Barkley stays killing the zone

[longislandcuse]

you can disagree all you want but we scored 18 pts in the first half. The only reason we were in the game was that our defense held them to 20. We were a poor offensive team. We didn't hit one 3. If we did, we would have won. That is why we lost. Barkley is a clown that doesn't watch any college basketball.

So you think an offensively challenged team isn't hindered by sitting back in a zone for 35 seconds while the other team plays hot potato then tries to score right at the end? You don't think this plays at all into offensive woes? You don't think the players may press more when they have limited possessions, see the game clock evaporating and have no rhythm from sitting around on defense for eons? I do. This isn't even addressing the fact that even on an off night, we should still be able to beat a Dayton. It's becoming a trend with these type of teams.

 

[CuseTG2003]

We don't have the depth to press, and you are selling Dayton short, they have some good athletes.

Dayton's really good, and we've known that since November when no one wanted to play them in Maui. No shame losing to them on a night when we obviously didn't play well. I'm pulling for them from here on out. I think they'd beat UCLA, but lose to FL.

 

[Willy75]

I disagree.

We allowed them to dictate the game to us because of our defense.

I have to think we press on offense in grind it out games where there is no flow and possessions are very limited. That's just human nature.

Dayton held themselves to 60. They ran it down to 30 seconds almost every time, by design.

We should beat Dayton every time no matter how bad we're playing on offense. We have 10x more talent, 10x more athleticism and 10x more size. Our defense allowed them to win.

I strongly disagree with he notion that we just "didn't make baskets". I think our defense plays into our offensive struggles.

I agree with the premise but also think that when on its game Dayton is a much better team than many here give them credit for. I remember watching them in Maui and thinking they could/would be very dangerous.

 

[rrlbees]

We didn't hit one 3. If we did, we would have won. That is why we lost.

Or not miss all 15+ jumpers save Grants. But it's not as easy as that. We could have made 1 three or 2 twos and still lost.

 

[dasher]

So you think an offensively challenged team isn't hindered by sitting back in a zone for 35 seconds while the other team plays hot potato then tries to score right at the end? You don't think this plays at all into offensive woes? You don't think the players may press more when they have limited possessions, see the game clock evaporating and have no rhythm from sitting around on defense for eons? I do. This isn't even addressing the fact that even on an off night, we should still be able to beat a Dayton. It's becoming a trend with these type of teams.

No. I don't. We can't shoot.

 

[OrangeCrush22]

I think we should press more often against inferior opponents. It would help alleviate stall ball against us.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

Here is the take home point. Coaches, teams, programs adjust. They may do so at a glacial pace..but they do adjust. If you don't counter, you fall behind. I feel like we are at the precipice right now. We need to tweak how we play or there is a good chance in my opinion we are going to be relegated into irrelevance.

You may think that we struggled mightily down the stretch because of a bad run...but the reality of it is, it was simply regression to the mean...we could have lost 12 games this year easily.

the zone was a market inefficiency that we exploited to full value. that inefficiency is soon to be a thing of the past...best we are pro-active and adjust before the horse is dead.

the new market inefficiency in my opinion/ bigs who can shoot. they dont need to be athletic. they dont need to be particularly good ball handlers. but they are a force in the college game as close as the three point line is and as tough it is to defend a tall guy shooting an outside shot with a smaller defender.

 

[thebigeast44]

You lost me at Barkley said...

 

[NKR1978]

In most of our games, the reason we lost is because we couldn't score. Virginia being the one exception of a team that torched us.

We beat VT by 20. Florida State by 17. They played the exact same way the other teams played, including Dayton, except we actually hit some shots.

I do wish we had a better plan B when the shots don't fall, but the zone is not a problem. Our abysmal offense the last couple years (in spite of the Final Four, our games weren't pretty) is a much more pressing concern.

 

[HurleyForHeisman]

It can't be a coincidence that SU can't shoot every time an opponent slows the tempo against the zone. It is clear to me that the intensity required on the defensive end is affecting shooting ability on the offensive end. Those long defensive possessions are killing SU's short rotation, and the offense suffers.

 

[longislandcuse]

It can't be a coincidence that SU can't shoot every time an opponent slows the tempo against the zone. It is clear to me that the intensity required on the defensive end is affecting shooting ability on the offensive end. Those long defensive possessions are killing SU's short rotation, and the offense suffers.

This. Among other reasons, I think we need to develop a press to speed up inferior teams looking to stall ball us. I don't think anyone has brought up how stall ball can affect an offense and that's what I'm trying to say. You have no flow and each possession become ultra-precious putting more pressure on the team (especially in the tourney) to score. I could be totally wrong but I think stall ball and our offensive struggles could be related. At the very least, stall ball doesn't help our offense, that's for sure.

