NYT: Duke's Jay Williams, 10 years later

Sez "Stoney"

 

Duke was the No. 1 overall seed, won the national championship, went 35-4, had three top-10 draft picks, won both ACC titles and was one of the five or so best teams of the past 20 years.

Southern Cal was a No. 6 seed with a 24-10 record and nothing resembling any kind of championship. I liked that team a lot, especially Sam Clancy and Jeff Trepagnier. And yes, they gave Duke a tough game. But how fucking blinded are you by your fanboiness?

 

Williams has the numbers, team resume, and amazing individual moments that put him well above those guys.

 

Brandon Granville and Brian Scalabrine weep.

I liked that USC team a lot too, they had a great, scrappy run in the tourney (and I think I had them in the Elite Eight in my bracket; it's noteworthy when USC shows up in the tourney), but they weren't that Duke group. That Duke group was excellent, and unlike the 1999 team, it closed the deal.

It's got to be the numbers, because both Magic and Isiah match the team resume and individual moments. Each won as many conference titles as they could before leaving, each reached at least the Sweet 16 both years (Magic going to the Elite Eight) and each won a national title.

 

I'll return the favor: Phil Ford.

 

It has nothing to do with fanboiness, dickhead. They emerged from a strong Pac-10 season that produced a No. 1 seed (Stanford). They beat No. 3 BC. They beat No. 2 Kentucky, so this wasn't so piss-ant 6-seed catching a little luck. Then they more than hung with No. 1 Duke before looking their age and missing shots when Duke went cold, then wearing down in the final 6-7 minutes.

It's the one time I had watched USC play the best and thought "They should have beaten the best" because it's about as equal-in-talent to the best that USC had ever been.

Re: Norrin: Scalabrine had a nice, nice game that day.

 

Norrin, I wasn't putting him ahead of Thomas and Magic. I should have clarified, I was putting him ahead of the guys 93 mentioned who have played since Isaiah.

 

Apologies.

We are in agreement. You gave that group more credence than I did. I laughed out loud at his list, and figured reasonable people would also ignore it.

It was a great run by a team that had solid talent, but wasn't quite Duke-talented.

 

"Run circles" is a bit strong, no? Gary Payton? Jason Kidd? Hell, we could even have a conversation about Jameer Nelson and it wouldn't be outlandish.

 

What does "looking their age" even mean? That team started four seniors (David Bluthenthal says hi) and one junior. It lacked depth. That was one of the many reasons it was not nearly as good as Duke. Like I said, it was a good team. It was not better than Duke.

Most people think with their brains, not guts. Brains have more processing capacity than guts.

 

Chicago Tribune, in an article attributed to the Sports Xchange, has a report on the Times article, complete with a pretty big typo:

 

It was an overstatement. But those guys don't hold up against Williams' overall portfolio. Hell, Williams probably had a better college career than Thomas. Same number of titles, more accolades, one more year, better statistics despite having arguably better teammates.