Would Duke have cut the nets down withTHIS Giles???

[jimlsumner]

Keep in mind that Allen played with a bad foot down the stretch. He missed the Miami game entirely and played reduced minutes in others.

For the season, Kennard averaged 35.5 mpg, Allen 29.6, Jackson 24.9.

None of Allen, Jackson, Jones or Kennard was a prototype PG, not in the Amaker/Hurley/Duhon sense.

And I'm not sure a sophomore Thornton would have been the answer, either. A junior Tyus Jones was the plan.

So, the roster was not as well constructed as most of K's rosters. A glut of wings.

Of course, Duke won the 2010 national title with Jon Scheyer at point.

The biggest impact of a healthy Giles, IMO, would have been the possibility of playing Tatum at the 3, which was the original plan.

Of course, that would eat into the minutes of all of the wings. Kennard's not playing 35.5 mpg in that scenario.


Had Giles played at the level of the Chris Webber/Danny Manning/Kevin Garnett, you name the comparison, then yes, Duke's a real tough out. But there still would have been the issues of too much wing overlap, no true point guard.

 

[timo0402]

Keep in mind that Allen played with a bad foot down the stretch. He missed the Miami game entirely and played reduced minutes in others.

For the season, Kennard averaged 35.5 mpg, Allen 29.6, Jackson 24.9.

None of Allen, Jackson, Jones or Kennard was a prototype PG, not in the Amaker/Hurley/Duhon sense.

And I'm not sure a sophomore Thornton would have been the answer, either. A junior Tyus Jones was the plan.

So, the roster was not as well constructed as most of K's rosters. A glut of wings.

Of course, Duke won the 2010 national title with Jon Scheyer at point.

The biggest impact of a healthy Giles, IMO, would have been the possibility of playing Tatum at the 3, which was the original plan.

Of course, that would eat into the minutes of all of the wings. Kennard's not playing 35.5 mpg in that scenario.


Had Giles played at the level of the Chris Webber/Danny Manning/Kevin Garnett, you name the comparison, then yes, Duke's a real tough out. But there still would have been the issues of too much wing overlap, no true point guard.

Certainly wouldn’t suggest that Thornton was the best fit at PG, but compared to what we had filling that role he would have been the best fit of the group. He was also tight with Harry and Tatum, something that could have helped.

Tyus clearly would have lead us to no worse than a final four, but that was never an option.

 

[Mac9192]

Too many stars, needing too many minutes and shots.
Like I said earlier, we are better off wallowing in our "what if" everyone was healthy dream talk.
Remember, we had problems out of Jackson's dad, and his son played 25-26 minutes a game. Slim some minutes away from at least one more player and see how that would have went.
Some of you guys need to grasp that.
Bitterness and jealousy trumps a guy who grabs rebounds, dunks on guys, or the nightmare matchup of a Tatum vs whoever.

 

[bullcity gamer]

In summarization, the rest of the NCAA is fortunate Kyrie got injured for the 2010-2011 season and Duke was hampered by injuries for the 2016-2017 seasons, otherwise Duke would be sitting at 6 National Championships for sure (2011 NCAA Championship) and possibly 7 National Championships had the 2016-2017 team not been hampered by injuries.

 

[bullcity gamer]

Mac, IMO I think winning negates some of the bitterness or unhappiness some of the stars would have felt especially if the players are friends outside of the court. Instead of going through the season with losses, maybe the team completely healthy would have been on a roll and gotten closer as the team was stringing off wins instead of placing blame on one another and hurting the team's chemistry. I honestly don't think the 2016-2017 team looked together until their run in Brooklyn during the ACC Tournament, by that time it was too late to save the season though.

 

[Mac9192]

Bullcity, you're asking for everything and all the players to sacrifice. Sounds easy where we all sit. But that's not reality. What is reality is a kid who's been told for the last four-five years that he's awesome, getting mad when he's asked to not look for his shot as much, or sit more than he and/or family thinks he should.
You can have too much talent.

We love how the 15 team ended, and it was a special group. But K had to dismiss a player, a McDonalds All American at that, to probably win title 5.

 

[hart2chesson]

Certainly wouldn’t suggest that Thornton was the best fit at PG, but compared to what we had filling that role he would have been the best fit of the group. He was also tight with Harry and Tatum, something that could have helped.

Certainly agree DT would have been a better fit at pg than others mentioned on the 16-17 edition of the Devils.

OFC

 

[jimlsumner]

Question for the folks who think Thornton would have helped the '17 team.

From whom does he take minutes? Kennard? Allen? Jackson?

Last year at USC, Thornton averaged 14 mpg, shot 36 percent and had more turnovers than assists.

