BluffHunter wrote:

Wildwood, he's right. Your comments are asinine and you're trying to start arguments with multiple people. You're literally calling people pathetic man... look in the mirror. The whole basis of this thread were your uneducated and ludicrous statements. Posts like this are why people don't participate in this board.

calling out Dambrot who is trying to bring Duquesne back to greatness is frustrating.. Let him do his job without ant idiotic comments which could damage the program. Hey genius don’t you think recruits & parents follow this board? Bluff Hunter your weak my friend. Man up. In Coach Dambrot I trust.
,

Ironduke81 wrote:

BluffHunter wrote:

Wildwood, he's right. Your comments are asinine and you're trying to start arguments with multiple people. You're literally calling people pathetic man... look in the mirror. The whole basis of this thread were your uneducated and ludicrous statements. Posts like this are why people don't participate in this board.

calling out Dambrot who is trying to bring Duquesne back to greatness is frustrating.. Let him do his job without ant idiotic comments which could damage the program. Hey genius don’t you think recruits & parents follow this board? Bluff Hunter your weak my friend. Man up. In Coach Dambrot I trust.
,

I think you have it confused, I'm with you!! In Dambrot I trust!!!
 

I am not starting arguments, I stated facts that we have lost 14 of 23 players. Of which 12 out 21 were his recruits. I offered a solution of local players. Then one poster calls it jibberish in one statement about the lower conference players from our area might help us. That players from lower conferences could not help out teams from stronger conferences. Then he makes the statement of the three remaining transfers on our team from lower conferences being our cornerstone. ( I agree they are our cornerstones and made huge progress this season) But I would say that's contradictory on his poin as Phil pointed out.

The next poster tells me to shut up and that I am clueless with out any explanation for his reasoning. Then proceeds to call it the dumbest post. Meanwhile it has a considerable amount of views. The third poster agrees that it is asinine, uneducated and ludicrous. Again with no explaination as to why.  Then one of the previous posters calling me out, states the comments are idiotic and sarcastically calls me a genius.

I am NOT against  Dambrot in any way. I just posted that I find the recruiting worrisome with the mass turnover. I realize that turning around a basement program is difficult. I also understand that he is determined to turn this program around and he needs all the support he can get. But this is a fan board and people are going to have opinions wether they be positive or negative, wether you personally agree or disagree. But calling people out like some these posters do is uncalled for. When they disagree they should put why, instead of the ridicules name calling. I am exhausted on this subject. Time to move on and best of luck to the new recruits and next years team.

I would trust Dambrot in terms of recruiting. You’re never going to be able to target a 5 star player that’s not who our program is even though I sure wish it was. Dambrot’s bringing in diamonds in the rough. Players like Eric Williams, Carry, Hughes, Weathers shows that we need to value development rather than the number of stars that’s listed below their name.

I think the recruiting concerns are valid. There is no proven depth, and with the turnover on the underclassmen, not much in the way of development either. Marcus and Mike could both transfer out tomorrow, and the Dukes would have no room for error at all. He's going into year 4, and after his transfers leave, only Carry is an actual A-10 player at this point. I think Maceo gets there, but he isn't there yet. Lamar is a non factor to this point, but he could still become more than that. After Mike, the bigs are all question marks. Dambrot found some  unrecruited guys who developed into big time players before, but we'd be foolish to think that pattern is sustainable. 

It's fine to trust in Dambrot, but it's fine to be concerned about the recruiting too. Dambrot is getting paid a lot of money and with that, questions are fair game.
I wasn't satisfied with the RE era  and the 1 NIT loss it delivered, and i'm not nearly satisfied with the Dambrot era either. I don't think Dambrot came to Duquesne to win more than he lost. He came to win big and hang banners.
He is a good coach, and I don't think his teams will ever suck, but to win big and to hang those banners, I think, the recruiting/retention needs to improve.

CLK wrote:

mm, let me see if I can summarize what I think you are saying

1. Carry is the only A10 quality player on the team (assuming Marcus and Mike transfer - you are not saying that they will).  Which means none of the other existing players are not A10 players. So TDM, Maceo, Rotroff, Norman  & Kelly are not A10 players.
 

