"Golden Era"

[RF2044]

I think the projected '13-'14 squad of - jr MCW, jr Rak, so DC2, so Whitehot, sr CJ backed up w sr BMK, so J Grant, so silentG, and a big 3 pg to be named later - would be double digit favorites over most of the squads you list. The '87 and '89 teams probably could keep it within single digits.

Oh Lord

 

[br801]

I think the projected '13-'14 squad of - jr MCW, jr Rak, so DC2, so Whitehot, sr CJ backed up w sr BMK, so J Grant, so silentG, and a big 3 pg to be named later - would be double digit favorites over most of the squads you list. The '87 and '89 teams probably could keep it within single digits.

This is Igor-quality hyperbole. You're either having a hell of a lot fun with this or you've gone over to the dark side. Either way, keep it coming.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Poppy specifically said "recent teams." A little difficult to project what the team will look like two years from now (and a little crazy to assume that that collection of guys will improve to such a degree that it would be a double-digit favorite over teams featuring guys like Pearl, Addison, Seikaly, Alexis, and Coleman).

Poppy gave a 5 yr time frame, so the '13-'14 squad is eligible.

It is not difficult for me to project what that team will look like because most of it has commited. And my prediction based on what is projected is scary good. Three non-freshmen McDs good. There is not much improvement needed, just Rak, J Grant, and DC2 getting comfortable.

I understand that much like the generational thread, people like to look back with a special Orange fondness. But Pearl never played with Coleman, and when Seikaly played with Pearl, Siekaly was a goof. One of the keys to being good but not great was staggering in a great player every 2-3 years.
Also often overlooked is depth. In '13-'14 at C there will be Dc2/BMK/ and then in a pinch Rak can come over. Back in the day, Brower used to come in. Seriously, Derek Brower. When Sherm gets sick, SU tried to have Stevie run the point...ouch, but better him than Mike Edwards.
In '13-'14 we anticipate having a top 5 type backup pg (Ennis or Cat). Why? Because the program has notched up and good people will now wait (see MCW).

I don't mean to suggest that those teams weren't good, because they were. I am just excited about the possibility the future holds and am impressed by the recent unexpected accomplishments.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

This is Igor-quality hyperbole. You're either having a hell of a lot fun with this or you've gone over to the dark side. Either way, keep it coming.

i think that team will have the most talent of any team in the history of ESPN. if Booheim doesn't screw it up, there would be no reason for them to lose a game.

 

[br801]

i think that team will have the most talent of any team in the history of ESPN. if Booheim doesn't screw it up, there would be no reason for them to lose a game.

I'm deducting points because Igor's keyboard doesn't have capital letters.

 

[orangefan13]

I agree a Jr MCW, Jr. Rak, Sophmore DC, Senior CJ sounds pretty bewildering.

I do have a hard time getting DC and Rak on the floor together still though. I think they both are meant to play center to max their potential.

Add a Jr Gbinije(AA), Cooney, Grant and Keita in there with a couple of stud freshmen and WoW.

That team does have potential on paper to be better then this last years. Thets see if all those guys come back after this year as well. For all we know MCW could break out and average something like 18 ppg this year.

 

[RF2044]

I understand that much like the generational thread, people like to look back with a special Orange fondness. But Pearl never played with Coleman, and when Seikaly played with Pearl, Siekaly was a goof. One of the keys to being good but not great was staggering in a great player every 2-3 years.

Complete and utter bunk.

Your posts show a complete disconnect from how good the players from that timeframe were. It has absolutely nothing to do with fondness for a bygone era--Sherman, Pearl, DC, and Billy Owens were all THAT good. If they were playing now, any one of them would be the best player on any team we've had recently--and that includes some of the best performing teams record-wise we've had the good fortune to enjoy as SU fans.

And it wouldn't be close.

To suggest otherwise demonstrates a ridiculous lack of perspective.

 

[MSOrange]

Complete and utter bunk.

Your posts show a complete disconnect from how good the players from that timeframe were. It has absolutely nothing to do with fondness for a bygone era--Sherman, Pearl, DC, and Billy Owens were all THAT good. If they were playing now, any one of them would be the best player on any team we've had recently--and that includes some of the best performing teams record-wise we've had the good fortune to enjoy as SU fans.

And it wouldn't be close.

To suggest otherwise demonstrates a ridiculous lack of perspective.

You said it much better than I could have RF! To make it easier for Sgt, here is link. Look at our 88-89 and 89-90 rosters. Enough said. http://orangehoops.org/BBall.htm

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Complete and utter bunk.