In his year at Duke, I liked his defensive potential. But I wonder if people who see him as a big loss aren't mis-remembering his struggles.

I just don't think he is/was good enough to be a difference maker.

Duke knew that Okafor was a OAD and thought Winslow could go either way when they brought him in. But they thought Ty Jones' physical limitations would keep him at Duke for at least three seasons and didn't have a plan B when that turned out to not be the case.

 

[hart2chesson]

Question for the folks who think Thornton would have helped the '17 team.

From whom does he take minutes? Kennard? Allen? Jackson?

Last year at USC, Thornton averaged 14 mpg, shot 36 percent and had more turnovers than assists.

In his year at Duke, I liked his defensive potential. But I wonder if people who see him as a big loss aren't mis-remembering his struggles.

I just don't think he is/was good enough to be a difference maker.

Duke knew that Okafor was a OAD and thought Winslow could go either way when they brought him in. But they thought Ty Jones' physical limitations would keep him at Duke for at least three seasons and didn't have a plan B when that turned out to not be the case.

Probably some of Jackson's, but I think he can also take a portion of Matt Jones minutes. What he did at USC really doesnt concern me. I think another year in the DUKE SYSTEM and working with basically the same coaching staff would have been more advantageous to his player growth and potential.

OFC

 

[timo0402]

Question for the folks who think Thornton would have helped the '17 team.

From whom does he take minutes? Kennard? Allen? Jackson?

Last year at USC, Thornton averaged 14 mpg, shot 36 percent and had more turnovers than assists.

In his year at Duke, I liked his defensive potential. But I wonder if people who see him as a big loss aren't mis-remembering his struggles.

I just don't think he is/was good enough to be a difference maker.

Duke knew that Okafor was a OAD and thought Winslow could go either way when they brought him in. But they thought Ty Jones' physical limitations would keep him at Duke for at least three seasons and didn't have a plan B when that turned out to not be the case.

Jim i hear what you’re saying in regards to DT. I do think another summer (a full one at that) and a year under his belt in the duke system would have beneficial to both him and the team. I’ll comtinue to stress, I’m by no means saying he was the perfect solution nor would he necessarily have received the same amount of minutes he did his freshman year, to your point. However, that team was devoid of a PG and he would have fit in well there imo. Odd man out for minutes would probably be a combination of the guys you mentioned.

As far as Ty Jones, no one thought he was leaving until we started to really look like we could do something special in March. As you said, no back up plan and that of course leads to DT reclassifying and coming a year earlier. Probably screwed up two seasons- but you don’t trade two possibles for the title we got in 2015. Comes with the territory. In some ways we are still recovering from the Tyus loss. No we bring in tre. No one would think he goes right?

 

[dukephysics]

Question for the folks who think Thornton would have helped the '17 team.

From whom does he take minutes? Kennard? Allen? Jackson?

Last year at USC, Thornton averaged 14 mpg, shot 36 percent and had more turnovers than assists.

In his year at Duke, I liked his defensive potential. But I wonder if people who see him as a big loss aren't mis-remembering his struggles.

I just don't think he is/was good enough to be a difference maker.

Duke knew that Okafor was a OAD and thought Winslow could go either way when they brought him in. But they thought Ty Jones' physical limitations would keep him at Duke for at least three seasons and didn't have a plan B when that turned out to not be the case.

Totally agree. I wasn't happy when DT left because I hoped he would have stayed and grown as a player and person and helped the team. But aside from being a PG (a positional need on the 17 team), he wasn't much more valuable and wasn't much better of a player than Chase Jeter.

 

[Mac9192]

Hard to have it every way we would like. For every good option, there's a possible bad one that will go with it. It's why I don't understand people's point on taking talent when you can get it. It's not like K is going to play a guy no more than 30 minutes. This notion having Thornton would have helped cause we had no point guard is crazy. Yeah, like Jim said, who sits? His family was as unhappy as Jackson's was. So a solution some are saying is we needed Thornton? Great, now we would have had at least 2 families mad at K at once, and during the season too.
Winning doesn't cure all every time. That weekend in Brooklyn is proof. Something was off with Kennard, and Bolden was awol, literally. We had no mojo the next weekend, when our confidence should have never been higher. Look at the body language both games that weekend, compared to the acc tourney.
Give K a few stars and a few solid role players. This going down the buffet line and grabbing what you can is hard to make work.

 

[skysdad]

Keep in mind that Allen played with a bad foot down the stretch. He missed the Miami game entirely and played reduced minutes in others.

For the season, Kennard averaged 35.5 mpg, Allen 29.6, Jackson 24.9.

None of Allen, Jackson, Jones or Kennard was a prototype PG, not in the Amaker/Hurley/Duhon sense.

