Let me start out by saying that I think Coach Boeheim is a great coach. He is a solid "X's and O's" coach who makes effective in-game adjustments more often than not. He also consistently attracts talent to the program. Many schools would love to have our "problems."
With that in mind, though, the whole team--players and coaches--share in the "blame" for how this season played out:
- This team was a collection of B-level talent. Fair is a good player, but not a player that the entire offense should be built around to successful. His ball-handling, one-on-one moves, and shooting are not developed well enough to handle that responsibility. None of our other players, including Ennis and Grant, are players with the skill sets necessary to consistently exploit the variety of defensive strategies that teams employ. That was evident last night when Dayton completely erased our ball screen offense, which had been effective most of the season, by switching the screen. More developed players crush a team that tries that tactic. Our players appeared confused and, as a result, Boeheim all but abandoned it.
- For anyone that thinks that stars don't matter, we made a Final Four run last season (with the same coaches) with a similarly offensively challenged team because we had an A-level player. If you don't believe that, check out who is likely to win the NBA Rookie of the Year in 2014.
- John Wooden said that "X's and O's have never scored a point. What makes an offense effective is players that are well-grounded in the fundamentals performing unselfishly as a smooth-working unit." Our players did not execute the fundamental skills of offense effectively on a consistent basis. It's obvious that this team couldn't shoot. However, it was never really a regularly great passing, screening-and-cutting, spacing, or dribbling (outside of Ennis) team. Likewise, the team seemed to lack tactical and conceptual awareness at times. Ennis's 19-footer on the second-to-last possession is an example of not executing conceptual awareness. Based on the time, score, and way that Dayton was playing defense (they switched the ball screen again), he should have driven the ball against the slower defender. In short, these fundamental deficiencies limited how effective the team would be no matter what offense it utilized.
- That said, when a team lacks stars, running an NBA-styled isolation offense seems like a poor choice, as does running the single-double down screens repeatedly for a less-than-reliable shooter. There are plenty of "equal-opportunity" offenses that would work more effectively with a team that has solid-but-not-spectacular players. Coaches should tailor their schemes to their personnel, not stubbornly insist on using the same plays year after year regardless of the skill sets of those running it.
- The lack of fundamental development over the course of the season is worrisome. This is not just a 2013-2014 problem. Boeheim's teams often don't develop in significant ways throughout the season. What they are in November is often what they are in March. I find this ironic considering how often Boeheim pontificates on what needs to be improved in his press conferences. Rarely does the team truly improve its consistency in those areas throughout the season.
Should Ennis come back, I think this year's experience will help next year's squad. If Grant returns, same thing. If they both return, we should start the season that much further along than we ended this campaign. If we suffer from the same problematic offensive droughts with both players back, serious questions should be raised about the skill development program that is occurring on the Hill.
Until that happens, though, this season should just be viewed as what it was--a year where a flawed team caught some breaks early on but for whom the blemishes eventually caused a demise.
