I'm still on a high from Saturday night's victory. The Tar Heels have split the last two season series with the Blue Devils, and have actually won two of three from them. If the Duke fans want to bring up the 16 of the last 20 streak, they're just playing with numbers. They have to know the tide has turned.
Tyler Hansbrough was obviously the story, but the contribution from the Tar Heel bench cannot be ignored. Carolina got 55 player-minutes from the bench (out of a possible 200), including 23 from Marcus Ginyard, who spelled Wes Miller and did a tremendous job defensively on J.J. Redick.
The point is that the Tar Heels had at least eight players with 10 or more minutes, and Byron Sanders, the ninth, played five minutes.
The only two Duke players to see action were Josh McRoberts (20 minutes) and DeMarcus Nelson (28). The box score lists four players with one minute a piece for the Blue Devils, but I think that's because Redick and some others came out with a few seconds remaining (when the Tar Heels had the game in hand) so that they could get their ovation. It may have been with 1.1 second remaining. So those players don't count.
Here goes: Mike Krzyzewski is so focused on getting as many wins as possible that he does not develop his bench players. There. I said it.
Duke players play so many minutes that they are worn out by this time of the season. I think once Krzyzewski realized Dean Smith's record was attainable, he decided to go for every game at the expense of his younger players. Perhaps he wanted J.J. to get Dickie Hemric's record so bad, that he played him every minute possible. Is that fair? Sure. Is it good for his team? No.
The Tar Heels have six losses, with four significant freshman contributors, and four players having left early for the NBA draft. The Blue Devils have three losses, but the Heels are the better team right now, on March 6, 2006. A loss here or there can be forgotten in March if the team has made great strides. The Tar Heels have.
On the other hand, the Duke team you see in November is the Duke team you'll see in March. Duke's first game was a 17 point win over Boston University. The same seven players that played all the minutes against North Carolina on March 4 played all the minutes on Nov. 14. J.J. played 39 minutes.
Duke beat Seton Hall by 53 two days later. They led by 30 at halftime. J.J., 27 minutes. Eric Boateng, who was a McDonald's All-American, played 13 minutes that game. So did Martynas Pocius. Otherwise, same seven.
Nov. 19. Duke 84, Davidson 55. J.J. - 36 minutes. Pocius and Boateng, six between them.
Duke beat Drexel by only ten points on Nov. 23, their fourth game in ten days. Fatigue? Perhaps. J.J. played 37 minutes. Pocius, 13; Boateng, 4.
Why is Redick playing so many minutes in these blowouts? He played 32 minutes in a 33 point win over UNCG. Why isn't K developing his bench? Is he a) trying to get Redick the scoring title, b) trying to catch Dean Smith? Both? Probably. Trying to impress recruits with big scores? Probably. If he really wants to impress them, he'll develop his bench players into solid contributors.
Jan. 2. Bucknell. 34 point win. Redick, 33 minutes. By this time, Pocius is turning in 13-17 minutes in big wins. But Boateng languishes with three minutes and two points. This is a young man who is 6-10, 255. McDonald's All-America, representing the World Select team at the Nike Hoops Summit, averaging 21 points, 16 rebounds, five blocked shots and two assists during his senior year of high school. Could be a big help off the bench, couldn't he? You'd think.
So K is playing only seven or eight players all season, and the margins get closer and closer. They lose at Georgetown, then beat Virginia Tech and Virginia. Since beating Virginia by 19 on Jan. 28, the Devils' average margin of victory was eight points or less in six of eight games. Then they drop two. Surprised? Yes, but should we be after looking at those numbers?
So the word comes out that J.J.'s tired. He's exhausted. Going after the scoring record and all the distractions that come with have drained him. Really? Whose fault is that, Mike? You've got no one playing behind your starters. You've got seven players averaging 21 minutes or more, and the next is Pocius at 6.5. Throw out his appearances in those blowouts mentioned above, and it's easy to see why this team folds down the stretch.
Why is it rumored that Eric Boateng and David McClure want to transfer? Because if you don't play as a freshman at Duke, you aren't going to play for the next three years. McRoberts and Paulus are fine, but it appears Krzyzewski is content to recruit a kid like Boateng just so he won't have to play against him somewhere else. That's not me being bitter about not getting recruits - Ol' Roy is doing just fine, thanks.
Duke's got another great class coming in next year. But those kids better hope they see the floor right away, and see a lot of it. Because if they don't, they won't.
