History has certainly changed my perspective...

[KCJax03]

I recently watched the 2002 Syracuse Virginia Tech game, while Syracuse won this game, overall they finished 4-8. I recall feeling rather upset over how "bad" the program had become but must admit watching this game made me feel like the current roster would need to upgrade considerably to be as good.

Syracuse was not physically outmatched in that game and had athletes all over the field, including a handful of future NFL players.

Tyree was a monster in that game, big numbers as a receiver and a blocked punt.

The most interesting player to me was Nunes, who was a much better athlete than I remember. He looked good in the option game and had several nice gains. He also was a better passer than I ever thought. At times he looked like a darn good college QB.

I forgot just how maddening he was as a player, whenever you may begin to feel good about how he was running the offense, he would throw an interception or fumble or otherwise make a rather poor decision.

Overall though Nunes had the ability to make plays with his legs and arm, outside of Nassib and perhaps Dungey, he would be an upgrade over some of the other more recent QB's Syracuse has had.

Wonder if I should be depressed that I would love to have a team as good as the 4-8 2002 squad.

 

[orangenauburn]

By the end, P was his worst enemy with game decisions.

Many losses were purely off of coaching. Not talent.

 

[orangenirvana]

While I'll never understand how that team only won four games, the talent in the program took a massive nosedive after that year and the year after. And still hasn't recovered.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

We have had teams with good players since then but it seems like we got a lot of undersized players the last decade. I don't have the height and weight figures to back that up but I just remember we were never physically smaller than our opponents.

I really wish we would just get a tank of a running back for blocking and short yardage plays. Call me a meathead but that would really make 3rd and short a lot easier.

 

[creatorsgam]

We have had teams with good players since then but it seems like we got a lot of undersized players the last decade. I don't have the height and weight figures to back that up but I just remember we were never physically smaller than our opponents.

I really wish we would just get a tank of a running back for blocking and short yardage plays. Call me a meathead but that would really make 3rd and short a lot easier.

Meathead? No. A classic 3rd down back is imperative.

 

[Chip]

Nunes biggest problems were

1. The guy he followed
2. How quickly he had to follow him

We'd been spoiled with Graves & McNabb, who were both game ready as redshirt freshmen. Nunes was a developmental QB, and it wasn't until that 5th year that he had consistency on the field.

Off the field, he was apparently game ready. Never saw that relationship coming.

 

[Millhouse]

Nunes biggest problems were

1. The guy he followed
2. How quickly he had to follow him

We'd been spoiled with Graves & McNabb, who were both game ready as redshirt freshmen. Nunes was a developmental QB, and it wasn't until that 5th year that he had consistency on the field.

Off the field, he was apparently game ready. Never saw that relationship coming.

He actually stunk his senior year. We forget everything but his good games that year and most of it was forgettable

 

[Toga]

We have had teams with good players since then but it seems like we got a lot of undersized players the last decade. I don't have the height and weight figures to back that up but I just remember we were never physically smaller than our opponents.

I really wish we would just get a tank of a running back for blocking and short yardage plays. Call me a meathead but that would really make 3rd and short a lot easier.

I remember seeing the players going to a team meeting in the hotel before the first Pinstripe Bowl. It was shocking how small they were.

 

[OrangePA]

By the end, P was his worst enemy with game decisions.

Many losses were purely off of coaching. Not talent.

How did Troy Nunes not get drafted?

Or Madei Williams?

Or RJ Anderson?

All that talent at QB!

And why weren't Rhodes and Reyes able to make NFL rosters???

All that talent!

And what about TE Lenny Cusamano? Or Joe Donnelly?

Or Lou Gachelin? Or Jamal Riddle? Or Thump Belton?

What was wrong with all those NFL scouts??

All that talent!

 

[NineOneSeven]

How did Troy Nunes not get drafted?

Or Madei Williams?

Or RJ Anderson?

All that talent at QB!

And why weren't Rhodes and Reyes able to make NFL rosters???

All that talent!

And what about TE Lenny Cusamano? Or Joe Donnelly?

Or Lou Gachelin? Or Jamal Riddle? Or Thump Belton?

What was wrong with all those NFL scouts??

All that talent!

Reyes had 1700+ total yards and 21 touchdowns as a junior. He had 17 as a sophomore. He was a talent at the collegiate level. You don't fluke your way to 44 career touchdowns in 33 starts.

 

[jgeorge322]

How did Troy Nunes not get drafted?

Or Madei Williams?

Or RJ Anderson?

All that talent at QB!

And why weren't Rhodes and Reyes able to make NFL rosters???

All that talent!

And what about TE Lenny Cusamano? Or Joe Donnelly?

