Open Thread – Duke Post-Game

General NCS Basketball68

I don’t have much blogging energy right now, but please share your thoughts in comments. In short, I thought it was a magnificent game plan to stick it to Duke inside. We damned near pulled it off. Play like that the rest of the way, and we don’t lose again until POSSIBLY the ACC finals.

The angry expression on Big Ced’s face in the last minute – despite having just played the game of his life (so far) – leads me to believe that great things are possible for this team.

About BJD95

1995 NC State graduate, sufferer of Les and MOC during my entire student tenure. An equal-opportunity objective critic and analyst of Wolfpack sports.

General NCS Basketball

68 Responses to Open Thread – Duke Post-Game

  1. Clarksa 01/19/2006 at 9:33 AM #

    Two losses, two similar endings, but two completely different games. We imploded during the last few minutes in typical NC State fashion against UNC-CH 11 days ago. Last night, Duke simply beat us in the last few minutes of the game. It’s hard to feel good after a loss, but I feel better about this one than the UNC-CH game.

  2. BJD95 01/19/2006 at 9:50 AM #

    ^ Agree with clarksa completely.

  3. SCWolf 01/19/2006 at 9:58 AM #

    Mr. O must be short for Mr. Optimist. You always look on the bright side. It seems like every game we loose, you say it isn’t all that important. I agree, we can still win the ACC or even a National title. But I’ve always said, you show me some one who doesn’t mind loosing and I’ll show you a looser. At some point it has to matter.

    I have mixed feelings about the game. On the one hand, I am proud of our guys. We gave Duke a run for their money and had a good game plan. Ced was a beast and I was glad to see Grant finally play a decent game. On the other hand, I am disapointed because I feel we should have won. We had 3 starters combine for 6 points. What happened to the balanced attack. We gave Dook too many points off turnovers. However, I agree with VaWolf that the turnovers were more tolerable this year than in the past with telegraphed passes, but they were still turnovers, still led too Dook points, and still cost us the game. We lost our men on defense too many times that led to wide open 3’s. How many good looks did we get? One, maybe two. Dook is always hard to beat because they always play 100%. No other team in the nation does that. They scrap for every loose ball and get a lot of extra opportunties because of it. All in all, we played a good game, not great. I am excited about our potential, but disapointed in the loss.

  4. Rick 01/19/2006 at 10:12 AM #

    “Two bad finishes in close games is the start of a trend that I really don’t like.”
    It is not the start of a trend. It is my biggest concern about this team. Under Herb we have never been able to pull out those end game situations.
    We folded. We are a very good team but we are not a championship team.

  5. Sam '92 01/19/2006 at 10:12 AM #

    our guys played hard against an outstanding team, and kept it close most of the way, and they deserve credit for that. the team is good. i wish they were great (great teams power up in the last minutes of the second half against other great teams), but they are good.

    and, i do think that they are on the edge, too. a little more maturity, a little more poise during crunch time, digging a little deeper; by the end of this season this team might be able to beat duke.

  6. OldDude 01/19/2006 at 10:24 AM #

    I like Ced too, he’s an excellent player and a good kid from what I can tell but let’s not annoint him just yet. Could it be that the reason Ced had a big game (when he hasn’t typically taken so many shots before) is that Dook’s D allowed it? They were denying the 3 right? Meaning most of the time it was Williams man-up on Ced, and they can’t afford to lose 50% of their offense so maybe he played Ced a little soft to stay out of foul trouble? Williams fininished with 3 fouls and 6 defensive boards, Ced missed 7 shots. That tells me Williams was playing a little soft and rebounding Ced’s missess. Dook’s strategy was deny the 3, play suffocating D and force Turnovers. Duke was able to score 28 points on 17 State turnovers and keep the Pack from making a field goal in the final 6:12. That says it all for me. Dook beats you with D. Until State learns to do that in BIG games not just against the also-rans, it will always be third fiddle at best in the ACC.

  7. BJD95 01/19/2006 at 10:29 AM #

    I’m not certain how much it was Duke scheming to deny the 3, or our gameplan affirmatively seeking to go inside and exploit Duke in the paint. My impression watching the game was the latter was the predominant factor.

  8. TVP 01/19/2006 at 10:50 AM #

    If you look at the play by play breakdown, I don’t think you can argue this was an implosion at all. There is a difference between implosion and not being able to mount a complete comeback.

    The 6 point posession happened with 4:45 left, leaving us down 6. That was clearly the backbreaker. However, we didn’t quit.

    With slightly more than one minute left, we were down 5 with the ball. So we gained a little bit of ground – just not enough.

    At the one minute mark, Ced was blocked by Therapist Williams inside, Dook gets the ball, and then the game is essentially over because we are in foul mode and Dook hit all 8 free throws in the final minute.

