duq81 wrote:

During our dark days, I often saw critics say that it wasn't the coaches that were the problem at Duquesne. After 11 games of Keith Dambrot, I'm convinced that despite all of our other shortcomings, our troubles were indeed mostly caused by bad coaches. We had one solid coach during that stretch, and he got solid results. KD comes in, and despite the fact than any promised improvements have yet to become reality, the difference in what we're putting on the floor is obvious to anyone who cares to look. The one thing the folks in charge did do, was deciding to spend the money to get the best coach they could. Coaching is everything in college hoops. Good times are on the way.

Nooooooooooooooo.


Yes. In the waning seconds we ran a play that had been practiced.

As opposed to: "DC, you get the ball up the court as fast as you can and shoot." Which is how Lamar ended the game, BTW.

I think Dambrot is the real deal as well, but this team has gone 8-3 against the 343rd ranked schedule, played all at home (or close enough to home you can park in the same spot as a home game.) Any improvement has to be weighed against that schedule. I think it makes any analysis pretty impossible.  This is a much softer schedule than the one JF went 10-3 against in 15-16, for comparison.  

I disagree with the coaches are everything in college basketball, too. You need good players. You need to coach them up and develop them, but you can be the best coach in the world and if your players aren't talented and athletic, you'll find it difficult to succeed.

I think in the lower tiers of college basketball, you can get by on strictly coaching, or strictly recruiting. Once you start climbing the ladder though, you will run into trouble if you aren't good at both. This isn't an original thought, of course, but it seems pretty true.

For example, Jamie Dixon is a heck of a coach. In the old Big East, he was successful, despite not being a very good recruiter. He reached the ACC, and well, most of the guys there can coach really well too, so you need to have players. A few years of bad luck recruiting and, well - he's at a different school in a different conference. Even Coach K at Duke has changed religions and join the Church of the One and Done to compete. 

It is too soon to tell with Dambrot where he'll end up as recruiting goes (though looking good based on star ratings, etc), but he's certainly shown signs that he's developed the players he has, with again, considering that they've had more talent than any of the teams they've played thus far aside from Pitt. 

I am curious to see how he performs against the coaches of the A10, though. There has been a sort of changing of the guard, so to speak, with some schools losing some coaching talent, and others gaining it. Duquesne may have gained the most, but UMass has had some really impressive results so far, too. I think Dambrot's philosophy will travel better, but again - will the Dukes make enough shots for the coaching to matter?

Anyways, I'm on PTO and in the mood to post on message boards, so hi.

Ultimately, I'd bet on Dambrot to be successful - but I'm not expecting too much this year, not that I think anyone here is, aside from the team competing each game.

mm76or99 welcome back.  I hear your point that you need talented players as well as coaching to be successful.  The converse is also true that you can have talented players but if you have a coach who can't teach, develop, and motivate players you will not be successful.  I believe the later description was Jim Ferry.  He proved without a doubt that he was not able to teach, develop or motivate his team to play defense regardless of the level of competition.   The proof is that Dambrot basically took Ferry's team and now having them play solid if not yet perfect defense.  I expect this team to continue to get better but have to say he has exceeded my expectations so far.

Last edited by CLK (12/20/2017 4:58 pm)

Tejas_Duke wrote:

CLK wrote:

mm76or99 welcome back.  I .  The converse is also true that you can have talented players but if you have a coach who can't teach, develop, and motivate players you will not be successful.  I believe the later description was Jim Ferry. 

Or a better historical example would be Scott Edgar, who many on this board have pointed out, somehow managed to take a team with Nick Bosnic, Kevin Price, Mike James and Tom Pipkins on it for two years and manage to win less games than Ferry did last year, with a much less talented squad
 

Oh, don't get me started on Edgar. In my opinion, he was the one who took us from also ran, to pathetic.
 

mm76or99 wrote:

I think Dambrot is the real deal as well, but this team has gone 8-3 against the 343rd ranked schedule, played all at home (or close enough to home you can park in the same spot as a home game.) Any improvement has to be weighed against that schedule. I think it makes any analysis pretty impossible.  This is a much softer schedule than the one JF went 10-3 against in 15-16, for comparison.  