 

[rottweiler44]

IMO, the significant differences between this year and last with the zone was a) superior length of MCW and Triche and their ability to cause turnovers that resulted in run outs and b) willingness to run last year and the capability to finish. This years team seemed to run less, and when they did run, finished less efficiently. They never looked natural on the break, outside of maybe silent g. I think back to last year's IU and Marquette games and although they were low scoring, they were hardly torturous as SU was able to better control pace by causing turnovers and run outs.

 

[Millhouse]

After watching the Dayton game, it's tough to defend it.

I love the zone but he is right. It does allow teams like Dayton to beat us.

He said again tonight. The only team Dayton's beat so far that's better than them is Syracuse but they play that zone which negates their talent advantage.

If we're going to play zone 100% we need to develop a press like Ville does. Something that speeds teams up. Obviously, you know where I'm going with this. To press from time to time, we need to develop the bench. Can't press playing 6 or 7 all game.

P.S. Kenny Smith stays clowning himself. "Dayton will finally play a team with size and athleticism, they've played teams with size or athleticism but not both". Riiiiiiiiight. Of course Barkley jumped in and quasi defended us "Well Syracuse has both but they play that zone". Lol..

I'm fine with the zone because Boeheim's our guy and because we're not going to be a good man to man team with him at the helm. you can't be good at teaching everything, i wouldn't expect great man coaches to be able to teach zone well. Boeheim does enough things well to compensate for playing zone but that doesn't mean that everyone else is dumb for preferring man.

but I still don't like it. I was fine with the zone back when I was more comfortable that it allowed us more time spent practicing the offensive end. But the time Boeheim saves by not practicing man doesn't appear to be shifted to anything else.

 

[Millhouse]

Here is the take home point. Coaches, teams, programs adjust. They may do so at a glacial pace..but they do adjust. If you don't counter, you fall behind. I feel like we are at the precipice right now. We need to tweak how we play or there is a good chance in my opinion we are going to be relegated into irrelevance.

You may think that we struggled mightily down the stretch because of a bad run...but the reality of it is, it was simply regression to the mean...we could have lost 12 games this year easily.

the zone was a market inefficiency that we exploited to full value. that inefficiency is soon to be a thing of the past...best we are pro-active and adjust before the horse is dead.

the new market inefficiency in my opinion/ bigs who can shoot. they dont need to be athletic. they dont need to be particularly good ball handlers. but they are a force in the college game as close as the three point line is and as tough it is to defend a tall guy shooting an outside shot with a smaller defender.

i think you're right overall but i think you're overstating it. We weren't killed by bigs who can shoot this year. My frustration is that the time we save in practice running the zone doesn't appear to be time spent running a good offense

 

[Halfmooncuse]

The zone cuts down our transition game. It allows the opposition to get down court and set up.It shortens the game. This defense allows the opposition to cotrol the pace. And whether you like it or not neither Cooney or Ennis were not the players we typically see running a fast break for Syracuse. They are more control oriented ball handlers. That's why JABs press is always the same. "we played good D but needed to shoot better". You don't need to shoot better when you are attacking their basket consistently with a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 fast break. And we used to have the atheletes that excelled at this. Then instead of cooney playing marathon man one could kick the ball back out for an open three ala days of Rautin.

 

[Orange Barrel]

Our bigs don't throw outlet passes. Rak gets a board, cradles it football style, waits for traffic to clear and hands it off to Ennis. Same thing with Jerami. CJ would push occasionally, but not much. Ennis almost always pulled up when presented with a fast break opportunity. TE got a lot of much deserved praise for being poised and patient, but the down side to that we were as slow on offense as the opposition. Can't really blame this teams failings on the zone. You have to score.

 

[NKR1978]

The zone cuts down our transition game. It allows the opposition to get down court and set up.It shortens the game. This defense allows the opposition to cotrol the pace. And whether you like it or not neither Cooney or Ennis were not the players we typically see running a fast break for Syracuse. They are more control oriented ball handlers. That's why JABs press is always the same. "we played good D but needed to shoot better". You don't need to shoot better when you are attacking their basket consistently with a 2 on 1 or 3 on 1 fast break. And we used to have the atheletes that excelled at this. Then instead of cooney playing marathon man one could kick the ball back out for an open three ala days of Rautin.

Our transition game has been great except for this year. We are known generally as a great team in transition at least up to 2012. Not sure what's been going on the last couple years, especially this year, but the offense is such a bigger concern than defense.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I disagree.

We allowed them to dictate the game to us because of our defense.

I have to think we press on offense in grind it out games where there is no flow and possessions are very limited. That's just human nature.

Dayton held themselves to 60. They ran it down to 30 seconds almost every time, by design.

We should beat Dayton every time no matter how bad we're playing on offense. We have 10x more talent, 10x more athleticism and 10x more size. Our defense allowed them to win.

I strongly disagree with he notion that we just "didn't make baskets". I think our defense plays into our offensive struggles.

The defense plays into the offensive struggles I do agree with to a certain extent. Certainly the tempo is an issue. But Dayton has better offensive personnel, decision makers, cohesion, basketball players, etc. They have more playmakers, ball handlers, and guys who could make positive contributions. Certainly a better bench. Not debateable. We have more athletes, length, and pass the look test better. Dayton is the better team right now when it matters.