  9. TVP 01/19/2006 at 10:53 AM #

    Also, the real key is going to be how we respond over the next five games where our schedule is favorable: Wake, at Clemson, Seton Hall, UVa, Maryland. If this team is as good as I think it is, we should go 5-0, leaving us at 19-3.

  10. Rick 01/19/2006 at 11:02 AM #

    “If you look at the play by play breakdown, I don’t think you can argue this was an implosion at all. There is a difference between implosion and not being able to mount a complete comeback.”

    PotAto
    Potahto
    We still are unable to find a way to win.

  11. Gunsmoke 01/19/2006 at 11:47 AM #

    Rick, you are an idiot. Can you be positive for one f-ing second? I would expect that from jeff, but you might even be worse.

  12. BJD95 01/19/2006 at 11:53 AM #

    It’s not anyone’s job to be “positive.” This is a place to call them as we see them.

  13. class of '74 01/19/2006 at 11:54 AM #

    For those close games like last night you need that true point guard, one that can take control of ball handling and distribution. We it gets really tight at the end of the game the guard play has been our glaring weakness. Otherwise we have not played that badly. Sorry but if you guys assumed a victory was in the cards last night you assumed wrong. That was maybe the best team in the country at their place with first place in the ACC on the line. That would have been a tall order for ANYBODY in the country let alone Herb and the Pack.

    We just have to take this as a lesson learned and move on. It was a much better performance than that one in Chapel Hill earlier this month. There is plenty of time left to grow this into a very good year.

  14. J.R. 01/19/2006 at 12:00 PM #

    Where have you gone Ilian Evtimov?? Is it just me or has this disappeared lately? Where is the sharpshooter that I love? He doesn’t seem like the senior leader that he should be. I hope he can get it going again, because he has not been playing well lately.

  15. BJD95 01/19/2006 at 12:05 PM #

    I actually give Sendek alot of credit for not forcing our offense to revolve around Evtimov. Perhaps that is a positive effect from not having Larry Hunter on the staff anymore (remember it was Hunter making the crazy “Evtimov is our Philip Rivers” argument a few years back).

    Evtimov is a steady, solid guy. He’s a useful role player. But his upside against elite competition is quite limited.

  16. SCWolf 01/19/2006 at 1:35 PM #

    The offense in last night’s game is not the offense we are used to seeing out of a Sendek Team. I’ve noticed it evolving over the season, which I think is a big plus. I’ve always criticized Sendek for forcing players into a Princeton offense desinged for 5 non-atheletic white boys. I think it neutralized our player’s strengths and atheletic ability. But he has made some changes this year, especially in this particular game, that have made us a better team. In the past, we have spread the floor, made a lot of passes, and hoped someone got the ball who was open, or someone would get open on a backdoor cut. I used to cringe when Josh Powell stood at the top of the key for 30 mins a game. Sometimes we would even look lost and lazy. Last night’s game wasn’t like that. Simmons was used like he should be used, a low post player. Unlike Josh Powell in the past. I think if Herb keeps elvolving this offense it could be lethal. By spreading the floor in the princeton offense it opens drivng lanes and takes defenders out of the post if they are in man 2 man. If we take advantage of those lanes and actually put the ball on the floor like I have been seeing more and more of this year, instead of pass it around until someone shoots a 3, it could be very productive. If a team goes to a zone defense to close those lanes, we should be able to rain 3’s. I give Herb credit for finally changing a few things in his offense. I’ve never been a Sendek fan, and I still think he’s terrible in game situations, but we look more diverse on offense this year than in the past. It’s about time. I don’t doubt that Herb is a good fundamentals coach. Now if he can learn to get the boys fired up during a game and call some plays that work when we need a basket at the end of the game he may turn out to be a good one. But I’m not holding my breath.

  17. Mr. O 01/19/2006 at 1:51 PM #

    “Mr. O must be short for Mr. Optimist. You always look on the bright side. It seems like every game we loose, you say it isn’t all that important. I agree, we can still win the ACC or even a National title. But I’ve always said, you show me some one who doesn’t mind loosing and I’ll show you a looser. At some point it has to matter. ”

    SCWolf: I could really take this comment personally that you are essentially calling me a a “looser” (which I assume you meant “loser”), but I will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

    Me an optimist? You must not have followed NC State on the internet over the last few years. People would hardly call me an “optimist” as I was as vocal as anyone in wanting Herb Sendek to be replaced.

    College basketball is about how you finish the regular season and how you perform in March. It isn’t about a single game against Duke in Cameron. It isn’t about a single game against UNC in Chapel Hill. If our entire scheduled were these two games per year, then it would be about those games. However, we play a non-conference schedule, 16 ACC games, an ACC tournament and an NCAA tournament, so the season I measure our overall success in these 4 phases of the season – not 1 or 2 games.

