As Duke prepares for the next challenge of their non-conference gauntlet with an evening tip against Arizona on November 22nd, I can’t help but recall Duke’s early-season loss against an experienced and potent Kentucky team, a week ago. Among several issues that the Blue Devils had to battle through, including a shortened rotation due to injuries and a horrid shooting game from 3, was a lack of offensive production from Duke’s starting backcourt of Caleb Foster and Tyrese Proctor (a combined 6-19 from the field, 2-10 from 3), particularly in the second half.
This inefficiency caused some in the college basketball community to deduce that Duke has a “guard problem”. So, do they?
The short answer is “nah, not really”. But, that’s not a basketball answer.
So, let’s get into it…
Concept and Utilization
Jon Scheyer has subverted off-season expectations regarding the roles of his returning backcourt. Instead of Tyrese Proctor retaining his duties as head facilitator while allowing Caleb Foster to operate primarily off-ball, Scheyer has elected to do the opposite: allowing Foster primary ball-handling responsibility. This has allowed Foster to be able to use his skills as one of Duke’s better downhill drivers in quick-actions early in the shot clock; and, it has allowed Tyrese the ability to show his improved catch-and-shoot prowess from 3 (UK, notwithstanding, Proctor is a 50% 3-point shooter this season) and make himself available as one of Duke’s better off-ball movers.
Defensively, Duke’s has been stout in keeping opponents out of the lane. That defensive identity begins at the point-of-attack where Caleb has been a solid on-ball defender, utilizing his strength to bother opposing lead guards - often 94ft from their basket. This frees Tyrese up to hound scoring guards with his high defensive IQ. While there have been some defensive lapses in communication from Tyrese and Caleb, they have not been the norm and opposing coaches certainly don’t view either of them as guys they can exploit consistently on the defensive end.
So, if they’re supposed to be so good, what went wrong against UK?
The Kentucky Anomaly
Duke couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with a tennis ball against UK.
On the season, UK included, Duke is in the top 90 teams in the country in 3-point percentage per official NCAA statistics, and, overall, Duke is boasting the 10th best offensive efficiency in the country, per KenPom. On the whole, Duke is a very potent basketball team on that end. I would venture to guess that Duke won’t have many more 16% shooting nights this season.
As for Foster and Proctor, though they were solid, defensively, in the crucial minutes of the second half, when the team needed sound offensive execution, they all but disappeared. I can admit fully admit that, while not sharing the fanbase’s chagrin regarding the offense in second half. I will spare you all another “what went wrong against UK” article, but let’s just say that players have to hit shots and neither of them made enough plays to be effective against Mark Pope and his Wildcats.
Basketball is a make-or-miss sport, to oversimplify. When an opponent makes 6 more threes than you, it’s hard to win the basketball game.
That said, I couldn’t help but think about the last 4 years in Duke basketball, when in crunch time Duke had the luxury of giving the ball to Jeremy Roach, spam our high-ball screen reads, and feel confident something good was going to happen. We understood that we could give the basketball to our best playmaking guard and he would go out and make something positive happen. It was a proven and reliable late-game action that Roach has gained acclaim for perfecting.
This year, Scheyer doesn’t have Roach (I don’t want to talk about it) and, therefore, doesn’t have a proven guard that can take control of the game late and go put Duke in position to win. Should it be Proctor in the pick and roll and getting to that turnaround fadeaway middy he loves? Should it be Foster getting downhill and attacking the rim? Perhaps, but it’s not right now. Ultimately, the PLAYERS have to prove the ability to do that when it matters most.
“Proving” Grounds or a “Problem”?
“Proving the ability…” requires development and consistency. It requires screwing up and bouncing back. It also requires a team that trusts it enough to stake a game and, one day, a season on it. One game in November doesn’t “prove” anything, one way or the other, aside from the areas this team needs to continue to develop. Scheyer hasn’t coached the team long enough, Proctor and Foster haven’t been in these roles with this team long enough to make an accurate determination. We as fans, shouldn’t expect that, four games in.
So, as Duke nears it’s second ranked matchup in this young season, let’s see how Caleb and Tyrese respond in Tucson on Friday. Let’s see if Tyrese can knock down his catch-and-shoot threes with regularity; let’s see if Caleb can knock down his open threes and get to the rim to finish through contact; let’s see if they communicate and lead the way Jon and the team need them to; let’s see if they can get other guys involved in the flow of the game; let’s see if they learned and grew. Let’s view Friday’s game against the Wildcats as another battle in the proving ground to see if this team can go from good, to great.
Sure, Duke MAY have a guard problem.
But, that “problem” wouldn’t be evident today. Not in November. Not in game three against Kentucky, nor in game five against Arizona - no matter what the result is. It is, simply, too early to tell. Tell me about this team’s “problems” in February. Hell, if you want to be early, at least wait to tell me about this team’s “problems” when ACC play begins and the non-conference part of the schedule is in the rear-view mirror.
Until then, to my fellow Duke fans… bring it in… real close… hold my hand while I tell y’all this… look me in the eye… you ready?
…we all need to, f*cking, relax.