And I'm not sure a sophomore Thornton would have been the answer, either. A junior Tyus Jones was the plan.

So, the roster was not as well constructed as most of K's rosters. A glut of wings.

Of course, Duke won the 2010 national title with Jon Scheyer at point.

The biggest impact of a healthy Giles, IMO, would have been the possibility of playing Tatum at the 3, which was the original plan.

Of course, that would eat into the minutes of all of the wings. Kennard's not playing 35.5 mpg in that scenario.


Had Giles played at the level of the Chris Webber/Danny Manning/Kevin Garnett, you name the comparison, then yes, Duke's a real tough out. But there still would have been the issues of too much wing overlap, no true point guard.

Welcome back and the post is dead on. Please post more often. OFC

 

[Willcampbell]

Welcome back and the post is dead on. Please post more often. OFC

Agree 100%, Sky. Sumner: a voice of knowledge and reason. Not, in Spiro Agnew's terms, a "nattering nabob."
OFC

 

[hart2chesson]

I will always remember Thornton for one thing: he sealed the AWESOME WIN at UNC in '16 blocking Joel Berry's shot. That was some terrific bear down in your face man to man D by the freshman!

OFC

 

[hart2chesson]

Welcome back and the post is dead on. Please post more often. OFC

Sky did Duke historian and grad Bill Brill ever post here? Bill passed in "11 I believe and loved Duke with all his life. In fact I am pretty sure his memorial service was held in Cameron Indoor Stadium. In addition he was an outstanding bracketologist predicting the annual NCAA tourney field. I recall the Duke radio network having him on the air to talk not only Duke, but forecast the NCAA field!

Didnt mean to stray off topic, but Jim's posts provided a nice segue to another Duke historian....

OFC

 

[jimlsumner]

[QUOTE="dukehokie, post: 11278237, member: 712"

Other notable injuries or absences:

Art Heyman (maybe Duke’s first title if he played)
Elton’s freshman season
Shav’s back and foot injuries throughout
Daniel Ewing’s broken pinky prior to UConn ‘04

TRUE, and Bob Verga getting flu before
the loaded team with Lewis, Reidy, Marin and Vacendak played Kentucky in FF in late 60s. Bobby still played! He was a prolific scorer,but could only muster 4 pts as he struggled to play ailing. Still the Devils only lost 83-79. Duke would have squared off against eventual champ Texas Western had they got by the Wildcats.

OFC[/QUOTE]

If we're looking for what-might-have-beens, let me add 1979. Duke tied UNC for first place in the ACC. Then Bob Bender has an appendectomy during the ACC Tournament, the night after leading Duke to a semifinal win over NC State. Then Kenny Dennard sprained an ankle messing around. Then Gminski gets a stomach bug and the next thing you know, Duke loses to St. John's and that's that.

We also have David Henderson rolling an ankle in 1985 against Boston College, Robert Brickey getting mugged against Seton Hall in 1989 and tearing up a knee, Cherokee Parks spraining an ankle against Cal in '93. These were all in NCAAT games. And don't forget Dunleavy's mono in 2000. He was a one-man bench. Ryan Kelly's foot injuries in 2012 and 2013, Amile Jefferson in 2016.

Lefty Gomez famously coined the phrase "sometimes it's better to be lucky than good."

Sometimes, being healthy trumps both.

 

[timo0402]

TRUE, and Bob Verga getting flu before
the loaded team with Lewis, Reidy, Marin and Vacendak played Kentucky in FF in late 60s. Bobby still played! He was a prolific scorer,but could only muster 4 pts as he struggled to play ailing. Still the Devils only lost 83-79. Duke would have squared off against eventual champ Texas Western had they got by the Wildcats.

OFC

If we're looking for what-might-have-beens, let me add 1979. Duke tied UNC for first place in the ACC. Then Bob Bender has an appendectomy during the ACC Tournament, the night after leading Duke to a semifinal win over NC State. Then Kenny Dennard sprained an ankle messing around. Then Gminski gets a stomach bug and the next thing you know, Duke loses to St. John's and that's that.

We also have David Henderson rolling an ankle in 1985 against Boston College, Robert Brickey getting mugged against Seton Hall in 1989 and tearing up a knee, Cherokee Parks spraining an ankle against Cal in '93. These were all in NCAAT games. And don't forget Dunleavy's mono in 2000. He was a one-man bench. Ryan Kelly's foot injuries in 2012 and 2013, Amile Jefferson in 2016.

Lefty Gomez famously coined the phrase "sometimes it's better to be lucky than good."

Sometimes, being healthy trumps both.[/QUOTE]
One of my favorite comments came from Grant Hill in one of those documentaries- Luck favors the prepared man. So true.

