So, how good was this Carolina team?

[peplaw06]

Players Hansbrough played against that were in the NBA.
.................

Surely you can not believe that Hansbrough has played nobody in his
career.

I never said he didn't play against anybody. All I said was the competition for him in the ACC in the post wasn't as good as it's been in the past. That list just proves my point. It's a long list of spares. There's no one on that list from the ACC who was better than Shelden Williams, and no one on that list who's better than Boozer.

And by the way, you've put a LOT of guys on there who wouldn't be matched up with Hansbrough, but that's beside the point.

I never said that Dunleavy was not better. I said he was not that much better. Listen, if you want to maintain that Green can not post up, that's fine. Your wrong but it is what it is. Green is an extremely hard worker on defense and Dunleavy relied on that jump shot. I'd be real interested in watching how that played out.

You said it was a wash. It's most definitely not a wash.

I suspect that you don't want to consider the fact that Ellington would likely have played Williams because you know what it means. Williams could not have taken Ellington like he did most of the Guards he played against. Ellington is to athletic. Doesn't matter. Lawson is a better player over all IMO. Williams was a slightly better scorer. That's it. BTW, he was a horrible FT shooter.

The reason I'm not comparing them is because you started with the position by position matchups and Williams was a PG. It's probably the same reason you haven't thrown Bobby Frasor into the mix. We can get into the comparison of the whole team if you want, bench players and all, but I've only gone with the top 6.

And I don't think many people would agree with your assessment that Lawson was better. I'm not saying he wasn't great, but he just doesn't have the accolades. He was the 3rd scoring option. Sorry.

I never once said Williams was a 2 guard. Show me where that statement was made. Your reaching here. However, Williams did move to the shooting guard the last 10 games of the season. Duhon became the starting point guard the last 10 games of the season. Those are the facts and they are not in dispute.

Duhon was not the 6th man at the end of the season. He was the starter.

You are trying to match Williams up with Ellington, when he's not a 2 guard. Look if you want to be perfectly honest, it would be Williams/Duhon vs. Lawson and Nate James vs. Ellington. Of course there would be some shuffling of matchups. You're not getting 40 minutes of everyone playing the same guy. But overall, the matchups don't mean a whole hell of a lot.... Duke's roster was just better.

Once again, you are in error over Boozier. I never said he didn't play. I said he was injured late in the season, which forced a rotation of players. Williams went to shooting Guard and Duhon was the starting PG.

That's right. Duke had to adjust to Boozer being out, and they still won the title going away. I seriously doubt that UNC could have done that.

Ginyard and Zeller are irrelivant to the discussion.

You brought em up.

They did not play big roles but, what is relivant is what lineup your comparing. If you want to compare that team in the middle of the season, that's fine. If you would like to say that they were better in the middle of the season, that's fine too. However, at the end the season, the lineups that were playing for the championship is a different story.

Overall the 2001 Duke team was better. That team was better in the beginning, middle and end of the season. How's that?

Let me just remind you that it was your words, Duke was much better. I said I would not be so sure of that.

I started saying Duke was better. I knew that you would think I was being a homer, then I clarified that "I really would make that argument." The murder comment was a simple bit of hyperbole. They're clearly both very good teams, but I would give the edge to Duke.

I know would like to change that opinion. Duke would get smoked.



Your turn.

No way '01 Duke gets smoked. Simply wouldn't happen. That team could run with anyone and they could play the slowdown, and overall they had much better defense. Carolina played good D in the tournament, but their defensive body of work wasn't as good.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I never said he didn't play against anybody. All I said was the competition for him in the ACC in the post wasn't as good as it's been in the past. That list just proves my point. It's a long list of spares. There's no one on that list from the ACC who was better than Shelden Williams, and no one on that list who's better than Boozer.

They made the NBA. How bad could they have been? I think your confusing good players faced with good players who played for Duke. There are good players in the ACC outside of Duke and Carolina.

And by the way, you've put a LOT of guys on there who wouldn't be matched up with Hansbrough, but that's beside the point.

They are all front line players so they all played against him. As you are well aware, because Duke has done this for years, teams typically do not play Hansbrough one on one. they use doubles or team defense principles. Not all were centers but all were baseline players, Forwards or Centers.

