I am not one who takes a hard side either way on this, but what I will say, is that this notion that Duke didn't have much size and that it invalidates the need for our team to be any bigger is a bogus argument. I love when Voice posted on Duke's players height, he trimmed an inch on almost all of them and claimed the two guards "are under 6 feet" or something like that.
I'm not here to debate the height of the Duke players, but here is what I will say: If you don't have great size, you better damn well be extremely talented. Duke has a very talented team, they were bigger than us in important positions and their guards could dribble-drive effectively where we really couldn't. Once they improved their defense, they became an awesome team - better than us.
Let's discuss size for a moment. One thing you have to consider with height is the athleticism, talent and strength on the player. Let's compare Ochefu vs. Okafor. They are the same height, one is more talented and much stronger. Any guess which one? Take the power forward position. Winslow vs. JVP. Let's say they are equal height (although Winslow looks a slightly taller to me), and that JVP is physically stronger. Winslow is much more athletic and versatile - and plenty strong. He is a true "Sumpter 4" in Jay's system. So he's not 6-8, but he is athletic, skilled, strong and a match up nightmare. Plus he can defend 4 positions! They bring in a long armed, 6-8 athletic in Jefferson who defends like crazy. When we sat Ochefu vs. NCST, who did we bring in with comparable size and athleticism? Jenkins? Another guard? Did you see the defense that Amile provided when Okefor was in foul trouble in the 2nd half? That and Allen's scoring spree changed the game (and Bo should've sat Frank for a few minutes). Not even close, guys. You could argue that Duke won the game with their bench and Jefferson being a big piece, while it's when we lost it to NCST because we didn't have a viable big man option to use when DO struggled and Jay benched him. So, this notion that, "see, look at Duke, they aren't big or they are the same size as us" is complete nonsense. Again, it's clear to me why Jay recruited Amile, Schilling, Freeman, etc. Even as talented as Okafor and Winslow are, they lose that game without Jefferson's contributions. Sorry adp and others, it's simply true.
I won't over analyze the guards because I love our guys and don't need to expose weaknesses of them, but let me say, the addition of Brunson next year, Booth and Hart's development will really get us to look a lot like Duke's backcourt of last night: Jones, Cook, Allen/Jones. Athletic, dribble-drive guys who can shoot. Throw Arch in there and we are going to be fun to watch. We can spread the floor!
Which leads me to my last point. Did you notice how good the defense got as the tournament progressed? If you are a team that relies on great ball movement to get open looks and don't have the guards to get their own shot or get shots for others, you were in trouble. Looking back at our team, this was a weakness for us - being able to get our shot vs. elite defenses. To me, that's where you need superior size to help offset that lack of true "playmakers" like Duke has and we had in 2006. Wisconsin didn't have the pure dribble-drive guys, but they had a lot of talented big men that carried them to the finals.
Looking back on this season, there were three teams clearly better than the rest: Duke, Wisconsin and Kentucky. Where they had weaknesses, they were so good in other areas to offset those - except when they played each other. They all had enough size as well, even Duke. Duke had more size than us and where they didn't, they more than made up for it in pure talent.
I'm not here to debate the height of the Duke players, but here is what I will say: If you don't have great size, you better damn well be extremely talented. Duke has a very talented team, they were bigger than us in important positions and their guards could dribble-drive effectively where we really couldn't. Once they improved their defense, they became an awesome team - better than us.
Let's discuss size for a moment. One thing you have to consider with height is the athleticism, talent and strength on the player. Let's compare Ochefu vs. Okafor. They are the same height, one is more talented and much stronger. Any guess which one? Take the power forward position. Winslow vs. JVP. Let's say they are equal height (although Winslow looks a slightly taller to me), and that JVP is physically stronger. Winslow is much more athletic and versatile - and plenty strong. He is a true "Sumpter 4" in Jay's system. So he's not 6-8, but he is athletic, skilled, strong and a match up nightmare. Plus he can defend 4 positions! They bring in a long armed, 6-8 athletic in Jefferson who defends like crazy. When we sat Ochefu vs. NCST, who did we bring in with comparable size and athleticism? Jenkins? Another guard? Did you see the defense that Amile provided when Okefor was in foul trouble in the 2nd half? That and Allen's scoring spree changed the game (and Bo should've sat Frank for a few minutes). Not even close, guys. You could argue that Duke won the game with their bench and Jefferson being a big piece, while it's when we lost it to NCST because we didn't have a viable big man option to use when DO struggled and Jay benched him. So, this notion that, "see, look at Duke, they aren't big or they are the same size as us" is complete nonsense. Again, it's clear to me why Jay recruited Amile, Schilling, Freeman, etc. Even as talented as Okafor and Winslow are, they lose that game without Jefferson's contributions. Sorry adp and others, it's simply true.
I won't over analyze the guards because I love our guys and don't need to expose weaknesses of them, but let me say, the addition of Brunson next year, Booth and Hart's development will really get us to look a lot like Duke's backcourt of last night: Jones, Cook, Allen/Jones. Athletic, dribble-drive guys who can shoot. Throw Arch in there and we are going to be fun to watch. We can spread the floor!
Which leads me to my last point. Did you notice how good the defense got as the tournament progressed? If you are a team that relies on great ball movement to get open looks and don't have the guards to get their own shot or get shots for others, you were in trouble. Looking back at our team, this was a weakness for us - being able to get our shot vs. elite defenses. To me, that's where you need superior size to help offset that lack of true "playmakers" like Duke has and we had in 2006. Wisconsin didn't have the pure dribble-drive guys, but they had a lot of talented big men that carried them to the finals.
Looking back on this season, there were three teams clearly better than the rest: Duke, Wisconsin and Kentucky. Where they had weaknesses, they were so good in other areas to offset those - except when they played each other. They all had enough size as well, even Duke. Duke had more size than us and where they didn't, they more than made up for it in pure talent.