Or Lou Gachelin? Or Jamal Riddle? Or Thump Belton?

What was wrong with all those NFL scouts??

All that talent!

I think thump may have gotten some nfl run for a year. Never forget the block he laid down on nd in the dome

 

[kirbivore]

How did Troy Nunes not get drafted?

Or Madei Williams?

Or RJ Anderson?

All that talent at QB!

And why weren't Rhodes and Reyes able to make NFL rosters???

All that talent!

And what about TE Lenny Cusamano? Or Joe Donnelly?

Or Lou Gachelin? Or Jamal Riddle? Or Thump Belton?

What was wrong with all those NFL scouts??

All that talent!

One tactic in your slavish devotion to coach P that I've never liked was running his players to down to prop him up. You're the bizzaro Igor, who overhypes players to advance hit hatred of JB.

 

[JoeySimz]

I recently watched the 2002 Syracuse Virginia Tech game, while Syracuse won this game, overall they finished 4-8. I recall feeling rather upset over how "bad" the program had become but must admit watching this game made me feel like the current roster would need to upgrade considerably to be as good.

Syracuse was not physically outmatched in that game and had athletes all over the field, including a handful of future NFL players.

Tyree was a monster in that game, big numbers as a receiver and a blocked punt.

The most interesting player to me was Nunes, who was a much better athlete than I remember. He looked good in the option game and had several nice gains. He also was a better passer than I ever thought. At times he looked like a darn good college QB.

I forgot just how maddening he was as a player, whenever you may begin to feel good about how he was running the offense, he would throw an interception or fumble or otherwise make a rather poor decision.

Overall though Nunes had the ability to make plays with his legs and arm, outside of Nassib and perhaps Dungey, he would be an upgrade over some of the other more recent QB's Syracuse has had.

Wonder if I should be depressed that I would love to have a team as good as the 4-8 2002 squad.

I watched this too. I think it was on espn classic last week.

I totally agree with your observation about the talent. There were a lot of good players on that team and some great ones. The talent and speed on the field was obvious and it was a rebuilding year with only a couple returning starters on O. I think they would manhandle our current team. We just don't have the same combination of speed, size and physicality.

David Tyree was an absolute monster. He contributes big play after big play in nearly every aspect of the game. Steve Gregory, wow, what a player he was. 4.2 something 40.

Watching this reminded me of how fun the option could be.

Also, these teams could block. The backs and receivers were very good blockers. That's a positive Coach P team trait. Aggressive blocking and pursuing the play/assignment. Maybe that's an area where the current team could improve.

The dome was sold out!

The announcers were taken aback by Coach P being in hot water for a losing season after going 10-2 the previous year. Called it ridiculous, noting his overall record as one of the current winningest coaches. It's all history now, but I have to admit that in my lifetime the Coach P era was mostly good and exciting. We were nationally relevant. At the same time, I remember the decline. I remember yelling at the tv when I could predict they were going to just run straight up the middle every other play, even after a timeout.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison. Did any of us think the decline would last this long? Are we finally climbing back up?

Go Cuse!

 

[cuse309]

I watched this too. I think it was on espn classic last week.

I totally agree with your observation about the talent. There were a lot of good players on that team and some great ones. The talent and speed on the field was obvious and it was a rebuilding year with only a couple returning starters on O. I think they would manhandle our current team. We just don't have the same combination of speed, size and physicality.

David Tyree was an absolute monster. He contributes big play after big play in nearly every aspect of the game. Steve Gregory, wow, what a player he was. 4.2 something 40.

Watching this reminded me of how fun the option could be.

Also, these teams could block. The backs and receivers were very good blockers. That's a positive Coach P team trait. Aggressive blocking and pursuing the play/assignment. Maybe that's an area where the current team could improve.

The dome was sold out!

The announcers were taken aback by Coach P being in hot water for a losing season after going 10-2 the previous year. Called it ridiculous, noting his overall record as one of the current winningest coaches. It's all history now, but I have to admit that in my lifetime the Coach P era was mostly good and exciting. We were nationally relevant. At the same time, I remember the decline. I remember yelling at the tv when I could predict they were going to just run straight up the middle every other play, even after a timeout.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison. Did any of us think the decline would last this long? Are we finally climbing back up?

Go Cuse!

I never thought it would last this long. I remember watching the Florida @ Cuse game, only because my father made me. I was 12 at the time. I was hooked at that point, and got used to being a fan of a team that is relevant, and respected on a national level. If you told me following the 2001-02 season, that it would be 15 years and counting waiting for another ranked Cuse team, I would have said you were nuts. I just thought we were a program whose "right" it was to be ranked every year. It really makes me wish I could go back and tell the 12 year old me to really appreciate what we have, and enjoy it.
That's something to keep in mind for the basketball fans. We have gotten so used to NCAA tourney selections, sweet 16's, final 4's, big time National games ect., that we tend to just take it for granted. There will be a day when those things are no longer just expected. Be thankful.