You said it was a wash. It's most definitely not a wash.

In my opinion it is. Williams was a better scorer, he was not a better point guard. Simple as that.

The reason I'm not comparing them is because you started with the position by position matchups and Williams was a PG. It's probably the same reason you haven't thrown Bobby Frasor into the mix. We can get into the comparison of the whole team if you want, bench players and all, but I've only gone with the top 6.

I am only comparing the top 5. We can compare the whole team, team defensive numbers, offesive numbers, team shooting %, we can go as far as you like. The point is that Duke was not far and away better then this Carolina team. If they played, it would be in doubt.

And I don't think many people would agree with your assessment that Lawson was better. I'm not saying he wasn't great, but he just doesn't have the accolades. He was the 3rd scoring option. Sorry.

I'm not surprised. If I were a Duke fan, I'd probably say the same thing. The point here is that as a point guard, his numbers are better. Better assist man, better shooter, better TO ratio, better 3pt %, better Ft%, he is better. The only numbers in favor of Williams scoring and rebounds.

You are trying to match Williams up with Ellington, when he's not a 2 guard. Look if you want to be perfectly honest, it would be Williams/Duhon vs. Lawson and Nate James vs. Ellington. Of course there would be some shuffling of matchups. You're not getting 40 minutes of everyone playing the same guy. But overall, the matchups don't mean a whole hell of a lot.... Duke's roster was just better.

If I were a coach, I would defend Williams with Ellington. Ellington is longer, quicker and a tougher match up for Williams. I'd bet money that this is what would happen if the two played each other. Why is that such an issue?

That is your opinion but that's what this is about right? Carolina's starting five are clearly better IMO. Carolina's bench is probably not as good but I've already said that. What's your point?

That's right. Duke had to adjust to Boozer being out, and they still won the title going away. I seriously doubt that UNC could have done that.

Perhaps they were able to do that because the ACC didn't have any good players to face him that year.

This is not about how each team got there. Carolina had a lot of injuries during the year as well. This is about what would happen if they played.

You brought em up.

I brought them up to say that they were not matrial to the discussion. You have still not established why they would be.

Overall the 2001 Duke team was better. That team was better in the beginning, middle and end of the season. How's that?

That's typical Duke BS. Establish why, not opinion.

I started saying Duke was better. I knew that you would think I was being a homer, then I clarified that "I really would make that argument." The murder comment was a simple bit of hyperbole. They're clearly both very good teams, but I would give the edge to Duke.

This is a much more reasonable position. I would give the edge to Carolina but I would never say that this Duke team was not capable of beating them.

No way '01 Duke gets smoked. Simply wouldn't happen. That team could run with anyone and they could play the slowdown, and overall they had much better defense. Carolina played good D in the tournament, but their defensive body of work wasn't as good.

I completely agree. It would seem that you are now begining to understand why Duke is not a given if the two played.

 

[peplaw06]

They made the NBA. How bad could they have been? I think your confusing good players faced with good players who played for Duke. There are good players in the ACC outside of Duke and Carolina.

Making the NBA as a spare part doesn't mean anything. Carlos Boozer is a repeat All-Star. Anyone else on that list from the ACC who can say that?

They are all front line players so they all played against him. As you are well aware, because Duke has done this for years, teams typically do not play Hansbrough one on one. they use doubles or team defense principles. Not all were centers but all were baseline players, Forwards or Centers.

:laugh1:

Well, then you could say that John Scheyer played defense against Hansbrough, because he probably dropped a double team down on the post or switched on a screen one time. You're in rare form in this thread. I think it's just the Tar Heel homer in you.

In my opinion it is. Williams was a better scorer, he was not a better point guard. Simple as that.

This remark was about Dunleavy vs. Green. You didn't say Williams v. Lawson was a wash, you gave the edge to Lawson.

I am only comparing the top 5. We can compare the whole team, team defensive numbers, offesive numbers, team shooting %, we can go as far as you like. The point is that Duke was not far and away better then this Carolina team. If they played, it would be in doubt.

It should have been obvious that this wasn't my point considering I said I actually would make the argument. That implies it's close. Like I said, the murder comment was tongue in cheek.