 

[skysdad]

If we're looking for what-might-have-beens, let me add 1979. Duke tied UNC for first place in the ACC. Then Bob Bender has an appendectomy during the ACC Tournament, the night after leading Duke to a semifinal win over NC State. Then Kenny Dennard sprained an ankle messing around. Then Gminski gets a stomach bug and the next thing you know, Duke loses to St. John's and that's that.

We also have David Henderson rolling an ankle in 1985 against Boston College, Robert Brickey getting mugged against Seton Hall in 1989 and tearing up a knee, Cherokee Parks spraining an ankle against Cal in '93. These were all in NCAAT games. And don't forget Dunleavy's mono in 2000. He was a one-man bench. Ryan Kelly's foot injuries in 2012 and 2013, Amile Jefferson in 2016.

Lefty Gomez famously coined the phrase "sometimes it's better to be lucky than good."

Sometimes, being healthy trumps both.

One of my favorite comments came from Grant Hill in one of those documentaries- Luck favors the prepared man. So true.[/QUOTE]


I'm glad you brought up Bender. One of the most underrated p.g.'s ever at Duke. We've had so many he seems to be forgotten. Great distributor of the ball and had a knack of getting the ball to the right player. Will never forget his lob pass to Gene Banks for a thunder slam dunk. Haven't thought about Bender in a while. Thanks for bringing him up. OFC

 

[lyonhawk]

Don’t forget Seth Curry’s stress reaction in 13. He didn’t miss time, but was far less effective on short rest which probably cost us a 1-seed and eventually killed us against Louisville.

 

[jimlsumner]

Don’t forget Seth Curry’s stress reaction in 13. He didn’t miss time, but was far less effective on short rest which probably cost us a 1-seed and eventually killed us against Louisville.

I've always wondered how good that 2013 team would have been had Kelly and Curry been healthy all season. Three senior starters good enough to eventually play in the NBA, Cook as an All-ACC point guard, lots of depth.

Coulda been a contender.

 

[nets on nets on nets]

2013 was rough. I honestly thought we were national champion worthy, the 1 team we weren't gonna beat was Louisville. They had too much athleticism, full court pressed, and we relied on sophomore Quinn as our PG. That was a poor matchup for us. We beat them in the Bahamas (they didn't have Gorgui Dieng) and they weren't gonna allow us to beat them again.

We beat Maryland in that ACC tourney game, get a 1 seed, then don't have to worry about Lousville until the championship, while hoping someone knocks them out before then. The same Louisville that got the banner taken down.

That was also one of the first years the NCAA did the stupid "regionalizing" of the top seeds. We were clearly the top 2 seed (some experts still had us on the 1 line), and we got put in with the overall #1 seed, because it was in Indianapolis.
Regionalizing is stupid, and another case for the NCAA being way too greedy. Make it fair for everyone.

 

[dukehokie]

2013 was rough. I honestly thought we were national champion worthy, the 1 team we weren't gonna beat was Louisville. They had too much athleticism, full court pressed, and we relied on sophomore Quinn as our PG. That was a poor matchup for us. We beat them in the Bahamas (they didn't have Gorgui Dieng) and they weren't gonna allow us to beat them again.

We beat Maryland in that ACC tourney game, get a 1 seed, then don't have to worry about Lousville until the championship, while hoping someone knocks them out before then. The same Louisville that got the banner taken down.

I’ve always hated playing a team twice. Had we not played them, our chances would have been a little better, but as you sai, that was the one team we just did not match up well with.

 

[timo0402]

I’ve always hated playing a team twice. Had we not played them, our chances would have been a little better, but as you sai, that was the one team we just did not match up well with.

I thought we and Lville were the top two teams in the nation that year. Us playing them was BS in the elite 8. We were up at half too, but you knew it was not going to end well. Curry and Kelly stunk it up if i recall correctly.

 

[Canadian Dukie]

Kevin Ware's injury was a turning point for me.They were not going to lose the game after that injury,they may well have won anyway,but no way were they losing after that

 

[Middle Sound Heel]

The team was loaded even without Giles at full strength. I do believe there is a good chance they go all the way with a healthy Giles. After the ACC tourney I as an opposing fan felt they had finally come together and were on a roll. They just ran into a very underated South Carolina team. Overall it was probably one of the weirdest and most turbulent years I have ever seen a coach K Duke team experience. Just so many ups and downs and twists and turns.

 

[timo0402]

The team was loaded even without Giles at full strength. I do believe there is a good chance they go all the way with a healthy Giles. After the ACC tourney I as an opposing fan felt they had finally come together and were on a roll. They just ran into a very underated South Carolina team. Overall it was probably one of the weirdest and most turbulent years I have ever seen a coach K Duke team experience. Just so many ups and downs and twists and turns.

