in the NBA. There are very few college low-post players that remain low-post players in the NBA. Whithey and Plumlee will remain low-post players in the NBA.

Currently in the NBA, Tyson Chandler and Dwight Howard might be the only two pure low-post players in anyone's starting five. Yet, most of the fours and fives in the NBA were pure low-post players in college.
 
#37
#37
allvol_12 said:
Miami did shoot really well at home.
Click to expand...

56% from the field.
47% from three.

For a team that is shooting 46% from the field and 35% from three, for the season, Miami was shooting out of its mind that night.

29% from the field.
17% from three.

For a team that is shooting 47% from the field and 42% from three, for the season, Duke was shooting abysmally.

One cannot not look at those stats and say it is unreasonable to think that Miami caught Duke on a night when Miami could not miss while Duke could not hit the broadside of a barn. If these two teams are shooting closer to how they normally shoot, I would not favor Miami.
 
#38
#38
Sean May
Tyler Hansbrough
Tyler Zeller
Marvin Williams
Brandon Wright
Ed Davis
John Henson
James McAdoo
Brice Johnson
Isiah Hicks
Kennedy Meeks

Doesn't even include some of the guys that played against guys like Boozer and Battier

Its really not that close. These are just the guys that Roy has brought in. All HS all Americans. Roy's offense has ro have a good point guard, and two good post players. Which is why it took him so long this year to go to 4 guard lineup. He doesn't like it, but has to this year with not much experience on the the block.
 
#39
#39
allvol_12 said:
Sean May
Tyler Hansbrough
Tyler Zeller
Marvin Williams
Brandon Wright
Ed Davis
John Henson
James McAdoo
Brice Johnson
Isiah Hicks
Kennedy Meeks

Doesn't even include some of the guys that played against guys like Boozer and Battier

Its really not that close. These are just the guys that Roy has brought in. All HS all Americans. Roy's offense has ro have a good point guard, and two good post players. Which is why it took him so long this year to go to 4 guard lineup. He doesn't like it, but has to this year with not much experience on the the block.
Click to expand...

I laughed. Good one.
 
#40
#40
Laughed? You asked me to name players, I did, and about 5 or so guys have rings on that list. Since 2005.
 
Last edited:
#41
#41
allvol_12 said:
Laughed? You asked me to name players, I did, and about 5 or so guys have rings on that list. Since 2005.
Click to expand...

Congrats. First, there are players on that list who were never anything but stretch fours. Second, the players that you consider low-post players play the exact same way that Battier, Boozer, Brand, Williams, Collison, Pollard, etc. played in college.

All you did was provide a list of players that merely by position designation have been fours and fives for UNC. Congrats.

And, what does the fact that they have rings on their fingers have to do with their position? I'm pretty sure that Battier and Boozer have rings.
 
#42
#42
Every single guy on that list played 4 or 5 at UNC and was used on the low post.

They never ventured out to the 3 pt line a la Kelly.
 
#44
#44
This was a good thread until there was too much Dook injected in it.
 
#47
#47
allvol_12 said:
Do you watch Duke? With Kelly, they don't pay attention to Plumlee down low, so them spreading the doesn't matter because they will never be an inside out team.
Click to expand...

First 10 minutes of the game last night, UNC decided to take away the low post. Curry lit UNC up for 15 in the first 10 minutes. After that, UNC decided to focus on guarding Curry and the perimeter...how many did Plumlee have in the last 30 minutes of that game?
 
#48
#48
Curry lit it up, and Plum did what didn't do the first game. Defense wasn't the problem though. Duke forced UNC into terrible shots, and guarded the 3 ball well. This team needs a true center. JMM is out of position at the 5.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top