I'm not surprised. If I were a Duke fan, I'd probably say the same thing. The point here is that as a point guard, his numbers are better. Better assist man, better shooter, better TO ratio, better 3pt %, better Ft%, he is better. The only numbers in favor of Williams scoring and rebounds.

Are scoring and rebounds not important as a PG? The differences in assists are miniscule. It's a byproduct of being a leading scoring option vs. being the third option and facilitator. Circular arguments abound in your posts.

If I were a coach, I would defend Williams with Ellington. Ellington is longer, quicker and a tougher match up for Williams. I'd bet money that this is what would happen if the two played each other. Why is that such an issue?

And if I were a coach, I would love for you to do that exclusively, because I would then go big and put James or Dunleavy in at the 2, and post up Lawson. I mean he has to cover someone right?

That is your opinion but that's what this is about right? Carolina's starting five are clearly better IMO. Carolina's bench is probably not as good but I've already said that. What's your point?

Clearly better....?? puh-lease. I haven't even said that Duke's starting five were clearly better. How many Wooden winners? How many Naismith winners? How many all americans? etc.

Perhaps they were able to do that because the ACC didn't have any good players to face him that year.

This doesn't make sense.

This is not about how each team got there. Carolina had a lot of injuries during the year as well. This is about what would happen if they played.

The difference is I'm not trying to take guys out of the comparison who missed a handful of games. Like I said, I'm not taking Lawson out of the debate, like you're trying to do with Boozer.

I brought them up to say that they were not matrial to the discussion. You have still not established why they would be.

You said that you weren't bringing them up because you didn't want to compare rosters... It's pointless not to compare rosters, because teams never play only 5 guys. But you can bring em up if you want. Let's throw Ginyard's three GP in there, you can get an honest analysis there. And you can have Zeller and his 3 PPG. It doesn't change the analysis.

That's typical Duke BS. Establish why, not opinion.

I've established why this entire thread.

This is a much more reasonable position. I would give the edge to Carolina but I would never say that this Duke team was not capable of beating them.

I guess you've flown off the handle then, because I've never maintained anything other than this, save for a tongue in cheek hyperbolic remark.

I completely agree. It would seem that you are now begining to understand why Duke is not a given if the two played.

I never said it was.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

[QUOTE

]Making the NBA as a spare part doesn't mean anything. Carlos Boozer is a repeat All-Star. Anyone else on that list from the ACC who can say that?

:laugh1:[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in order to be classified as somebody good Hansbrough has played against, they had to be a two time All Star. Let also point out that Boozier did not become an All Star till 07-08. He entered the NBA in 2002. The guys on that list haven't had the opportunity to develope into All Stars as yet. I don't know that you saying Boozier is a two time all star means much considering the fact it took 5 seasons to become one. That's fine, if you don't want to admit that the guy played against good comp., I won't try and make you see reason. A very large majority of those players are still young so they haven't reached the potential they ultimatly will.

Well, then you could say that John Scheyer played defense against Hansbrough, because he probably dropped a double team down on the post or switched on a screen one time. You're in rare form in this thread. I think it's just the Tar Heel homer in you.

Yes you could. Just like you could say Boozier was a great offensive player at Duke. It's all relative.

This remark was about Dunleavy vs. Green. You didn't say Williams v. Lawson was a wash, you gave the edge to Lawson.

That's fair. I did say that.

It should have been obvious that this wasn't my point considering I said I actually would make the argument. That implies it's close. Like I said, the murder comment was tongue in cheek.

I agree. I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty which team could win that match up. I would have enjoyed watching the two play. Tongue in cheek or no, if we both agree that the two teams are a close matchup, then the rest doesn't matter. That's my point in this thread.

Are scoring and rebounds not important as a PG? The differences in assists are miniscule. It's a byproduct of being a leading scoring option vs. being the third option and facilitator. Circular arguments abound in your posts.

Yes, scoring is important if that is what your role on the team is. However, if your role is to distribute the ball and actaully run the offense, then other things become more important. The difference in rebounding is only 3.3 per game vs 3.0. However, something can be said for playing defense. Williams was not a great defense player. Lawson is. I would also point out that shooting % is also very important but I notice it's not mentioned. How many shots does it take to get to 20? Scoring efficiency is key. Also TO ratio. Lawson takes care of the ball much better. Fewer TOs per game by lawson. That also is a big part of being a Point Guard.