 

[KevMonstah]

I don't buy it. The zone was fine last year on the way to the final four. You don't win many games shooting 37 percent.

I would offer the following stats from last year's final four run.

81-34 over Montana, shooting 51.9% from the field
66-60 over Cal, shooting 39.1% from the field
61-50 over Indiana, shooting 43.8% from the field
55-39 over Marquette, shooting 38% from the field
61-56 loss to Michigan, shooting 41.8% from the field

Not 37%, but they surely tried, as one or two more bricks would've done it.

I'm not a fan of JB's zone played 24/7 anymore. I believe that the combination of the zone,
a team without an interest in speeding the tempo (for a variety of reasons), and games where
SU can't shoot, those are games they are capable of losing to anyone, and they sure have
demonstrated that in the past. It forces teams to make shots to win, and obviously it's
successful about 85-90% of the time. However, those few games a year when SU is playing
equally bad, it is exceptionally frustrating looking at a 6-7 man rotation, when 3 more athletes
playing could force the tempo if you tried other things. It is even worse when the opponents
are willing to try anything in a one and done game, like playing 11 guys, virtually all of which
SU would never think to recruit. And then it's ALWAYS combined with an answered prayer
or two of shots. I hate those.

Kev

 

[LennX6]

We didn't lose the game on the defensive end.

Oh yeah...that's right!

It's wierd I read the OP and was starting to think hmmm perhaps...
then I read your post and WHAM reality!

 

[Cusefan0307]

I would offer the following stats from last year's final four run.

81-34 over Montana, shooting 51.9% from the field
66-60 over Cal, shooting 39.1% from the field
61-50 over Indiana, shooting 43.8% from the field
55-39 over Marquette, shooting 38% from the field
61-56 loss to Michigan, shooting 41.8% from the field

Not 37%, but they surely tried, as one or two more bricks would've done it.

I'm not a fan of JB's zone played 24/7 anymore. I believe that the combination of the zone,
a team without an interest in speeding the tempo (for a variety of reasons), and games where
SU can't shoot, those are games they are capable of losing to anyone, and they sure have
demonstrated that in the past. It forces teams to make shots to win, and obviously it's
successful about 85-90% of the time. However, those few games a year when SU is playing
equally bad, it is exceptionally frustrating looking at a 6-7 man rotation, when 3 more athletes
playing could force the tempo if you tried other things. It is even worse when the opponents
are willing to try anything in a one and done game, like playing 11 guys, virtually all of which
SU would never think to recruit. And then it's ALWAYS combined with an answered prayer
or two of shots. I hate those.

Kev

Let me preface by saying while I think the Zone is fine, I do think we should pressure more. I do think sitting back in the zone hurts us at times. It's one of the reasons we got upset by Vermont in 2005. I hate letting teams cut the number of possessions down

 

[We Are Syracuse]

We didn't lose the game on the defensive end.

Defense creates offense... Especially this team which desperately needed that... Anyone with a basketball mind knows that

 

[phil77]

Two big problems I had with this years defense/offense team:

1. It seemed this year we stopped trapping as much as we have done in years past.

2. We had the top two players in the league in steals yet we were one of the worst fast breaking teams I have ever seen at Syracuse.

 

[shandeezy7]

I can't figure out how people watched this team the entire year and took away from it that our defense was the problem. Could we have shaken things up and gotten a little more aggressive on D and forced the action a little bit? Sure, but who's to say that wasn't going to result in quick and easy buckets for the other team?

This team COULD NOT PUT THE BALL IN THE BASKET. Everything from threes to mid-range shots to fast break opportunities to bunnies at the rim. They struggled for basically the entire second half of the season (or more) to score from anywhere on the court.

We basically had one outside threat (Cooney) who was wildly inconsistent and shadowed by a defender all game long (which imo is what caused his decline in performance - he was either throwing up contested, off-balance shots, or when he actually did get open, he was rushing shots); CJ Fair who is an excellent off-ball offensive weapon but who does not excel at creating offense for himself or others; Jerami Grant, who has a very limited game outside 10 feet and the majority of his offense is reliant on offensive put-backs; Rakeem Christmas, who had trouble staying on the court at times and who we basically did not feed the ball to in the low post nearly enough; and Tyler Ennis, who was the engine for our offense, but teams realized this and began to key on him, not allowing him to penetrate into the lane and forcing the ball out of his hands.

This team ranked 225th in the country in assists per game at 11.8, 180th in shooting % at 43.7% and 223rd in 3 point shooting % at 33.1%. If we were even average in these offensive categories, I think our season would have had a much different ending. Our offensive ineptitude finally caught up with us toward the end of the year, and despite our defense's best efforts, we couldn't overcome it.

 

[shandeezy7]

Oh and our bench averaged about 3 points a game