Your posts show a complete disconnect from how good the players from that timeframe were. It has absolutely nothing to do with fondness for a bygone era--Sherman, Pearl, DC, and Billy Owens were all THAT good. If they were playing now, any one of them would be the best player on any team we've had recently--and that includes some of the best performing teams record-wise we've had the good fortune to enjoy as SU fans. And it wouldn't be close. To suggest otherwise demonstrates a ridiculous lack of perspective.

First, you do realize Pearl never played with DC.

Yes, Pearl, Sherm, DC, and Billy were good. Arguably better than Dion, MCW, Fab, and DC2. However, these good players came several years apart- Pearl, then DC 3 years later, then 2 years and Billy. MCW, Rak, DC2, all within two years.

Your posts appear star centric. Remember the revered '89 squad pg? Who do you recall, Mike Edwards or Stevie? Ouch, those would have been the 5th alternative this last year. And in '87 when Sherm was sick, the result was a loss to RI. No depth and poor foul shooting has its drawbacks.

You remember the stars from the past and forget the warts. And for the recent squads you see the warts and downplay the stars. Seems like there is a lot in common with the generation remembering thing.

 

[RF2044]

First, you do realize Pearl never played with DC.

Yes, Pearl, Sherm, DC, and Billy were good. Arguably better than Dion, MCW, Fab, and DC2. However, these good players came several years apart- Pearl, then DC 3 years later, then 2 years and Billy. MCW, Rak, DC2, all within two years.

Your posts appear star centric. Remember the revered '89 squad pg? Who do you recall, Mike Edwards or Stevie? Ouch, those would have been the 5th alternative this last year. And in '87 when Sherm was sick, the result was a loss to RI. No depth and poor foul shooting has its drawbacks.

You remember the stars from the past and forget the warts. And for the recent squads you see the warts and downplay the stars. Seems like there is a lot in common with the generation remembering thing.

Arguably? ARGUABLY? Oh Lord

I remember the '89 squad very well--that was subjectively the best team in program history. And you are incorrect, the '89 team did NOT have Michael Edwards or Stevie Thompson playing point guard--they had the best lead guard in program history, Sherman Douglas, running the show. The team you refer to was the '90 squad. And there is no way--I repeat, no way whatsoever--that Stevie Thompson would have been the fifth guard on this past team's rotation. To think otherwise is fantasy land talk, and demonstrates the lack of perspective that I attributed to you in an earlier post.

The "generation remembering thing" you attribute to me works in reverse, BTW, with people who don't have a grasp of program history and lack the basis to compare contemporary players to those from the past. Your assessment of me remembering stars and forgetting warts is bunk. I can only assume that you either: (a) didn't watch those teams / players, (b) were too young to remember those teams / players, or (3) don't have a clue what you are talking about if your assessment is that I am over-estimating the talent level of those guys. Given recent posts, I'd say that any of the above is equally plausible.

Quit while you're ahead.

And BTW, I never said that Washington played with DC. Anyone knowledgeable about team history knows that. But if you don't think that Pearl...or Sherman...or DC...or Billy...wouldn't have been the top players on any of the teams from the past three years--which you have defined as your self proclaimed "golden era" -- you are talking crazy.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

I agree a Jr MCW, Jr. Rak, Sophmore DC, Senior CJ sounds pretty bewildering.

I do have a hard time getting DC and Rak on the floor together still though. I think they both are meant to play center to max their potential.

Add a Jr Gbinije(AA), Cooney, Grant and Keita in there with a couple of stud freshmen and WoW.

That team does have potential on paper to be better then this last years. Thets see if all those guys come back after this year as well. For all we know MCW could break out and average something like 18 ppg this year.

You could be right about MCW. It's why I didn't project to '14-'15 because of the uncertainty of keeping people this good.

And I agree, Rak is a big question mark still. But his improvement is quite possible. Also, Noah Vonleh would look like a real good fit there.

The '13-'14 squad still has my vote (and if people don't care about records I don't have to care that it hasn't happened yet).

 

[realorange]

First, you do realize Pearl never played with DC.

Yes, Pearl, Sherm, DC, and Billy were good. Arguably better than Dion, MCW, Fab, and DC2. However, these good players came several years apart- Pearl, then DC 3 years later, then 2 years and Billy. MCW, Rak, DC2, all within two years.

Your posts appear star centric. Remember the revered '89 squad pg? Who do you recall, Mike Edwards or Stevie? Ouch, those would have been the 5th alternative this last year. And in '87 when Sherm was sick, the result was a loss to RI. No depth and poor foul shooting has its drawbacks.

You remember the stars from the past and forget the warts. And for the recent squads you see the warts and downplay the stars. Seems like there is a lot in common with the generation remembering thing.