And if I were a coach, I would love for you to do that exclusively, because I would then go big and put James or Dunleavy in at the 2, and post up Lawson. I mean he has to cover someone right?

So do they and no way either one of those guys could cover Lawson. He'd probably score 60 on you if you put either of those guys on him. Also, no matter how much you try to squirm out of it, Krys played Duhon because he was one of the best 5 and gave Duke the best chance to win. You can go big if you like but you gotta give something up somewhere.

Clearly better....?? puh-lease. I haven't even said that Duke's starting five were clearly better. How many Wooden winners? How many Naismith winners? How many all americans? etc.
This doesn't make sense.

How many Championships?

The difference is I'm not trying to take guys out of the comparison who missed a handful of games. Like I said, I'm not taking Lawson out of the debate, like you're trying to do with Boozer.

Neither am I. I'm trying to compare the Duke team that played in the Championship game against the Carolina team that played in the Championship game. That's all. The rest of this is just stuff that is of no relivance.

You said that you weren't bringing them up because you didn't want to compare rosters... It's pointless not to compare rosters, because teams never play only 5 guys. But you can bring em up if you want. Let's throw Ginyard's three GP in there, you can get an honest analysis there. And you can have Zeller and his 3 PPG. It doesn't change the analysis.

No, in fact I said I would be willing to compare anything you like. I said I did not factor in injuries because they didn't matter. You said that Booziers injury didn't matter but it did. Not because he didn't play but because it caused the rotation in your starting guards and put Duhon in the lineup. You know this is true.

I've established why this entire thread.

No, you haven't.

I guess you've flown off the handle then, because I've never maintained anything other than this, save for a tongue in cheek hyperbolic remark.

If it makes you feel better to believe this, so be it.

I never said it was

Yes you did but it's not important. So long as we can both agree that if the two played, the game would be in doubt either way. There is no clear cut superior team between the two IMO. They are both good teams.

 

[peplaw06]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in order to be classified as somebody good Hansbrough has played against, they had to be a two time All Star. Let also point out that Boozier did not become an All Star till 07-08. He entered the NBA in 2002. The guys on that list haven't had the opportunity to develope into All Stars as yet. I don't know that you saying Boozier is a two time all star means much considering the fact it took 5 seasons to become one. That's fine, if you don't want to admit that the guy played against good comp., I won't try and make you see reason. A very large majority of those players are still young so they haven't reached the potential they ultimatly will.

It's not just the All-Star recognition. Boozer also averaged a double double in his sophomore season in the NBA.

You haven't mentioned anyone on that list from the ACC who was better than Boozer, and I stated that the best he's probably played against is Shelden Williams, and you haven't alleged anyone on your list was better than him either. So you're basically talking out of your posterior.

]Yes you could. Just like you could say Boozier was a great offensive player at Duke. It's all relative.

But it doesn't advance your point. It's a huge reach and makes you look desperate to find guys he played well against who are worth anything.

I agree. I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty which team could win that match up. I would have enjoyed watching the two play. Tongue in cheek or no, if we both agree that the two teams are a close matchup, then the rest doesn't matter. That's my point in this thread.

Of course you can't because it's all hypothetical. The two teams will never play. The thread was asking for rankings of the teams this decade, and that's what I did. I said UNC was #2 or #3, obviously I recognize they're close.

Yes, scoring is important if that is what your role on the team is. However, if your role is to distribute the ball and actaully run the offense, then other things become more important. The difference in rebounding is only 3.3 per game vs 3.0. However, something can be said for playing defense. Williams was not a great defense player. Lawson is. I would also point out that shooting % is also very important but I notice it's not mentioned. How many shots does it take to get to 20? Scoring efficiency is key. Also TO ratio. Lawson takes care of the ball much better. Fewer TOs per game by lawson. That also is a big part of being a Point Guard.

This can go round and round, and no one's going to be convinced. I'll just rest assured that the awards voters agree with me.