It’s the craziest year i can remember as a fan and it’s not even close. All but two of our players dealt with injuries that were varying degrees of significance the entire season. That includes our coach being out for a short period of time in the middle of the season. We had all of the Grayson hysteria. I don’t care who you are, that can eat away at you and your team. Than we have the insane four day run in BK. Somehow get stuck with a two seed playing on the road vs a 7 seed, with our arch rival fans in the building. On paper, no excuse but that was a really ****** draw, about as bad as you can have. Then that same archrival Who many of us thought would get knocked out earlier, pulls off an insane win and then goes to the title. It was an insane year, more ups and downs than any other season. It was and still is one of those seasons many blue bloods have that you say what if- just for us, that season has a million of them it feels like.

 

[hart2chesson]

The team was loaded even without Giles at full strength. After the ACC tourney I as an opposing fan felt they had finally come together and were on a roll.

Agree on both counts...I really felt finally we clicked, and found ourselves in Brooklyn! I mean Duke won the unprecedented 4 in 4 straight days in one of America's toughest conferences. Timo mentioned the unbelievably tough draw per an underrated opponent against practically a home court situation.SO TRUE...

I really felt things weren't really RIGHT about that team from the start in the NCAAs however. We werent exactly impressive vs Troy St(Kennard struggled terribly), and then we should have built a 12-15 pt 1st halftime advantage vs South Carolina. We didnt, and left the window cracked. Thats all the Gamecocks needed. Kennard was again far from the same player he was in Brooklyn. I remember Amile yelling at him as we went off the court during a timeout, and I am sure he deserved it. Luke simply wasnt there, and really most of the team wasnt either....

We needed a healthy Harry sure, but I am always going to be of the mindset Luke winning the ACC MVP award rather than Tatum (who really triggered our lat charge vs Notre Dame in the final) caused some sort of dissension in the ranks. Just one man's opinion but that Duke team was nowhere the club it was in Brooklyn, and of course we did it w/o a 100% Harry there too. He did probably have his shining moment there against your Tar Heels, blocking a shot at one end and jamming a Grayson alley-oop slam at the other in one sequence.Oh well, what might have been....

OFC

 

[timo0402]

Agree on both counts...I really felt finally we clicked, and found ourselves in Brooklyn! I mean Duke won the unprecedented 4 in 4 straight days in one of America's toughest conferences. Timo mentioned the unbelievably tough draw per an underrated opponent against practically a home court situation.SO TRUE...

I really felt things weren't really RIGHT about that team from the start in the NCAAs however. We werent exactly impressive vs Troy St(Kennard struggled terribly), and then we should have built a 12-15 pt 1st halftime advantage vs South Carolina. We didnt, and left the window cracked. Thats all the Gamecocks needed. Kennard was again far from the same player he was in Brooklyn. I remember Amile yelling at him as we went off the court during a timeout, and I am sure he deserved it. Luke simply wasnt there, and really most of the team wasnt either....

We needed a healthy Harry sure, but I am always going to be of the mindset Luke winning the ACC MVP award rather than Tatum (who really triggered our lat charge vs Notre Dame in the final) caused some sort of dissension in the ranks. Just one man's opinion but that Duke team was nowhere the club it was in Brooklyn, and of course we did it w/o a 100% Harry there too. He did probably have his shining moment there against your Tar Heels, blocking a shot at one end and jamming a Grayson alley-oop slam at the other in one sequence.Oh well, what might have been....

OFC

To your point about leaving the window open, it allowed the unc fans to stick around. If we shut the door in the first couple min of the second half they’d have all gone home. It was unfortunately a team that didn’t put teams away. I always go back to that cuse game that season. We let them hang around and let their crowd stay in it. We should have mopped the floor with them that night but we made a lot of boneheaded errors that cost us. It was deja vu in SC.

 

[PatrickYates]

Question for the folks who think Thornton would have helped the '17 team.

From whom does he take minutes? Kennard? Allen? Jackson?

Last year at USC, Thornton averaged 14 mpg, shot 36 percent and had more turnovers than assists.

In his year at Duke, I liked his defensive potential. But I wonder if people who see him as a big loss aren't mis-remembering his struggles.

I just don't think he is/was good enough to be a difference maker.

Duke knew that Okafor was a OAD and thought Winslow could go either way when they brought him in. But they thought Ty Jones' physical limitations would keep him at Duke for at least three seasons and didn't have a plan B when that turned out to not be the case.