More evidence that players don't develop at Duke? Think of the two best Duke players in the NBA. Elton Brand and Corey Maggette, right? Combined, they spent three years under K. Trajan Langdon? Christian Laettner? Chris Carrawell? Even Grant Hill. Pro careers never panned out after they were the next big thing at Duke. Carrawell was an ACC player of the year. Drafted #41.
If you don't play as a freshman right away at Duke, you aren't going to get the minutes to develop as a player while you're in college. Why do you think Shavlik Randolph came out? Of course he wasn't ready, by anyone's definition. But he wasn't going to get ready under Mike Krzyzewski.
Shavlik could have been playing (or sitting) Saturday in Cameron Indoor Stadium. Shavlik was the biggest recruit to come out of the state of North Carolina in a long time.
On the other bench was David Noel, a football player who walked on to the basketball team at North Carolina. Today he was named second-team All-ACC as a senior. He developed.
|
||||
|
Duke's bench development (or lack thereof)
Comments
Re: Duke's bench development (or lack thereof)
by
Drew
on Mon 06 Mar 2006 10:08 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Great stuff. K's approach was different in the early '90's. He recruited similar to the way Roy recruits now. A few big timers and some less talented but very solid role players. During the regular season, Duke won, but they lost some too...remember the 20 point loss to the Heels in the ACC Tourney followed by a National Championship? Those teams were built for March, and it showed with the incredible run of Final 4's. Now K's approach seems different. As stated in the original post, he seems more concerned with racking up big wins early at the expense of the team late. Hopefully this comes back to bite em again this year. I'm not seeing a final 4 in their future.
Re: Duke's bench development (or lack thereof)
by
Todd
on Mon 06 Mar 2006 10:36 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
Yo man, if they scerw up let them screw up, don't give them any ideas.
Re: Duke's bench development (or lack thereof)
by
bah0916
on Mon 06 Mar 2006 11:28 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
My oh my, Mr. Walston! You have done your HW! In the same breath however, do you think that Roy would have done the same for the seniors this year? Some food for thought...
GO HEELS! Re: Duke's bench development (or lack thereof)
by
Coach Tim
on Wed 08 Mar 2006 08:55 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
I agree JJ is tired but it's because (a) he has been carrying a team with developing talent, except for Sheldon Wms who has helped with the load; (b) was his Coach letting him go for the scoring record and an increase in his NBA stock, absolutely and I believe Coach Williams and any other good NCAA coach would have done (and in the future will do) the same; (c) teams have doubled and tripled and held and pushed and punished him all year long. I don't believe Coach K is more focused on Dean's record than on his team's overall welfare, any more than I believe some of the bad stuff that was said about Dean for decades. Would I bet against Duke or UNC's team in the NCAA tourney? Nope. Do I think Duke will go farther? Yep. Only because I think they will get a better draw and because Coach K has proven - like him or hate him - he can make a run in the NCAA more consistently than any coach in the history of the tourney with the exception of John Wooden, with great teams and good teams, overachievers and underachievers, tired teams and healthy teams. But you don't want me clogging up your blog with Duke optimism, so let me close by saying why in the world would I characterize Duke as a developing team? History lesson - look back at Duke teams that have won the NCAA tourney and the ACC tourney and the ACC regular season - the stars of those teams were more often than not guys who developed slowly as freshmen and sophomores but were nearly unstoppable as juniors and seniors. That's no knock on the Heels and their incredible second half of the season. I am one of those crazy ACC fans who wishes every year 4 ACC teams could go to the Final Four. Some day . . .
Re: Duke's bench development (or lack thereof)
by
spigo
on Thu 09 Mar 2006 01:07 PM EST | Profile | Permanent Link
i've got no comments on the duke bench, but i just wanted to drop a line and say that it was great seeing jtw3, heelsbloggirl, and coach tim this past weekend. you should all come visit me and gillian in houston sometime. but probably after basketball season, so you don't miss any good games.
well, the acc tourney is officially underway with clemson leading miami at the half right now. i love this time of the year. Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
HeelsBlog Sponsors
Login
Search
Recent Visitors
waltbaby8 - Mon 28 Jun 2010 05:05 PM EDT
jtw3 - Mon 10 May 2010 02:14 PM EDT
Todd - Tue 04 May 2010 03:29 PM EDT
bah0916 - Sat 01 Aug 2009 07:46 PM EDT
Johanna bartley - Mon 20 Jul 2009 12:51 PM EDT
Recent Comments
|
|||