So do they and no way either one of those guys could cover Lawson. He'd probably score 60 on you if you put either of those guys on him. Also, no matter how much you try to squirm out of it, Krys played Duhon because he was one of the best 5 and gave Duke the best chance to win. You can go big if you like but you gotta give something up somewhere.

Well see I would actually have my PG cover your PG, so if you want your SG covering my PG, then be prepared to have a mismatch on your PG. It's that simple. Coach K played Duhon because he had no other real choice when Boozer went down. But Bozer was back in the tournament and had a good Final Four... especially considering he missed 3 weeks.

How many Championships?

One... just as many as your team. How does that make UNC clearly better again?

Neither am I. I'm trying to compare the Duke team that played in the Championship game against the Carolina team that played in the Championship game. That's all. The rest of this is just stuff that is of no relivance.

Um... Boozer played in the championship game.

No, in fact I said I would be willing to compare anything you like. I said I did not factor in injuries because they didn't matter. You said that Booziers injury didn't matter but it did. Not because he didn't play but because it caused the rotation in your starting guards and put Duhon in the lineup. You know this is true.

It also has a lot to do with matchups. Arizona didn't have a lot inside other than Loren Woods, who Casey Sanders chould match on length and height. UNC doesn't have that kind of height. They're more bulky, so Boozer and Battier probably would have played the most minutes.

Yes you did but it's not important.

Link?

 

[DFWJC]

Seeing that you two are not letting this go.

Why not each of you list your school's top 15 hoops players of all time?

This is just filler until the NFL daft gets here.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Seeing that you two are not letting this go.

Why not each of you list your school's top 15 hoops players of all time?

This is just filler until the NFL daft gets here.

I couldn't do that to pep. I like him too much.

:laugh2:

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's not just the All-Star recognition. Boozer also averaged a double double in his sophomore season in the NBA.

If I said that this guy or that guy was better, you would only disagree with me so what then is the point? Anybody who makes the NBA is pretty dang good. That's the reality of the situation IMO.

You haven't mentioned anyone on that list from the ACC who was better than Boozer, and I stated that the best he's probably played against is Shelden Williams, and you haven't alleged anyone on your list was better than him either. So you're basically talking out of your posterior.

OK, well, this has gotten out of hand. I don't believe Boozer was that good a player. Good defensively, nothing very spectacular offensively, a solid player. That's it. If you had to name all the all stars Boozer played against, would it be a who's who of NBA greats?

But it doesn't advance your point. It's a huge reach and makes you look desperate to find guys he played well against who are worth anything.

That is your opinon and you have already demonstrated how you are going to act with regards to this thread. You said he played against nobody. I'm saying that he did play against quality players. No matter what I say, you are not going to agree but I ask you, how many great players did Boozer play against?

Of course you can't because it's all hypothetical. The two teams will never play. The thread was asking for rankings of the teams this decade, and that's what I did. I said UNC was #2 or #3, obviously I recognize they're close.

In your mind, I agree, it's probably an obvious thing. You didn't state it that way. It is what it is. I don't expect Duke to feel good about saying Carolina is good. That's how it is but that is not what you originally said.

This can go round and round, and no one's going to be convinced. I'll just rest assured that the awards voters agree with me.

The "Awards" voters called Hansbrough won of the greatest college players of all time. The Awards voters called this Carolina team one of the most dominant in the history of the NCAA Tournament. I guess it all comes down to which Awards voters you choose to listen to.

Well see I would actually have my PG cover your PG, so if you want your SG covering my PG, then be prepared to have a mismatch on your PG. It's that simple. Coach K played Duhon because he had no other real choice when Boozer went down. But Bozer was back in the tournament and had a good Final Four... especially considering he missed 3 weeks.

Yeah, I would have played it like that. In the end, that Duke team didn't have anybody who could check Lawson. Go big, go small, double, zone, press, whatever. At the end of the day, there is nobody on that team who matches up well against Lawson.

One... just as many as your team. How does that make UNC clearly better again?

It doesn't but that was never my contention. It would be a game and Duke would not walk over anybody. That was my point, as you well know.

Um... Boozer played in the championship game.

I know this. Never said otherwise. What is the point?

