FAM wrote:

DSnyder,
Effective football teams also pass at times and on defense, they play man to man, zone coverage, blitz at times, and at times don’t. Excellent teams don’t have to change coverages as much as other teams as they can do what they want when they want. We aren’t there. Hey, “it is okay by me” that he only plays man to man...I can say it now. However, there are some excellent teams that will use a zone at times. Why doesn’t Coach use the exact same offensive play every time? Because you have to change it up, catch the other team off guard, and see what works in certain situations. There is of course approximately 5 “general” zone defenses or combinations of such, or maybe more. I respect Coach and am not saying he HAS to play a zone. He knows more than I ever will. My point was technically based on him being old school, that I can’t see him going 5 and 5 which isn’t a complaint. I throw the no zone as an example...but again, using it now and then could be an effective tool. Just sayin’

FAM....I am sorry I used your quote.  It was the last post and discussed the zone.  My post was more directed at the board in general....those who want KD to use the zone.  And my analogy was not so good either.  I did not mean to imply that KD will never use the zone...he will.  But mostly it will be the zone press and an occasional zone to confuse the opposition.  I used the running game because I remembered how Bum Philips would run Earl Campbell all game long and the Dolphins stuffed him for 3 qtrs.  4th qtr Campbell would run over the Dolphins.  Bum was committed to the run even though it was not working throughout the game.  What I was trying to convey is that KD is committed to man-to-man much like Bum was committed to the run.  He will not play zone to hide a guy who is a weak defender.  He will recruit guys who can play man-to-man and defend the rim.  Early in the year teams will often be able to drive on the guards....that will change over time.  Rather than change to a zone...he will play those guys who play hard and those who want to play will play hard.  I am not suggesting that this works for every team or there is not a better way to do things...just that this is the way KD does it.  Hopefully you will come to like the man-to-man and appreciate that it is part of the reason Duq and KD are successful. It is also the reason why he has a deeper rotation than most teams.  He asks them to play hard on both ends and takes them out when they are tired.  

Go Dukes!!!

Last edited by Dsnyder15 (12/06/2018 3:45 pm)

Marshall had a bad night. I am happy with the talent I see from almost all 1st year dukes...however we have a long way to go to become a dominate A10 program. I feel like the days are coming...we need to start putting things together.  

levon1975 wrote:

Interesting comments on the 10-40.  I agree that the weakness was that our best players just weren't on the floor enough, or in critical parts of games. The 10-40 was based on guys going all out for their "shift" on the court, to the point that they were exhausted when the next shift checked in(full court pressure, fast breaking and getting as many shots up as possible).  So, in crunch time, guys could be "double-shifted" to get the best five on the court, but 2 or 3 of those guys were ready for a rest after playing a hard shift with their group. 

The 10/40 was indeed based on the reserves going all out. However, when Clark used it at Tulane, the second shift was composed of second line players. They knew they wouldn't be in for long, and were expected to "bust a gut" during their limited minutes. This of course, was expected to show itself most effectively on defense, and on the boards. When you try to equalize the talent on the platoons, what happens is this: against weak teams, it's very effective. Even though your first platoon is compromised by not having all of the best players on it, it's still probably better than what the opposition is putting out there. Now you bring in the second platoon, which is equally as talented as the first. This leaves the other team with a conundrum. They can either leave their starters out there, which will keep the talent gap smaller, but who are tired, or he can go to his very inferior bench, which our second platoon should blow off the floor. Sounds good huh? So what's the problem? The problem is this; when you play better teams, you are now starting the game with a lesser squad on the floor than you would have if you were starting your best guys. While the weak teams couldn't make you pay for this, the good teams most certainly will. What about when the second platoon comes in? The good team is likely to have solid talent to come in off the bench. Their coach will run his usual substitution pattern to minimize fatigue, while always keeping some of his best players on the floor. This will minimize the effect of the shock troops. At the end of the game, what has happened is that you have played your best players too few minutes, and you have minimized their effectiveness by not having all of them on the floor together. When teams play the Warriors, do you think they might rather see Curry, and Durant go to the bench when Green and Thompson come in, and vice-versa, as opposed to having to deal with all four of them at the same time for a big chunk of the game, with each of them playing fewer minutes than they do under a normal setup? I think we all know the answer to that. 10/40 might have been useful, but it was implemented incorrectly.

Dsnyder15, this is probably all going over your head because you weren't here, but this is a discussion about how Ron Everhart ran the team during his second year here. The team was loaded, but many feel that it underachieved due to the way the roster was used. Everhart went back to a standard rotation the next year, which turned out to be his finest coaching job as we reached the A 10 Championship Game, and played in the NIT. This despite having a less talented roster than the year before.