To this point, only Carry has been an A10 player, yes, at least as a starter. TDM is an A10 player, (though he could also grad transfer,) but more of a specialist,  and wasn't an effective starter. When his shot is falling, he's a guy you want on your team. I said I think Maceo gets there, but he hasn't gotten there yet. I'm not sure he makes any All A10 teams, but I do think he shows he belongs, hopefully this year. Lamar - he could still develop, he didn't get a ton of minutes his freshman year, but he's not really shown anything. Rotroff I think has to prove it yet. I don't know that I've seen anything to suggest he can anchor a defense like Mike can though. Maybe a full year of rehab will change that, we'll have to see.  I don't expect Kelly to give the team much next year, but that is due to the injury. He was pretty raw his freshman year before the injury, but if I had to pick one guy I'd love to see develop into an A10 player, it would be Kelly.

CLK wrote:

2. You do not believe that the current recruiting class are not A10 caliber players.  I assume you mean that because you reference the period after the transfers leave (Weathers, Mike & TDM). So Acuff, Roesing, Harris, Bekelja and Baker are not A10 players
 

Overall - I'd say that I am going to wait and see, but I don't expect much from any of these guys next year, barring more transfers or injuries.
I think it is pretty rare for incoming freshmen, at Duquesne at least, to be A10 players. I think Acuff will get some minutes, but barring injury, he's going to be blocked by Carry (I'd be delighted if he does play well enough for Carry to play less minutes per game though) Roeslng could push  Lamar though, especially if his shot translates. I think he's going to need time, like most freshmen, to get up to speed defensively. Harris seems the most likely to get minutes his freshman year, assuming he is still coming to Duquesne. I don't expect him to be especially effective as a freshman in the A10 though, again, especially defensively. I don't expect Bekeljia to get much playing time. I don't know what to make of Baker, but assuming Harris comes, I expect him to get less minutes. I think this class is, on paper, less exciting than Carry's class, but more exciting than Maceo's class (though I think Maceo was a bigger get than any of these guys, save maybe Roesling. I thought Maceo was going to be better than he has though, to this point.) Both of those classes lost a lot of guys though, so I don't think it is crazy to suggest that is the new normal (and that is everywhere, and not a knock on Duquesne or Dambrot.)   

CLK wrote:

3. You are not satisfied with the Dambrot era of 16, 19 & 21 wins because he did not win a championship.  I assume that is what you mean  because that is the extent of the Dambrot era to date. This is a question because actually it is not clear. Maybe you mean you don't think he can win a championship next year with that roster full of non A10 player.
If I have misstated please clarify.

 

Fair poin, it isn't clear what I meant. Duquesne isn't UK or UCLA in the 70's though, so they'd hang any banner they could get. I'd be satisfied with winning the A10, of course, but moderately deep runs (at least 2 wins or so)  into the NIT interspersed with making the NCAA tournaments are what I am looking for. It's possible they could have won the A10 tourney and gone to the NCAA this year. It's possible they could have gone to the NIT too. I don't know that either of those outcomes were likely though.  Next years team has three RS seniors and a junior PG who has started since his freshman year. They'll be picked too low again next year, but to win the A10, they'll need just about everything to go in their direction.  The win totals are nice of course, and definitely refreshing considering what was here before, but considering the strength of the non conference schedule, certainly nothing that is going to make me whiteknight for a coach getting paid a million dollars a year  to get Duquesne back to the promised land. 

If Duquesne only makes it to the CBI next year - would you consider Dambrots first 4 years a success? I know I would not. 
 

mm, thanks for your response.  I completely disagree, but hey everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  I actually had the same thought as BluffHunter did in his post above.  KD had to be a miracle worker to win 11 league games last year with a squad filled with non A10 players. 

It reminds me of a story where an atheist teacher told her grade school class that it was no miracle when Moses crossed the Red Sea.  She explained that she believe from her research that the point they crossed the Red Sea was only 6 inches deep.  A little boy in the back of the class started praising God.  She said Johnny didn't you hear me that was no miracle the waster was only 6 inches deep.  Johnny replied I am not praising God for that, I am praising God that he drowned the entire army of Egypt in only 6 inches of water. 

duq81 wrote:

What's an A10 player? Is it a high level player? Is it a role player? Is it a guy off the bench? These exist in every league. The Dukes have 3 guys who are high level A10 players. The other guys who play a lot are certainly A10 players, they're just not elite A10 players at this point. As has been pointed out, TDM is a role player. He was 6th man of the year last year, so he's certainly one of the better guys in his spot. I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's rear about Maceo. He had a promising first half of the year, but after the tragedy, he was awful. Doesn't mean he's not an A10 level player, just that he wasn't a stud as a freshman. Many eventually good players struggle as freshmen. We'll see if next year brings the expected improvement. If it doesn't, his role will shrink. Is Lamar a guy who should be starting in the A10? We'll have our answer next year. If you're not producing by your junior year, it's time for someone else to get a shot. Mike and Marcus stepped up big time as juniors. I'm not convinced Lamar can't do the same. Rotroff's a project big. Not many people 6' 10 walking around. Most teams have project bigs, hoping they develop. The two that left probably fit your description as not being A10 caliber players. In every league, and on most teams, there are guys who will never be difference makers in their leagues. Many probably should have gone to leagues a step down, where they would have been elite. That said, every team needs some spear carriers. Some of these will be young guys who will eventually grow into stars, but some are lesser players who can fill a needed role. Maybe they're not A10 players in the sense of becoming all league guys, but if they're getting minutes for good teams, then they're A10 players.

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now.
 

An A10 player is an athlete who is on an A10 roster, pretty simple to me. The "a10 player, not an a10 player" description is definitely not an effective way to gauge the skill of a player or anything for that matter. 
 

Last edited by BluffHunter (4/02/2020 9:32 pm)

BluffHunter wrote:

duq81 wrote:

What's an A10 player? Is it a high level player? Is it a role player? Is it a guy off the bench? These exist in every league. The Dukes have 3 guys who are high level A10 players. The other guys who play a lot are certainly A10 players, they're just not elite A10 players at this point. As has been pointed out, TDM is a role player. He was 6th man of the year last year, so he's certainly one of the better guys in his spot. I'm not going to blow smoke up anyone's rear about Maceo. He had a promising first half of the year, but after the tragedy, he was awful. Doesn't mean he's not an A10 level player, just that he wasn't a stud as a freshman. Many eventually good players struggle as freshmen. We'll see if next year brings the expected improvement. If it doesn't, his role will shrink. Is Lamar a guy who should be starting in the A10? We'll have our answer next year. If you're not producing by your junior year, it's time for someone else to get a shot. Mike and Marcus stepped up big time as juniors. I'm not convinced Lamar can't do the same. Rotroff's a project big. Not many people 6' 10 walking around. Most teams have project bigs, hoping they develop. The two that left probably fit your description as not being A10 caliber players. In every league, and on most teams, there are guys who will never be difference makers in their leagues. Many probably should have gone to leagues a step down, where they would have been elite. That said, every team needs some spear carriers. Some of these will be young guys who will eventually grow into stars, but some are lesser players who can fill a needed role. Maybe they're not A10 players in the sense of becoming all league guys, but if they're getting minutes for good teams, then they're A10 players.

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now.
 

An A10 player is an athlete who is on an A10 roster, pretty simple to me. The "a10 player, not an a10 player" description is definitely not an effective way to gauge the skill of a player or anything for that matter. 
 

I kinda get where he's coming from. When we were at our worst, we certainly had players getting minutes, who just weren't good enough to reach any level of effectiveness against the players in the league. They weren't a level of player required to successfully compete in this league. the 1990 team is a good example. They had a stud in Mark Stevenson, and a guard who would probably start for this team in Tony Petrarca, but the other three starters would have been reserves on a good team. All were A10 caliber players though. The reserves were a different story. This is what I think of when you say someone is not an A10 caliber player. Not a single one of these guys were good enough to even be a decent reserve in the A10, thus they fit my definition of "not an A10 player". For everyone else, it's a question of their role. Brian Anselmino for example, was certainly good enough to play in the A10, and to get significant minutes. He can't be your second best player though. That's usually the issue with bad teams. Too many spear carriers trying to carry the load. When Brian Anselmino is your fifth, or sixth best player, you're probably in great shape. When he's your second best player, your team doesn't have enough A10 level players.

BluffHunter wrote:

Phil95 and Duq81, fantastic insight. I agree with all you have said! This isn't an issue to not care about at all, but with that being said I believe the coaches know what they're doing and are just setting themselves up for a successful future. Obviously the more we win the more players want to come, and stay.

You have to also think players are going to stay with a new stadium being built which I hope will include a top notch weight room unlike Palumbo, continuity in terms of KD, and hopefully the student crowd will be reawakened after such a great season.

Tydus not Travis was homesick for California; and wanted to go home; nothing coaches can do about a guy who doesn’t want to be in the program!  He had a lot of potential due to his size and athleticism.  He seemed to indicate that his idea on his offensive potential differed somewhat from that of the coaches.