Leave out the word arguably. They were better than those players you listed who will never have their numbers hung in the Dome.
Why do you argue some of them never played together? So what? And the 89 team you seem to want to put down were perhaps the best SU team ever. That NCAA game with Illinois had 9 future NBA players on the floor. That will never happen again either.
So put together your imaginary team which I doubt will ever see the floor together. Even if they did, they would be lucky to be within 10 pts at the end of a game with the 89 team.
Generational has nothing to do with it. Some were great, others were just good.

 

[omniorange]

I love this thread and see points to both sides.

I do, however, have to say that many posters on this board love Stevie Thompson way too much. He was good guys, but he wasn't anything special, imho. At least not to the magnitude some on this board want to make out.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[sconniecuse]

Stevie is #7 on the career scoring list in SU history, that's a pretty special career imo. He didn't have a jump shot but he was a spectacular finisher on the break and a very good defender. He will always get props from me for being a team player who played out of position as a senior in the best interest of the team.

 

[realorange]

Stevie was one of the best athletes to ever wear an SU uniform. His finishes were highlight reel quality many times. One of my favorites along with DC. I still have my DC/Stevie button from their senior day.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Arguably? ARGUABLY? Oh Lord

I remember the '89 squad very well--that was subjectively the best team in program history. And you are incorrect, the '89 team did NOT have Michael Edwards or Stevie Thompson playing point guard--they had the best lead guard in program history, Sherman Douglas, running the show. The team you refer to was the '90 squad. And there is no way--I repeat, no way whatsoever--that Stevie Thompson would have been the fifth guard on this past team's rotation. To think otherwise is fantasy land talk, and demonstrates the lack of perspective that I attributed to you in an earlier post.

.

Stevie T was beat out by Mike Edwards during the season for the point guard. Mike Edwards is not in the same league as MCW (both were frosh). Thus Stevie is a distant 5th as pg on this years roster.

That is not fantasy land talk, it is based on sound mathematical principles. Your romanicizing of the past era is clouding your objectivity.

 

[br801]

This thread is fantastic. So far I've learned that some people romanticize the past and others romanticize the future. Is it possible to romanticize the present?

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Leave out the word arguably. They were better than those players you listed who will never have their numbers hung in the Dome.
Why do you argue some of them never played together? So what? And the 89 team you seem to want to put down were perhaps the best SU team ever. That NCAA game with Illinois had 9 future NBA players on the floor. That will never happen again either.
So put together your imaginary team which I doubt will ever see the floor together. Even if they did, they would be lucky to be within 10 pts at the end of a game with the 89 team.
Generational has nothing to do with it. Some were great, others were just good.

SU vs UK 2013-2014

SU future pros - MCW, DC2, Noah Vonleh, J Grant, possible Rak (50%), Tyler Ennis (50%), CJ (25%) =5
UK 4- 5 future pros, one and doners

9 to 10 pros in that matchup alone. Never say never. Had one of SUs future pros not been ineligible for the tourney, it is possible we would have replicated it this year with an SU/UK final - 5 from UK and Fab, Dion, MCW, maybe KJ, maybe Scoop, maybe CJ.

As to your mythical matchup, I assume you want it like an all star game, where they don't play defense, right? Because if you have Sherm and Roe up top, you aren't playing anything that resembles todays D anyway. And I guess you probably would not want to allow subs, that would be unfair. The current crew has McDs coming off the bench. And what would be the stance on foul shots, would they have to shoot those? Hey, even though it's a mythical matchup I would like the thing to be competitive.

 

[RF2044]

Stevie T was beat out by Mike Edwards during the season for the point guard. Mike Edwards is not in the same league as MCW (both were frosh). Thus Stevie is a distant 5th as pg on this years roster.

That is not fantasy land talk, it is based on sound mathematical principles. Your romanicizing of the past era is clouding your objectivity.

Completely false. Which again demonstrates that you either weren't around for that era, or don't know what you are talking about.

Edwards was a lineup substitution for David Johnson, who began the season as the starting 3 but became mired in a tremendous sophomore slump. Bringing Edwards [my least favorite player of all time at SU] moved Stevie back off the ball, which was his more natural position. He'd played point guard for Jerry Tarkanian in Team USA basketball the previous summer in anticipation of taking over for Sherman, but he wasn't a natural lead guard. He also came back ostensibly sporting an improved jumper, and indeed started out hot nailing 4 of 4 against LaSalle in our opener that year, but quickly fell back into playing within his comfort zone of taking the ball to the rim and eschewing the outside shot. But I digress. Edwards was mostly a dud, but his insertion into the lineup had nothing to do with beating out Stevie, who admittedly wasn't the answer at PG, and everything to do with DJ struggling.

 

[Knicks411]

False. Which again demonstrates that you either weren't around for that era, or don't know what you are talking about.

To be fair, it could be both.

as someone who was 4 years old during the 89 season, I can't speak to how good that team really was. I would tend to side with the people who say in general college teams were better in that era for no reason other than the best players were staying around for multiple years.

