Really? I guess you fell into a coma after game #25.
Amazing How Bad Our Offense
- Thread starter Cuse Action
- Start date
Really? I guess you fell into a coma after game #25.
Higher stakes, more money, better coaches. There's no resting on your laurels in this league. The BE was a fantastic league with alot of great programs. But there were always a few tomato cans who couldn't compete (or couldn't cough up the dough to compete).
B
Brooky03
Guest
So Boeheim knew how to coach in those first 25 games (in which we played good competition) but forgot how to coach for the remainder of the season? Okay, got it.
Halfmooncuse
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2011
- Messages
- 8,966
- Like
- 7,384
There are some tomato cans in the ACC too...unfotunately we are one of them.
Problems were evident before then too but hard to ignore after that point. Sorry for being flippant but you really have to be putting on the blinders not to see what has been happening over the past couple of seasons on the offense.
BlackKnight76
All American
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 4,473
- Like
- 3,855
We had one of our best teams ever and an unbelievable offense and defense that "fateful" year.
Nobody reads anymore. It wasn't a lightswitch. That would be completely illogical. It was more like a candle burning out.
BlackKnight76
All American
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 4,473
- Like
- 3,855
2011-12 was also a good offensive team.
Again, it happened over time. That was a team loaded with upper class talent predating the switch and three eventual first round picks and we scored 74/game. Okay, not great.
dyedorange
Marginally on Topic
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2013
- Messages
- 323
- Like
- 785
Any kind of stats to back that assertion up? Personally, I think our lack of great offensive teams in some of the past few years has to do with our player's limitations on O, as opposed to what D we play. In the years in question, we haven't had the balance needed for really good offensive teams, and that's due to the specific mix of players we've had.
Also, the year you're talking about, '09-'10, when we began playing zone exclusively, was one of our best offensive teams ever. '11-'12 was pretty damn good too, so although I'd agree that the past few years have been a little hard to watch on the offensive end, that's A) a pretty micro-trend in the scheme of things, and B) not really related to our D much at all. If you look at the '09-'10 team specifically, one of the strengths of our offense, transition, was at least partially due to the D we played, and how that flowed into the transition game.
Blaming it on JB spiting the media is kind of a bizarre twist too. Do you really believe any coach makes major, team- and legacy-defining decisions simply to spite the media? I mean, we all know he's got a petty/vindictive side, but c'mon, you're telling me the reason he plays zone exclusively is not because he thinks it's an effective strategy (the reasons for which he describes in detail in his book), but in fact that he really just wants to punk the media?
B
Brooky03
Guest
The game has not evolved so much over the course of two seasons that Boeheim was somehow able to churn out productive offense after productive offense but now he's no longer able to do so. There has been tons of success and production after the LeMoyne loss, so this is a personnel issue (due to unexpected departures), not a coaching issue.
ACC competition is not significantly stronger or better at beating the zone than Big East competition was. In fact, to this point, I'd say the old Big East was much more of a gauntlet, and we'd probably have a losing conference record this season if we were in the old Big East. Everybody wants to act like the sky is falling because a team that overachieved for 25 games lost control at the end of the season and because this team is one of the 5 worst in the history of Boheim's tenure. It happens. We're a long way off from considering this a trend in the wrong direction. Elite programs slump. It happened to Kentucky in a huge way not too long ago, it's happened at Kansas, it happened very recently at UNC, and even Duke has experienced 1 or 2 seasons of lackluster performances. There's no need to try to assess blame on the coaching strategy that has worked forever as a scapegoat for a lack of success. It's hard to stay at the very, very, very top for a long time. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be prestigious. Syracuse is a top 10 basketball program in the history of the sport because of Jim Boeheim. Call me crazy, but I'll trust that continuing to run the zone that has made us one of the most feared defenses in the game and continuing to run a proven offense that has won us 20+ games a season, is a good idea.
We've played zone almost exclusively for some 20 years. We practiced man to man until Lemoyne. I said smidgen, not dollop. But go read his quotes/watch his interviews from that night and since then. He's always had a thin skin and has always been on the defensive about his abilities as a coach with the local media and the loudmouth fans. God knows why but it's hard to claim otherwise. He took real pleasure in showing up the zone critics.
Everything else I've already addressed elsewhere.
Did I ever say don't play zone? Never said ACC was significantly better. There are fewer gimmes here. We were always good at piling up on the gimmes. We didn't win as many regular season championships as UConn or Gtown but we had a strong record year to year because we could take out those tomato cans with regularity. Fewer tomato cans in this league.
Some of you are too eager to argue and not prepared to read.
B
Brooky03
Guest
Some of the arguments are implied and just because I'm quoting and responding to you doesn't mean every single thing in my post is directed at you.
btw, I would not argue that the ACC has fewer cupcakes than the Big East. The bottom of the ACC is awful. Clemson (and others) is an absolute pile of crap that we would normally beat up on. We made our living in the Big East winning games against the top dogs. We didn't get top 10 rankings just from squashing teams like Depaul or Rutgers or Seton Hall.
cuseguy
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 11,687
- Like
- 11,689
two3zone said:
Can't argue with that.
I think Cooney and G have reached their ceiling.
Gotta hope McC and Roberson can take another step.
But I worry about Chris being inactive for so many months. I get the feeling we're getting the same player next fall.
dyedorange
Marginally on Topic
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2013
- Messages
- 323
- Like
- 785
So we've been playing zone "almost exclusively" for 20 years, yet the critical juncture is when we started exclusively *practicing* zone? I would think all those SU teams that played zone "almost exclusively" in games also played it almost exclusively in practices...or else maybe they practiced a lot of M2M, but then magically were just really good at zone when JB wanted to play it in games? Basically, I'm trying to figure out where you come up with the Lemoyne game as the turning point.
Regardless of that strain of argument, I still fail to see a correlation between how much we practice M2M on D and how successful we are in attacking M2M on O. In my mind they're two separate things. As a counterpoint, how many times have we seen teams come out and kill it against our zone? Teams that don't practice zone as their main defense regularly, and ONLY practice it when they're preparing to play against us. In other words, you don't have to exclusively practice a specific D in order to be able to attack that same D on the offensive side.
And I still don't get your angle on JB going zone just to spite the media. You say it's hard to claim otherwise, yet JB goes into detail in his book about why he started practicing zone exclusively. So all those logical, strategic reasons he gives are just dismissed? In favor of what--the man is so full of rage against the media that he, over the course of 6 seasons, implements a defensive scheme that is so obviously meritless that the only explanation is that he's doing it to piss them off?