It also has a lot to do with matchups. Arizona didn't have a lot inside other than Loren Woods, who Casey Sanders chould match on length and height. UNC doesn't have that kind of height. They're more bulky, so Boozer and Battier probably would have played the most minutes.

I agree. Matchups and to me, Carolina is a tougher match up for Duke then Duke would be for Carolina. Of course, I recognize that this is only my opinion but never the less, I think that it holds up to examination.

Link?

You don't really need to look any further then then your first post. As I said earlier, it's not all that important.

 

[BigWillie]

Just looking over both of your arguments, you are both being pretty silly.

Boozer was in no way 'weak offensively'. The guy averaged 15ppg in his collegiate career and would have easily eclipsed 2,000 points if he had stayed for his senior season.

Danny Green NEVER plays the post offensively. Green would slide to the 4 defensively to match other teams who would attempt smaller, faster lineups. However, he never posted anyone up. In his 4 year career, I honestly cannot remember him ever posting up on anyone. Danny is a straight wing player who relied on his outside shot and his mid-range game. Danny would never post up on Dunleavy who was the better and longer defender.

Saying Hansbrough has not played against anyone is just silly, silly argument to make that I will not even go into. That is just reaching by a dookie and nothing else.

Hansbrough has never been a good defender. That is well known by everyone who has watched him play. The reason being is his complete lack of athleticism forces him to be a position defender. People get angry because Hansbrough never fouls out or picks up stupid fouls. Well, this is the reason. Hansbrough knows he isn't a shot blocker and knows he cannot get to the ball like a Thabeet or Trevor Booker. More times than not, he plays behind the offensive guy and they are able to work him over offensively. This is why you never see Hansbrough picking up stupid fouls.

As a UNC fan, I absolutely adore Ty Lawson. But the fact of it is, Jay Williams was one of the best talents to ever step on an NCAA court. You put him on a team with less talent and the stats he would put up would be unimaginable. The guy was able to do anything he wanted on the court to anyone he wanted on the court. Jay was able to do everything Lawson could and do the one thing Lawson cannot -- shoot off the dribble. Lawson is a straight set shooter. With Jay, you gave him an inch and he took a mile, meaning he drained a jumper in your eye.

In the end, if both teams brought their A game, '01 dook (I will never spell it any other way) wins by 10+. However, if dook plays a game like they did versus UNC in Durham that year losing to that star studded team featuring Jason Capel, Ronald Curry, Julius Peppers and Max Owens, they are in trouble. But that seemed to be the theme with dook that year. They were that much better and knew they were that much better, so they were lazy at points. But a focused dook team rolls over '09 Carolina.

Now I will go wash my mouth out.

 

[peplaw06]

If I said that this guy or that guy was better, you would only disagree with me so what then is the point? Anybody who makes the NBA is pretty dang good. That's the reality of the situation IMO.

Of course... but I'm having a hard time even making a case for anyone on that list being as good as Boozer.

OK, well, this has gotten out of hand. I don't believe Boozer was that good a player. Good defensively, nothing very spectacular offensively, a solid player. That's it. If you had to name all the all stars Boozer played against, would it be a who's who of NBA greats?

Probably not, but then again I'm not claiming that Boozer was better than Hansbrough by a wide margin.

That is your opinon and you have already demonstrated how you are going to act with regards to this thread. You said he played against nobody. I'm saying that he did play against quality players. No matter what I say, you are not going to agree but I ask you, how many great players did Boozer play against?

Again, what's the relevance of that?

In your mind, I agree, it's probably an obvious thing. You didn't state it that way. It is what it is. I don't expect Duke to feel good about saying Carolina is good. That's how it is but that is not what you originally said.

Yes, but I've explained what I meant already. Hope you're still not taking it literally.

The "Awards" voters called Hansbrough won of the greatest college players of all time. The Awards voters called this Carolina team one of the most dominant in the history of the NCAA Tournament. I guess it all comes down to which Awards voters you choose to listen to.

Well, one I don't think those are actual awards. I think there have been some pundits who have said those things, but as for an actual poll taking place, I don't recall that happening. Regardless, I haven't disputed Hansbrough's place in the record books. He's the all time leading ACC scorer. My only contention with him is that it's closer than you would have us believe between him and Boozer.