    People talk about a trend of not doing well in the last few minutes of games. What about Miami? What about GT? What about Alabama? What about BC? If you are looking for trends, then why are people only looking at the games we lose and discluding all of the games we win?

  18. Fred 01/19/2006 at 1:59 PM #

    The only complaint I would have, and it’s a minor one, would be that a Brackman/Simmons combo should have seen more time on the floor. Going with a double low post arrangement might have worked since Duke was intent on denying the threes. We didn’t lose our poise down the stretch. If anything I think Ced was just a bit gassed. Gavin Grant kept us in the game and I was shocked by that. If you look down the schedule, the law of averages would suggest about 2 more losses. 12-4 should take second place all alone. The Holes will lose to Duke twice and stub their toe on the road a couple of times. Maryland isn’t consistent enough to finish any better than that and BC already has three losses. We will have to go 14-2 to earn anything better than a #4 seed unless we win the tornament.

  19. Mr. O 01/19/2006 at 2:15 PM #

    If we got 12-4, then we will easily be a top 4 seed.

  20. HeelsFan 01/19/2006 at 2:44 PM #

    Although injuries are a “part of the game” Duke blows out State (and UNC) with a healthy Demarcus Nelson on the floor. Nelson shuts down Grant and State has no answer for him offensively.

    Congrats to State, however, for not backing down and giving Dook a run.

  21. st0rmin 01/19/2006 at 2:56 PM #

    I was at the game and thought that it was the second time (UNC being the other) where we really missed Julius Hodge. While we can praise the teamwork and spread of wealth offense, there are times where you need someone to demand the ball and take over. It is usually hard for the big man to do that, so we need Bethel, Cam, Gavin, and Engin take that role. My gut tells me Gavin (who played one of his more recent better games – until he missed 3 fts) is that person. I was pleased for not cracking under pressure ( we could not fouled to keep the game closer), but we need to learn how to close out some. I remember Jimmy V’s teams that were quite successful against Duke use to freelance and attack the basket. We need some of that. I heard Coach K say after the game that they quit calling so many plays and just told his players to go have fun and attack the basket.

  22. TVP 01/19/2006 at 2:57 PM #

    ^I don’t think the addition of Nelson makes the game a blow out – he’s a role player, not a star.

    FWIW, we got a three seed in 2004 going 11-5 in the conference with a fairly poor nonconference record (worse than this year) and coming off the collapse against Maryland in the ACC tournament. If we were 14-2, we are a 2 seed easy if not a 1. 12-4 should get us a 3 easily.

  23. scott 01/19/2006 at 3:06 PM #

    I agree with Clarksa and TVP. I didn’t like the way we fell apart at the end of the UNC game, but I’m proud of the game at Duke. I don’t think any other team in America would have won there last night. The key, however, is how we respond in the upcoming games, starting with Wake. Unless they win the ACC Tourney or got the Final Four, this team won’t have accomplished any more than other Sendek teams if they begin to falter & wind up, say 10-6 in the league. He finally has a team that SHOULD finish at least 12-4 which, w/a win at home over Seton Hall next week, would mean a 24-5 regular season record and, probably, a Top 10 national ranking. After the last 15 years, that would be superb.

  24. SCWolf 01/19/2006 at 4:15 PM #

    Mr. O: Glad you didn’t the loser thing personally. It was a general comment and not directed personally towards you.

    And like I said before, I know its not the end of the season. We have the potential for a very good one. But I hate to loose to any team. Especially Dook and the Tarholes. I especially hate to loose when we have the talent to win. I would rather get beat by 30 to a superior team than loose in OT to a team we can beat. And I also realize that you can’t win every game. Sometimes you’re just off. Thats one of the great things about College Basketball. But with a little more intensity from some players besides Ced, we would have won. It’s the little things that make a difference sometimes. Like loosing your man on defense and he gets a wide open 3. Little things were the difference in last nights game.

  25. choppack 01/19/2006 at 4:28 PM #

    Midway through the second half Duke made a defensive adjustment – I can’t quantify it – but we didn’t have many other good open looks. I also think it dawned on Ced what he was doing…IMHO – he came out of the “zone” and lost a little confidence. There were times in those last 4 minutes when he should have thrown it down w/ aggression. He’s pretty used to playing w/ foul trouble and probably just hasn’t gotten used to the idea he should be a dominant force – hopefully that will come.

    As others have said, the only 3 games we’ve lost this year are the close ones where we didn’t execute down the stretch. If – and that’s a huge if, because it seems to be a signature of Herb’s teams – we can correct this – sky is the limit.

1 2 3

Leave a Reply