At the time, I thought DT should have played more. But at some point, we have to admit that the kid was over ranked. He was a year or more older than most of his peers before he reclassified, and he was due for a (possibly sharp) downturn in his ranking prior to reclassification. He was simply a kid that was physically more mature than his classmates, who played on stacked HS and AAU teams. This masked his deficiencies to a huge degree. Once the competition caught up physically, and once he was no longer on teams that were far more talented than the other team, he was not effective.
.
It is sort of like Duval. In today's game, guards HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT FROM THE PERIMETER. A PG cannot shoot less than 30% from 3 and be effective. And it has to be a TRUE 30%. Last year, TD was above 30% by the end of the season (based on the last few months of the season), but those 3s were completely wide open because he wasn't being guarded. Hitting 1-2 ungaurded 3s ins't that helpful. It isn't dangerous enough to force the opposing defense to close out on the guard, which means there is an extra defender.
.
In HS (and AAU), good size and athleticism is enough for a PG to excel. The defense and rim protection in HS is largely non-existent. At some of the most recent AAu events, and this last week featured the pinnacle of the AAu season, there was a lot of zone D played. And not a great zone, like Cuse plays. Not even a mediocre-to-good zone, like Duke employed last year. Sloppy, lazy, no-help-on-d zones. A good athlete with size can get to the rim vs all but the most elite Cs, and there might be 1-2 of those in a given year. If that. PGs with size and athleticism get ranked high early in their careers, on the assumption that they'll learn to shoot. When that shooting skill manifests/develops, the PG is finally ranked correctly. But when it doesn't, the player becomes ineffective vs college defenses. Duval, if he can shoot 35% from 3, is an All Star. If he's a 30% shooter, he's a run of the mill roster player. Under 30% and no team can justify playing him.
.
DT couldn't shoot. TD couldn't shoot, not really. The teams playing late in March have PGs that can make 3s and defend. Everything else can be overcome.

 

[dukephysics]

At the time,...

You might want to check out these stats and restate some of these things. Russell Westbrook was just under 30% from 3 and I'd hardly call him unjustifiable on the court or run of the mill. And Westbrook is probably the pro player I've seen most compared to Duval. There are other effective PGs not shooting 35% from 3.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/.../threePointFieldGoalPct/position/point-guards

 

[PatrickYates]

You might want to check out these stats and restate some of these things. Russell Westbrook was just under 30% from 3 and I'd hardly call him unjustifiable on the court or run of the mill. And Westbrook is probably the pro player I've seen most compared to Duval. There are other effective PGs not shooting 35% from 3.

http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/.../threePointFieldGoalPct/position/point-guards

So, your comp is the most athletic player to ever play the PG? And he's above 30% from 3 NOW. TD is a good athlete with good size. Russ was a combo guard with good size and ultra-elite athleticism. He's substantially quicker and faster than the pretty quick/fast in his own right TD, and RW is a better leaper.
.
Comparing PGs who can't shoot to Russell Westbrook is like comparing combo forwards who aren't great FT shooters to LeBron James. Heck, Michael Jordan wasn't a great 3pt shooter. But he made up for it in other ways. I don't see TD or DT ever getting 10 boards a game. Or 5 boards a game.
.
And RW's teams STILL can't win. His shooting cost them their chance in the NBA finals, and it cost them the conf finals a few more times. And that was alongside Kevin Freaking Durant.
.
A poor shooting PG can be successful on a personal level despite having little team success. If he's athletic enough. TD and DT are great athletes. I'm just not sure if they are athletic enough to overcome the shooting woes.

 

[dukephysics]

So, your comp is the most athletic player to ever play the PG? And he's above 30% from 3 NOW. TD is a good athlete with good size. Russ was a combo guard with good size and ultra-elite athleticism. He's substantially quicker and faster than the pretty quick/fast in his own right TD, and RW is a better leaper.
.
Comparing PGs who can't shoot to Russell Westbrook is like comparing combo forwards who aren't great FT shooters to LeBron James. Heck, Michael Jordan wasn't a great 3pt shooter. But he made up for it in other ways. I don't see TD or DT ever getting 10 boards a game. Or 5 boards a game.
.
And RW's teams STILL can't win. His shooting cost them their chance in the NBA finals, and it cost them the conf finals a few more times. And that was alongside Kevin Freaking Durant.
.
A poor shooting PG can be successful on a personal level despite having little team success. If he's athletic enough. TD and DT are great athletes. I'm just not sure if they are athletic enough to overcome the shooting woes.

My comp is the player, again, that I've seen most compared to Duval. (They also look a little like one another)
Here are more stats, these from the NBA combine:
Russell Westbrook
Lane agility: 10.98s
3/4 sprint: 3.08
Standing vertical: 30.0
Max vertical: 36.5

Trevon Duval
Lane agility: 10.93s
3/4 sprint: 3.09
Standing vertical: 34.0
Max vertical: 41.5

I'm only comparing Duval to Westbrook because you said
" In today's game, guards HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT FROM THE PERIMETER. A PG cannot shoot less than 30% from 3 and be effective."