Yeah, I would have played it like that. In the end, that Duke team didn't have anybody who could check Lawson. Go big, go small, double, zone, press, whatever. At the end of the day, there is nobody on that team who matches up well against Lawson.

And nobody on UNC's team could check Jay Will.

It doesn't but that was never my contention. It would be a game and Duke would not walk over anybody. That was my point, as you well know.

My apologies... you stated UNC's starting 5 were clearly better. Yet they still have the same number of championships while having fewer Wooden winners, Naismith winners, and All-americans.

I know this. Never said otherwise. What is the point?

The point is you want to distort matchups based on who was "starting" the championship as if that were the end-all when everyone knows Boozer was the starter for the majority of the season and he played big minutes in the Championship game.

I agree. Matchups and to me, Carolina is a tougher match up for Duke then Duke would be for Carolina. Of course, I recognize that this is only my opinion but never the less, I think that it holds up to examination.

And I disagree. But my matchups comment was more to your analysis of the "starting 5" as it pertains to these teams. I mean if you want to pretend that you absolutely know that Coach K would absolutely have had the same starting five against Arizona as he would have against this UNC team, then I guess there's no point in debating anymore.

You don't really need to look any further then then your first post. As I said earlier, it's not all that important.

Which I've explained, and it should be obvious by the implications of the rest of the post.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Of course... but I'm having a hard time even making a case for anyone on that list being as good as Boozer.

I think that you have to acknowledge the fact that most of these guys have only been in the NBA for a few years. They have not had an opportunity to really see there way as yet. Now, this is not to say that all of them will be stars. Some will have a short career, some will be role players, some will be starters but not stars and some will be stars. Any way you slice it, the compatition the Hansbrough has played against in his 4 years at Carolina have been good. I don't think you can question that fact.

Probably not, but then again I'm not claiming that Boozer was better than Hansbrough by a wide margin.

No, your saying they were close to even and I'm saying that's just not so at relative points in their careers. I think the problem here is that your focusing on what Boozer has become in the NBA and not the player he actually was at Duke. Boozer's career stats in the 00-01 season were not spectacular.

60.4% FG, 0.0 % 3P, 71.9 % FT, 6.5 RPG, 1.3 APG, .9 SPG, 13.3 PPG.

Hansbrough's numbers this past season look like this:

51.4%, 39.1% 3P, 84.1 % FT, 8.1 RPG, 1.0 APG, 1.2 SPG, 20.7 PPG.

I guess I don't know how else to say it. If we can't look at statistics and you contend that Hansbrough didn't play against good comp, yet you also say, as I understand it, that you agree that Boozer didn't play against better compation either, then we are at an impass. To me, Hansbrough is much better then Boozer in comparative seasons.

Again, what's the relevance of that?

The relevance is an agreed upon point of reference. You asked me who Hansbrough played against. I compiled a list of front line players that I though were quality opponents. I am asking you how Boozer fared against opponents he faced in college and how much superior they were in comparison? You made the comment that he didn't face anybody, which I think is inaccurate. I also don't think Sheldon was anywhere near the best player he faced. I'd have to say that Heytvelt, Randolph Morris, Craig Smith, Thadeus Young, Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green, David Padgett, Luke Harangody, Blake Griffin, Patrick Patterson, Cole Aldrich, Goran Sutton and possibly James Augustin were as good or better the Sheldon was. You can even make the argument that McRoberts was a tougher matchup for Hansbrough when McRoberts and Sheldon were both at Duke.

When I said that most Basketball people agree that Hansbrough was one of the best to ever play in the ACC, you made comment that he played against nobody and that is why he is regarded so highly. You seemed to reference that elude to the fact that he didn't play the same kind of compatition as Boozer did. If this is so, then it would seem reasonable to examine this point based on who Boozer actually played against. If I am in error on this, then OK but that would mean that Boozer did not play against tougher compation and so, the numbers each player posted should hold relevance in a comparison.

Yes, but I've explained what I meant already. Hope you're still not taking it literally.

No, just pointing out the context of the original discussion points.