 

[Millhouse]

He actually stunk his senior year. We forget everything but his good games that year and most of it was forgettable

dungey has more yards and TD than nunes had in 2002. that one actually surprises me

 

[Chip]

dungey has more yards and TD than nunes had in 2002. that one actually surprises me

I don't think Nunes saw the field that year until the last drive of the 4th game (at Auburn. You wouldn't remember because your melon was resting on your two hands while you stared at the ground all day).

So Dungey did it in half the time, not a third. Still a little surprising though, given the VT #'s. But I recall that outside of 1 drive, we couldn't do a thing against #1 Miami that year.

 

[Millhouse]

I don't think Nunes saw the field that year until the last drive of the 4th game (at Auburn. You wouldn't remember because your melon was resting on your two hands while you stared at the ground all day).

So Dungey did it in half the time, not a third. Still a little surprising though, given the VT #'s. But I recall that outside of 1 drive, we couldn't do a thing against #1 Miami that year.

i have no memory of the bc game - that one was dreadful

Syracuse at Boston College Box Score, November 16, 2002 | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

run for 245 yards and lose by 3 td? 34 passes for 131 yards

 

[Chip]

i have no memory of the bc game - that one was dreadful

Syracuse at Boston College Box Score, November 16, 2002 | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

run for 245 yards and lose by 3 td? 34 passes for 131 yards

My only recollection was that the weather was terrible. Cold and rain. It was the first game I hadn't attended there since 1992, and I remember being glad I didn't go.

 

[nzm136]

We have had teams with good players since then but it seems like we got a lot of undersized players the last decade. I don't have the height and weight figures to back that up but I just remember we were never physically smaller than our opponents.

I really wish we would just get a tank of a running back for blocking and short yardage plays. Call me a meathead but that would really make 3rd and short a lot easier.

This forum uses that term as an insult, but I argue that the people who sling it around have no idea what they're talking about.

An offense is tasked with doing 3 things:
1) Most imperatively, an offense has to get as many points as possible when they have the ball (points per drive)
2) It's important that an offense consistently hold on to the ball for an extended period of time to give the defense time to rest. This matters because playing defense is more physically demanding than playing offense. So, if your offense gets off the field quickly, your defense will wear down and their defense will stay fresh. Those trends will make it harder for your team to succeed over the course of the game. Also, slowing down the game makes it more likely for an upset to happen (small sample size variance), which helps the under dog win.
3) And finally, it's important to consistently gain yards on drives. This metric is often seen as a proxy for points scored (which I think is dumb), but I do think it's important because, like point #2, it speaks to the defense's ability to keep the other team from scoring. It's easier to defend a long field than a short one.

1} We are far too early in the DB era to say anything for sure, but at least so far, the offense is 7.5% WORSE at point #1 compared to last year's average (heading into today's game).

2} Also, our offense is very fast. We either score fast or give the ball up fast. That tires our defense out (a huge problem if you're thin at defensive positions or at a talent disadvantage) or causes injuries (sound familiar?).

3} I haven't looked into #3, but I suspect that we're doing better than last year.

I'll fully admit that it's far too early to say anything for sure - other than that "this offense has yet to be a success" and that "it hasn't proven itself to be better than last year." It may improve (and I certainly hope that it does), but using meathead as an insulting way to refer to run-first/heavy schemes is very premature if you know good football when you see it.

 

[nzm136]

I watched this too. I think it was on espn classic last week.

I totally agree with your observation about the talent. There were a lot of good players on that team and some great ones. The talent and speed on the field was obvious and it was a rebuilding year with only a couple returning starters on O. I think they would manhandle our current team. We just don't have the same combination of speed, size and physicality.

David Tyree was an absolute monster. He contributes big play after big play in nearly every aspect of the game. Steve Gregory, wow, what a player he was. 4.2 something 40.

Watching this reminded me of how fun the option could be.

Also, these teams could block. The backs and receivers were very good blockers. That's a positive Coach P team trait. Aggressive blocking and pursuing the play/assignment. Maybe that's an area where the current team could improve.

The dome was sold out!

The announcers were taken aback by Coach P being in hot water for a losing season after going 10-2 the previous year. Called it ridiculous, noting his overall record as one of the current winningest coaches. It's all history now, but I have to admit that in my lifetime the Coach P era was mostly good and exciting. We were nationally relevant. At the same time, I remember the decline. I remember yelling at the tv when I could predict they were going to just run straight up the middle every other play, even after a timeout.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison. Did any of us think the decline would last this long? Are we finally climbing back up?