I disagree with the coaches are everything in college basketball, too. You need good players. You need to coach them up and develop them, but you can be the best coach in the world and if your players aren't talented and athletic, you'll find it difficult to succeed.

I think in the lower tiers of college basketball, you can get by on strictly coaching, or strictly recruiting. Once you start climbing the ladder though, you will run into trouble if you aren't good at both. This isn't an original thought, of course, but it seems pretty true.

For example, Jamie Dixon is a heck of a coach. In the old Big East, he was successful, despite not being a very good recruiter. He reached the ACC, and well, most of the guys there can coach really well too, so you need to have players. A few years of bad luck recruiting and, well - he's at a different school in a different conference. Even Coach K at Duke has changed religions and join the Church of the One and Done to compete. 

It is too soon to tell with Dambrot where he'll end up as recruiting goes (though looking good based on star ratings, etc), but he's certainly shown signs that he's developed the players he has, with again, considering that they've had more talent than any of the teams they've played thus far aside from Pitt. 

I am curious to see how he performs against the coaches of the A10, though. There has been a sort of changing of the guard, so to speak, with some schools losing some coaching talent, and others gaining it. Duquesne may have gained the most, but UMass has had some really impressive results so far, too. I think Dambrot's philosophy will travel better, but again - will the Dukes make enough shots for the coaching to matter?

Anyways, I'm on PTO and in the mood to post on message boards, so hi.

Ultimately, I'd bet on Dambrot to be successful - but I'm not expecting too much this year, not that I think anyone here is, aside from the team competing each game.

Your point is well taken 76orand I don't think anyone here expects them to finish over .500 in A10 (???), but they did beat the 5 bottom feeders fairly routinely. Lamar appears to be equal to a middle of the pack A10 team, and they won when they didn't shoot very well because defense and rebounding are constants.  This weekend will tell us a little more, but I won't be discouraged if they lose 2.  This is almost entirely Ferry's team, and KD has nine of own coming next year.  The only question in my mind is whether in 2 years they  can be a top 50 team, or worst case 100-125 NIT team.

the competition has been weak, no doubt. but there is so much going on that goes way beyond the box score, and I believe its the coaching.
Coach D is super competitive, in every thing he does. His assistants are clones of him.
This teams seems, compared to teams in the past:
1. they are better prepared
2. mentally tough
3. playing with passion and joy--its like tarin, rene, and JR rediscovered their love of the game.
4. the hustle--diving for loose balls
5. better defensive mentally and discipline--ball/you/man, switching, talking
6. Their is a offensive philosophy.
7. all of the coaches are constantly coaching, working with the players , talking to players, pulling players aside.(I've said it before, will say it again--this is the best collection of assistant coaches we have had in forever..)
8. the team has taken on an identity and its their coaches identity

so while the competition has been weak and things are going to get tougher, the foundation has been laid for future success!

**i gave up my season tickets during the JF error, I signed up for them the day after KD was hired.. heck, I wanted to check on eligibility. I was so fired up, i was ready to play...**

There are four things that counter-balance the last two posts.  One deals with the coaching and three deal with the make-up of the team.

First, the expectation level for KD has been realized.  What wasn't expected is the competency level of his assistants.  The defense changes can be attributed, in my opinion, to the fact that former guards are coaching our guards, former forwards are coaching our forwards and KD is obviously getting into the heads of our centers/big people.

Second, as to the make-up of the team these things stand out.  No one, even the coaching staff, realized what a jewel they had in Eric Williams, Jr.  He immediately filled a void at the 3 and sometimes the 2.  His rebounding aided and abetted the 4 and 5 slots.  Chas. Brown was a total unknown to any of our faithful until number zero appeared on the team roster.  He fills a huge void in the middle we faithful ahven't seen in a long, long time.  And a football player on scholarship, Kellon Taylor, who was a starter on the hoops team at DeMatha Catholic in Washington, D.C., has brought energy and competitive fire to this team.  He has emerged as a prime time player for the team, lack of overall team talent or no!!  His last game against Lamar epitomized those qualities.  I looked at San Fran's Roster photo and I immediately saw our next year's team roster photo!!  Gawd, they are huge.  Yet, the Dukes are a mere 2.5 to 3.5 underdog tonight.  To me that means they need to play with one less turnover per half tonight to give them a better chance to prevail.  That is not an unattainable objective.

