Nothing from Ritter's Diner, I see.

He's only here after losses.

Nice to see Lewis break out and that's the Carry we need to show up on a regular basis. 

I only got 2 words for that win.....NICE!

DukesDan wrote:

Weathers provides something to this team. He is one of those under the radar big guys that make things click.

If you look quickly now ESPN has a headline that makes it seem like a tasty Indian dish helped the Dukes win tonight.

Really?  I didn't know Joe Biranyi got into the game tonight. 
 

DukesDan wrote:

Kelly's length and athleticism are unique. If he develops as I think he can he will be a major force on the team going forward. Dambrot keeps upping his minutes and he seems to be eating them up. His confidence must be growing.

Kelly looks like he slimmed down some from what I remember seeing from his high school days.

If I were coaching this team, I would split the roster into two groups of five for the remainder of the OOC schedule and play each group together for five minute intervals. Right now, KD seems to struggle with sub strategy. 

I understand Dambrot is trying to find the right ingredients. I do think the subbing was in excess against Pitt and hurt us. Last night things worked out for the better.

Yes, Kelly showed some promise last night. Carry, to me, looks he really could be something special. Of all the young guards he sticks out.

Haven't noticed, but that press by Marshall really caused some problems in the second half.

Everhart's second year team is still the deepest most talented and experienced team I've seen since I've followed Duquesne. They went modified 1040 and it didn't go great.

rittersdiner wrote:

duq81 wrote:

rittersdiner wrote:

If I were coaching this team, I would split the roster into two groups of five for the remainder of the OOC schedule and play each group together for five minute intervals. Right now, KD seems to struggle with sub strategy. 

The same strategy that failed under RE.
 

Everhart had nowhere near the overall talent of this team.

As Steve pointed out, Ron's second team was loaded. It was the best collection of talent since Rice's second year, maybe since 1971. Aaron, Shawn, Kieron, Reggie, Tuck, Clark, Damian, Kojo, Duty. I'd trade this roster for that one in a NY minute.

Last edited by duq81 (12/06/2018 11:26 am)

I think Mr. Diner's Club misses a couple points:
1. We're all very frustrated and unhappy about the lack of sustained success that dates back to Nixon (Richard, not Norm).
2. Unlike every coach since Red Manning, Keith Dambrot has brought a vision for what he wants, and a cultural change for how to achieve it. 
3. While he tries to paint Coach Dambrot as a has-been, Coach brings high energy and passion to the table. To a man, his players talk about how he pushes them to excel. They come into the program knowing he has a vision for each of them, and how they fit into Duquesne success. I think ol' man Ritter is reading too many old L-Train quotes about Danny Nee (I used to live to coach, now I coach to live) somewhere.
4. As much as we all want to beat Pitt, the game is now over and we didn't. We should be focused on winning the A10 and getting to the NCAA Tournament. I don't want to be the NY-friggin' Mets, who suck every year but think they've accomplished something because they beat the Yankees once in six games, while the Yankees are making the postseason eevery year.
5. The season has barely started. Lots of games ahead, including the conference, the A10 tournament, and hopefully postseason. While we all love and appreciate analysis, constant whining about SOMETHING win or lose is not analysis. It's misery sharing.

To the Pit of Misery! Dilly, dilly.

Crosseye wrote:

Wait a second there, Ritter, this team does or doesn't have talent? Which is it? When they lose, they don't play like they have talent(or coaching)? When they win, they play like they have talent (probably still no coaching, though)? Or what exactly are you saying? Are you sure you're posting on the correct voy board? We're talking about Duquesne basketball here. There was a reason Aaron Jackson got a sniff in the NBA. There's a reason Everhart's teams were above .500, unlike any others during that long stretch. That second team of his was potientially every bit as good as this one. And the A10 was pretty good then, unlike now. I'd like to have some of that stuff you smoke. It seems like it's pretty good. BTW, this team is potentially pretty good, too. And oh yes, I do think Dambrot is a good coach. So was Everhart. The rest of them? Not so much.

If I thought they were talentless, I would not waste my time commenting on this board. I know there is talent and potential.on this team so when I see a 33 percent shooting night and 20 turnovers in a 20-plus point loss to Pitt, I get pissed and wonder why a performance like that happens. A lot of people on this board make excuses. I won't do that with this program.

The two biggest games they played this year were their worst performances -- ND and Pitt. That's how I judge them, against the best opponents. The next big game is Penn State. If they win or have a close game, then I'll have a little hope. If they play like they did against Pitt, then I am going to wonder why the head coach can't get a better effort out of them. As I said before. my expectations are higher than most on this board.

FAM wrote:

Duq81 - I respectfully disagree that the groups of 5 failed under RE. If I remember, the Palumbo was packed, we got local and state PR, and we won. I actually don’t know if we need that, but I don’t disagree with Ritter on this one. Don’t know if it would hurt us. Since Coach D. Is old school, and doesn’t even want to use a zone, I can’t see him doing it, but I would not have a problem with it. I think this team is just as talented...maybe will be more talented in a month. Just food for thought.

Good running teams in football run the ball in all weather against all teams.  They are committed to the run even if they are not doing well initially.  The man-to-man is the best defense when played at a high level.  It is the hardest to beat.  It takes more effort and more communication.  I am willing to bet that players would prefer a zone.  KD is committed to man-to-man.  If you switch to zone at the first sign of difficulty you are not committed.  The players will also not be committed because they can basically force the coach to switch by under-performing in the man-to-man.  Good team that pass well can always beat the zone.  It is harder to drive against a zone team but getting open 3s is easier.  You have to pick your poison....shutting down the 3s is what KD wants to do.  Long athletic wings and tough athletic bigs protecting the rim.  That is what you signed up for when you brought in KD.  I am sure there will be continued complaints about this over the years....that is where KD gets the reputation as being "stubborn".  Here is another consideration....you have to practice at something to be good. It is difficult to be great at both the zone and man-to-man...just not enough practice time.  KD uses defensive effort to determine PT....and that is established in practice.  If you win....I am sure you will say "I would do differently but it is OK by me".  If not...KD will have been unsuccessful and you will have another guy running the program...hopefully he will be a zone guy.  I am betting you will be like others and say "it is OK by me".

Go Dukes!!!!