Well, one I don't think those are actual awards. I think there have been some pundits who have said those things, but as for an actual poll taking place, I don't recall that happening. Regardless, I haven't disputed Hansbrough's place in the record books. He's the all time leading ACC scorer. My only contention with him is that it's closer than you would have us believe between him and Boozer.

I don't think it's all that close. Boozer, really didn't put up decent offensive numbers until his Jr. Season, which was the year after Duke won the title. Prior to that, he averaged 13 pts a game, 6 to 7 rebounds per game and just over 1 assist per game. He was never a shot blocker and he didn't really have an outside game to speak of. His shooting % was very good but that's because everything was a dunk with Boozer. I just don't believe it is as close as you believe it to be. Especially in the years that each won a championship.

And nobody on UNC's team could check Jay Will.

Well, Williams was a dribble penetration guy who could pull up for the jump shoot or dish. I think Williams went in the area of 6-2 195 or so. Ellington is 6-5 190 or so with decent agility. I think it would be much harder for Williams to shoot over Ellington then it would be Lawson who goes maybe 5-11 or so. I'm not trying to say that Williams would be shut down. I don't believe I ever said that. I said that Ellington would be a better defensive match up against Williams. I still believe that to be the case.

My apologies... you stated UNC's starting 5 were clearly better. Yet they still have the same number of championships while having fewer Wooden winners, Naismith winners, and All-americans.

Really? How many Naismith, Wooden and All-Americans were named as such in the 2000-2001 season?

The point is you want to distort matchups based on who was "starting" the championship as if that were the end-all when everyone knows Boozer was the starter for the majority of the season and he played big minutes in the Championship game.

This is not entirely correct. I think that you have to go with who was on the floor for each teams championship game. You seem to be hung up on this whole Boozer thing. Let me say this again so it's very clear to you. I never said that Boozer would not play or even start. I said that the guard matchups would be Williams and Duhon because they were the starting guards for the last 10 games of the season in 2000-2001. This whole Boozer thing is a figment of your imagination. In the 2000-2001 NCAA tourney, Williams was the Shooting Guard and Duhon was the Point Guard. That was the lineup that was used.

And I disagree. But my matchups comment was more to your analysis of the "starting 5" as it pertains to these teams. I mean if you want to pretend that you absolutely know that Coach K would absolutely have had the same starting five against Arizona as he would have against this UNC team, then I guess there's no point in debating anymore.

You know, Coach K could change the lineup, that's true. However, he did not do that in 2001, even when he had the chance to do that. When Boozer came back and he had the chance to go back to his original starting lineup, he didn't do it. Even against Az, who you yourself believed to be a tougher matchup, he didn't go back to his starting lineup of earlier in the year. Now, I acknowledge the fact that he could have changed his lineup at any time but the fact is that he didn't. All I can go on is what your own head coach elected to do so I guess your right, if you can't acknowledge that single fact, then we can't have a discussion.

Which I've explained, and it should be obvious by the implications of the rest of the post.

It's not obvious. On the one hand, you say that you've made it clear but on the other hand, you make a statement like this.

"Carolina played good D in the tournament, but their defensive body of work wasn't as good."

I guess I don't know how you can say you don't really mean what your saying but you continue to say it, just in a different fashion. Carolina was not a poor defensive team. Clearly, they were a superior offensive team. They lead the nation in scoring and rebounding, number 2 in Field Goal and 3 point shooting percentage. Clearly they were a superior offensive team but they were far from bad defensively. I don't think teams can just turn it on defensively. Offensively, I believe a team can get hot and shoot well but defense is not like that IMO. Defense is about effort and that's usually not something that comes and goes as you please IMO. However, the real differentiator is Average Margin of Victory IMO. It's not defense or offense. It's the combination of both. That tells you how good a team is.

Here is an interesting article that ranks the last 10 teams to win the NCAAs up to 2008. You may find it interesting.

http://sportstatbcl.blogspot.com/2008/06/decades-best-ncaa-basketball-champions.html

The Heel's average margin of victory was 20.2.

Here is what ESPN had to say about the 09 Heels vs the 01 Duke team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jackson/090407&sportCat=ncb

BTW Pep, and you may have seen this already, Walls is apparently not going to the NBA and in an interview I saw this morning, he said that it's down to Carolina and Duke.