 

[OttoMets]

Poppy gave a 5 yr time frame, so the '13-'14 squad is eligible.

It is not difficult for me to project what that team will look like because most of it has commited. And my prediction based on what is projected is scary good. Three non-freshmen McDs good. There is not much improvement needed, just Rak, J Grant, and DC2 getting comfortable.

I understand that much like the generational thread, people like to look back with a special Orange fondness. But Pearl never played with Coleman, and when Seikaly played with Pearl, Siekaly was a goof. One of the keys to being good but not great was staggering in a great player every 2-3 years.
Also often overlooked is depth. In '13-'14 at C there will be Dc2/BMK/ and then in a pinch Rak can come over. Back in the day, Brower used to come in. Seriously, Derek Brower. When Sherm gets sick, SU tried to have Stevie run the point...ouch, but better him than Mike Edwards.
In '13-'14 we anticipate having a top 5 type backup pg (Ennis or Cat). Why? Because the program has notched up and good people will now wait (see MCW).

I don't mean to suggest that those teams weren't good, because they were. I am just excited about the possibility the future holds and am impressed by the recent unexpected accomplishments.

That goof put up 10.1/7.8/3.1 during his sophomore year with Pearl. Wake me up when an SU center puts up those numbers along players as successful - in reality, against Georgetown and St. John's; not in some speculative projection, based on high-school accolades and garbage-time minutes or as a fifth option - as Pearl, Alexis, and Addison. Haven't seen that in recent years (not that that's necessarily the mark of a great team; just correcting your assessment).

And that's to say nothing of the '88 and '90 teams, each of which was loaded with talent. Real talent - guys who won scores of games and played in the NBA. Not guys who we hope will continue to improve and become great.

 

[OttoMets]

In '13-'14 we anticipate having a top 5 type backup pg (Ennis or Cat). Why? Because the program has notched up and good people will now wait (see MCW).

I missed this part, but this shows the flaw in this line of reasoning. By this logic, someone in May of 1988 could have been justified in predicting that the '89-'90 team would be a great one - "we anticipate having a top-5 backup point guard" (Kenny Anderson or Earl Duncan).

In reality, these things change. Just because a player is a commit doesn't mean he'll play (Winfred Walton) or stay (Duncan).

I happen to think that Carter-Williams is going to wind up near Sherm territory as far as great point guards go. But there are no guarantees. Even forgetting the possibility of injury, it's difficult to project a player's improvement (especially when all of his minutes have come as a fourth or fifth option - Kris Joseph and countless others have showed us how difficult it is to transition from a free-flowing and unscouted substitute to the focal point of the opponent's defense).

Comparing current teams to past ones is fun, if futile. Comparing future teams to past teams with any degree of certainty is just silly. But I look forward to seeing how they do.

 

[Knicks411]

I missed this part, but this shows the flaw in this line of reasoning. By this logic, someone in May of 1988 could have been justified in predicting that the '89-'90 team would be a great one - "we anticipate having a top-5 backup point guard" (Kenny Anderson or Earl Duncan).

In reality, these things change. Just because a player is a commit doesn't mean he'll play (Winfred Walton) or stay (Duncan).

Yeah this is 100% true. I feel like we always go through this; there is the constant refrain of "the team in x (usually 2 or 3) is going to be great, look at all the guys we'll have". It doesn't work that way; guys leave school, guys go pro, etc. There is a ton of attrition in college hoops.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I love this thread and see points to both sides.

I do, however, have to say that many posters on this board love Stevie Thompson way too much. He was good guys, but he wasn't anything special, imho. At least not to the magnitude some on this board want to make out.

Cheers,
Neil

Stevie Thompson was a poor man's David Thompson. Stevie averaged almost 17 ppg for his sophomore, junior and senior seasons as the third or fourth offensive option on a team loaded with NBA talents. He also averaged about 5 rebounds a game for those 3 years, and in his junior year shot 63% from the floor.

For a guy who was only about 6-2, he had some of the most amazing dunks in SU history. If he could have made his foul shots, he could have had a 10 year career in the NBA. Stevie Thompson was a GREAT college player.

 

[br801]

Stevie Thompson was a poor man's David Thompson. Stevie averaged almost 17 ppg for his sophomore, junior and senior seasons as the third or fourth offensive option on a team loaded with NBA talents. He also averaged about 5 rebounds a game for those 3 years, and in his junior year shot 63% from the floor.

For a guy who was only about 6-2, he had some of the most amazing dunks in SU history. If he could have made his foul shots, he could have had a 10 year career in the NBA. Stevie Thompson was a GREAT college player.

I agree with most of that, but he had a brief NBA career because his skill set and size didn't translate at the next level. not because he couldn't shoot free throws.