Go Cuse!

RE Talent and speed: I'm a lot less enthused about our current schemes than most posters here who regularly guzzle the Kool Aid (see my criticism in the above post), but I think that our system will help w/ skill position recruiting. Even if it has yet to help the team win games, it has given our QB and WRs a TON of exposure. Any kid who wants to play a skill position on Sunday HAS to give us a long look.
RE Are we finally climbing out: It's too early to say, but I sure hope so.

 

[OrangeTarheel]

This forum uses that term as an insult, but I argue that the people who sling it around have no idea what they're talking about.

An offense is tasked with doing 3 things:
1) Most imperatively, an offense has to get as many points as possible when they have the ball (points per drive)
2) It's important that an offense consistently hold on to the ball for an extended period of time to give the defense time to rest. This matters because playing defense is more physically demanding than playing offense. So, if your offense gets off the field quickly, your defense will wear down and their defense will stay fresh. Those trends will make it harder for your team to succeed over the course of the game. Also, slowing down the game makes it more likely for an upset to happen (small sample size variance), which helps the under dog win.
3) And finally, it's important to consistently gain yards on drives. This metric is often seen as a proxy for points scored (which I think is dumb), but I do think it's important because, like point #2, it speaks to the defense's ability to keep the other team from scoring. It's easier to defend a long field than a short one.

1} We are far too early in the DB era to say anything for sure, but at least so far, the offense is 7.5% WORSE at point #1 compared to last year's average (heading into today's game).

2} Also, our offense is very fast. We either score fast or give the ball up fast. That tires our defense out (a huge problem if you're thin at defensive positions or at a talent disadvantage) or causes injuries (sound familiar?).

3} I haven't looked into #3, but I suspect that we're doing better than last year.

I'll fully admit that it's far too early to say anything for sure - other than that "this offense has yet to be a success" and that "it hasn't proven itself to be better than last year." It may improve (and I certainly hope that it does), but using meathead as an insulting way to refer to run-first/heavy schemes is very premature if you know good football when you see it.

On point 2 ... We have been winning time of possession I think but mostly because our defense allows lots of quick scores. It seems like our defense is fairly well rested at the end of the game as a result.

 

[KCJax03]

I watched this too. I think it was on espn classic last week.

I totally agree with your observation about the talent. There were a lot of good players on that team and some great ones. The talent and speed on the field was obvious and it was a rebuilding year with only a couple returning starters on O. I think they would manhandle our current team. We just don't have the same combination of speed, size and physicality.

David Tyree was an absolute monster. He contributes big play after big play in nearly every aspect of the game. Steve Gregory, wow, what a player he was. 4.2 something 40.

Watching this reminded me of how fun the option could be.

Also, these teams could block. The backs and receivers were very good blockers. That's a positive Coach P team trait. Aggressive blocking and pursuing the play/assignment. Maybe that's an area where the current team could improve.

The dome was sold out!

The announcers were taken aback by Coach P being in hot water for a losing season after going 10-2 the previous year. Called it ridiculous, noting his overall record as one of the current winningest coaches. It's all history now, but I have to admit that in my lifetime the Coach P era was mostly good and exciting. We were nationally relevant. At the same time, I remember the decline. I remember yelling at the tv when I could predict they were going to just run straight up the middle every other play, even after a timeout.

Nonetheless, it's an interesting comparison. Did any of us think the decline would last this long? Are we finally climbing back up?

Go Cuse!

I did not post this in a veiled attempt to knock coaching or have any such comparison of past and present in those regards. I thought it notable that I did not see a vastly superior VT team playing down to Syracuse's level. Both teams had playmakers and went toe to toe with one another trading blows.

It has been a while since Syracuse has been able to pair up with a top 10 caliber team and, win or lose, physically compete.

Even for a team that was a major disappointment to many at the time, they still had some horses.

So far I like Baber's offensive system, I had heard the comment many times before that if you are going to lose, at least do not be boring. Frankly, the 33 points they scored at least made the game worth watching, it beats a slow methodical 27 to 3 thumping in my view.

I can certainly recall teams that could not score points at all and looked to play the clock the entire game, which is as frustrating as it is boring. Especially when a one score deficit in the first quarter probably means the game is already out of reach.

If they can build on this and bring in talent suitable to the system and improve the defense, I think Babers can have some success here.

I think the offense was good enough to win both the South Florida and Notre Dame games this year, the defense needs to get better, or perhaps another way to put it the two do not compliment each other at this point. The quick nature of the offense exposes that weaknesses on defense.