That being said, there is more reason to be on the half full side of the glass as opposed to the half empty side.  Yeah, there will be bumps in the road.  Yet it remains that the Dukes are one game at a time making believers of themselves. I see that eye of the tiger in the players as I view the games from my end zone seat.
 

Last edited by grammudder (12/22/2017 9:11 am)

Jwsa6 wrote:

@[b][b][b]mm76or99 I completely agree with your post.  I do not post on this forum ever, but I do read it consistently and I am a huge die-hard Dukes fan.  I will say that I think most of the people on this board are overly optimistic about Dambrot.  Believe you me when I say that I loved the hire of Dambrot and the direction that this program is taking.  It is encouraging.  I will say, though, that they have played horrible opponents thus far and they lost to Cornell and Robert Morris at home.  That should not happen and it should show everyone the severe lack of talent and depth that is currently on this team.  The Atlantic 10 is having their worst year since the 1990s.  Having said that, the Dukes will be very fortunate if they win six conference games.  I think that everyone needs to be more realistic about this year.  There are a lot of things to look forward to.  Possibly, and I take this with a major grain of salt, a renovated arena and new practice facility and Dambrot has shown he can recruit already with the commitments of three star recruits, which Duquesne never ever gets.  The next four games will determine the fate of this team this season.  Although San Fran and Southern Illinois are not great opponents, they are much better than Duquesne.  If they beat San Fran and Southern Illinois, I will chalk it up to Dambrot and his coaching.  The two games after that are Dayton and GW.  Going 0-4 would dismantle their season and, I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but I am not thinking they are going to win any of those games.[/b][/b][/b]

 
Unfortunately you broke your own rule of " I do not post on this forum ever"

Welcome Jwsa6! As I've asked previously, who SHOULD the Dukes have scheduled this year? When the year started, we had two returning starters (Lewis II and Smith), three guys who were abused by the previous regime (Castro-Caneddy, James, and Robinson), a returning walk-on (Taylor), two freshman scholarship players (Verhoeven and Williams Jr.), a rail-thin JUCO forward (Krivacevic), and a 6-8 prospect who was paying his own way on campus (Kratholm). Do you really want to send eight scholarship players on the road to Power 5 conference teams to get the crap pounded out of them every night?

I don't think that would have helped the program in any way. As bad as the losses to Pitt, Bobby Mo and Cornell were, we were even more-short-handed than what I described above, plus the two freshmen were still cutting their teeth. I think if we replayed any of those games now, the outcomes would be different.

We'll certainly get a better understanding of what this team is come A10 season. But even our conference is down a little this year, and if we were to go 8-10, 9-9, 10-8, I'm sure there will be some fussin' in the media that we stepped in some lucky poop this year.

But the truth is in the eye test as well as the numbers. We play better defense. We run an offense. We work the post. Playing time is consistent. Guys get sat for judgment lapses. Excuses are not given and players are no longer covered in bus tire tracks.

Coaching does indeed make a difference.

i don't see people being unrealistic or overly optimistic about this years team.
I think people are very optimistic about the future of the program under coach D.
Coach D is laying the foundation for a winning program..he isn't going brick by brick..I think he poured the whole concrete slab this year...

 

VBC wrote:

ElDuque wrote:

 the truth is in the eye test

Keith Dambrot passed the eye test with me (choose 1)
A- when he was coaching the Akron Zips.
B- at his introductory press conference.
C- during the first game he coached the Dukes.
D- all of the above.

Our previous coach never passed the eye test with me.
 

Neither did Nee, DAP, or Scott Edgar.

I would take 9 or 10 wins going into the conference schedule most any year... even with the easy ones built in.  Dambrot is the man. 

I think they thought they had him hired when they let Ron go but couldn't complete the deal.  Otherwise, that was a very, very sorry move.

If KD had a full stable, they would have won the RMU game and had a better chance to take down Pitt on a down year.