I think Westbrook is an example of a guy that doesn't shoot well from the outside but is still effective. If you don't like the RW comp, I'll give you a worse one that also proves my point, Ben Simmons who won rookie of the year, is also an effective PG who cannot shoot from the outside. So yes, it's possible that you have to have other characteristics (like be a freak athlete or be very tall and skilled) to get away with not being able to shoot, but the fact remains that it can be done.

If your point is that TD needs to improve his shooting to maximize his effectiveness, I agree. If your argument is that if he cannot shoot then he is destined to become a player that no team can justify playing, since PGs have to be able to shoot from the outside, then this argument is simply false.

 

[PatrickYates]

My comp is the player, again, that I've seen most compared to Duval. (They also look a little like one another)
Here are more stats, these from the NBA combine:
Russell Westbrook
Lane agility: 10.98s
3/4 sprint: 3.08
Standing vertical: 30.0
Max vertical: 36.5

Trevon Duval
Lane agility: 10.93s
3/4 sprint: 3.09
Standing vertical: 34.0
Max vertical: 41.5

I'm only comparing Duval to Westbrook because you said
" In today's game, guards HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOOT FROM THE PERIMETER. A PG cannot shoot less than 30% from 3 and be effective."

I think Westbrook is an example of a guy that doesn't shoot well from the outside but is still effective. If you don't like the RW comp, I'll give you a worse one that also proves my point, Ben Simmons who won rookie of the year, is also an effective PG who cannot shoot from the outside. So yes, it's possible that you have to have other characteristics (like be a freak athlete or be very tall and skilled) to get away with not being able to shoot, but the fact remains that it can be done.

If your point is that TD needs to improve his shooting to maximize his effectiveness, I agree. If your argument is that if he cannot shoot then he is destined to become a player that no team can justify playing, since PGs have to be able to shoot from the outside, then this argument is simply false.

Without KD, Russ's teams are typically in the bottom half of the playoffs in their conference. And he's well above 30% from 3 now, anyway.
.
As for Simmons, it was lost on no one that Boston stopped guarding him from 3, and promptly seized control of the series.
.
And, finally, define "effective." I'd define it as being able to contribute on a team that is a serious threat to win a title (or at least make the WC finals and give a good showing vs the GSW). To me, being effective necessitates serious team success.
.
If you want to define 'effective' to mean putting up empty numbers on a team with no real chance to do anything in the playoffs, or NCAAT as an equivalent, fine. You do you. Even if you want to use, that, ahem, specious, definition of effective, neither DT nor TD have anywhere near the physical gifts of Simmons or Russ.

 

[dukephysics]

Without KD, Russ's teams are typically in the bottom half of the playoffs in their conference. And he's well above 30% from 3 now, anyway.

Well the Western Conference is universally considered the better of the 2 conferences and RW's teams without KD have been seeded 4th and 6th without KD. You have a sample size of 2 and are technically correct on that point. The RW/KD team from KD's last year in OKC finished 3rd. So I don't know why that's an issue.
By well above 30% "now" I'm guessing you cherry-picked the most recent playoffs. That is true. If you choose to take, oh say the most recent regular season, he is not above 30%. In fact, he has been below 30% in 2 of the last 4 postseasons, and 3 of the last 4 regular seasons. So again, if you want to leave out basically all context, you could technically be correct.

As for Simmons, it was lost on no one that Boston stopped guarding him from 3, and promptly seized control of the series.

Also technically true.
Boston didn't figure out that Simmons couldn't shoot and solve some mystery puzzle that the entire NBA had failed to figure out. Was Simmons ineffective all year - the year had was named Rookie of the Year?

And, finally, define "effective." I'd define it as being able to contribute on a team that is a serious threat to win a title (or at least make the WC finals and give a good showing vs the GSW). To me, being effective necessitates serious team success.

I would define effective as helping your team function better than they would with replacement at your position.
By your definition, there are like 3 PGs in the NBA that are effective, tops. By mine, it might be closer to 15. Since it's semantics, I can't argue the accuracy of your claim only to say that most reasonable people would probably come in closer to my number when counting effective PGs.
The GSW are one of, if not best, teams in the history of basketball. So to be an effective PG, my TEAM has to be able to give a good showing against that team?

If you want to define 'effective' to mean putting up empty numbers on a team with no real chance to do anything in the playoffs, or NCAAT as an equivalent, fine. You do you. Even if you want to use, that, ahem, specious, definition of effective, neither DT nor TD have anywhere near the physical gifts of Simmons or Russ.

