Agreed.  I think it is a very big upgrade vs. last year.  I liked Kareem, but his shortcomings were exposed with the more minutes that he played.  Dinkins was not cut out to be a full time point guard; he needed another running mate at guard which was not on the roster.  And neither guy could effectively take the ball to the hoop and draw fouls.
As Styles pointed out, there are a few options at point guard.  I do think that Guinyard will be the starting PG based upon his proven D-1 defense and scoring ability, although he was not a big assist guy at UTM (not sure of what other talent was on that 14-19 team).  
One setback for the Dukes....  I heard that Jake DiMichele had surgery on his foot and likely will not be available until November.   I hope this young man can overcome the issues with his feet, since he adds that court sense and savviness that can't be coached.
 

I have talked myself into the idea that, despite some positive indicators, the overall preseason PG outlook is about the same as last season.

Guinyard appears to be a better transition player, rebounder, finisher, drawer of fouls, & defender than Dinkins was.

Dinkins was a better playmaker with more assists & a better A/TO ratio while also being a more accurate FT shooter. Tre was a significantly better shooter from the 3pt distance & drew huge attention from defenses for this reason.

Because neither Guinyard nor Dinkins is a classic PG, on paper, their respective merits are a wash.

While I don't think Rozier has what is needed to play big minutes in the A-10, I do think that at 10-12 minutes a game at his experience level his contribution would have turned out to be about the same as either one of the freshmen PGs.

I am most hopeful that either Aekins or Lawson proves my skepticism about freshmen PGs very wrong. Even if this doesn't come to pass, this year's team will at least have more depth at the position.

Last edited by phil95 (9/04/2025 11:57 am)