So I gave you my definition of effective above, so I won't rehash it here. I'll just say that the Russell Westbrook lead teams that included KD would fit both our definitions. If you're saying, see, RW is ineffective because without KD his team isn't a threat to the Warriors then I would say you'll have a hard time finding "effective" PGs anywhere if you start considering the success that player would have if you started stripping the good players off their team. How effective is Steph Curry on a GSW team without Klay and Draymond (and KD)? That Steph Curry would not be effective by your definition. So again, semantics, and I would have more that take my definition than yours.

Please list the PGs in the NBA that fit this definition:
"I'd define it as being able to contribute on a team that is a serious threat to win a title (or at least make the WC finals and give a good showing vs the GSW)."
You're either going to have to move players to new teams or your list is going to be very, very short (with RW being the first or second guy on the left off list and George Hill on the effective list). And if you're moving players, RW makes several teams a legit threat. Seriously, please go through the exercise.

 

[lyonhawk]

Without KD, Russ's teams are typically in the bottom half of the playoffs in their conference. And he's well above 30% from 3 now, anyway.
.
As for Simmons, it was lost on no one that Boston stopped guarding him from 3, and promptly seized control of the series.
.
And, finally, define "effective." I'd define it as being able to contribute on a team that is a serious threat to win a title (or at least make the WC finals and give a good showing vs the GSW). To me, being effective necessitates serious team success.
.
If you want to define 'effective' to mean putting up empty numbers on a team with no real chance to do anything in the playoffs, or NCAAT as an equivalent, fine. You do you. Even if you want to use, that, ahem, specious, definition of effective, neither DT nor TD have anywhere near the physical gifts of Simmons or Russ.

To be fair, by this definition, LeBron James wasn't effective this year.

 

[Liftee]

I felt Thornton had potential, just was a typical young player a little out of control and needed to tighten his handle. I was sad to see him leave and I think he misread his role for the next season.

I think we were all realistic about Giles' health (even Coach K, who supposedly offered a scholarship even if Giles never played a minute). However I always expected he would play a prominent role later in the season and that never materialized. An effective Giles for 15 minutes a game would have made a huge difference and would not have ruined the rotation.

 

[PatrickYates]

To be fair, by this definition, LeBron James wasn't effective this year.

His team only played for the NBA title.
.
And, again, lets not use LeBron as a reason for why a random player can overcome some glaring deficiency to be a star on a title winning team.

 

[nets on nets on nets]

I've been watching a lot of preseason NBA basketball, and the biggest surprise in the WHOLE LEAGUE is how great Harry GIles has looked.
He had 16 pts, 7 rebs, and 4 blocks last night, and he made it look pretty effortlessly, and did it in less than 25 minutes.

If Harry ends up being anything close to the guy he was projected to be, he's gonna be a multi-year all-star. I'm rooting extra hard for this guy, even though his season with us ended up in flames, Harry gave Duke everything he had. Looking back, he really shouldn't have played a second of college basketball, but he wanted to play for Duke and the GOAT.

And yes, Duke would have cut down the nets easily with THIS Harry Giles.

 

[PatrickYates]

I've been watching a lot of preseason NBA basketball, and the biggest surprise in the WHOLE LEAGUE is how great Harry GIles has looked.
He had 16 pts, 7 rebs, and 4 blocks last night, and he made it look pretty effortlessly, and did it in less than 25 minutes.

If Harry ends up being anything close to the guy he was projected to be, he's gonna be a multi-year all-star. I'm rooting extra hard for this guy, even though his season with us ended up in flames, Harry gave Duke everything he had. Looking back, he really shouldn't have played a second of college basketball, but he wanted to play for Duke and the GOAT.

And yes, Duke would have cut down the nets easily with THIS Harry Giles.

The heart breaking part, for him and Duke, is that Giles is likely to only ever be about 85-90 percent of what he could have been without any injuries. And even so, he'll still be a star in the NBA.
.
People who don't obsess over HS recruiting will never understand how good Giles could have been. HS potential wasn't (quite) that of LeBron James, but Kevin Durant was a reasonable comp. Not the same type of game, but the same type of ceiling. I say, without being hyperbolic, that Giles might have been a rich man's Tim Duncan. Think about that. One of the 2 greatest PFs (him or Karl Malone) of all time. Giles could have been better than that. But he lost 3 very important years from a development POV. Both his game and his personality. Those are the years when a kid learns to be "selfish" and dominate, to impose his will on the game. He can be good, still. He could even be a HOF player. But he won't be as good, possibly by a good amount, as he COULD have been sans injury.
.
He was that amazing.