Blaming the Coach is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

[Eagles20]

We didnt struggle that much in nov, dec and jan. What changed? Decide for yourself

when you have to rely offensively on 3 or 4 players to carry you offensively to win games, you are going to struggle. Also, opposing coaches over the course of a season realized the weaknesses of Syracuse's players and game planed to take away those players strengths. Fair was forced to go right or was pushed farther out in the corner where he was uncomfortable. teams also crowded him on the catch off the baseline double not giving him the mid range jumper. By the end of the year Grant wasn't able to beat his man right forcing him to only have the spin move to generate offense and he didn't trust his jump shot to shoot it consistently. teams also avoided him lunging into them as in the first half of the year he was drawing more fouls. This team still had enough chances and looks to win yesterday's game and couldn't knock down the shots...im not sure that is on Boeheim. You just have to make shots.

 

[Cuse Action]

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.

And next year they will be coached by the same coach that as you so rightly point out is unable to improve his team throughout the season, and who insists on stubbornly using the same schemes year after year.

 

[Quazzum69]

The coach isn't the guy shooting the ball. All year we've been missing wide open shots. That's not on JB. It's on the team...

It's his job to design plays/schemes that get more open shots.

It's his job to develop his players and improve their shooting.

It's his job to recognize that certain players are playing poorly and replace them with other players throughout the game.

It's his job to make in-game adjustments if the team can't make jump shots.

It's his job to coach them to play as a team that moves the ball and plays together. This team plays offense literally like a pickup game with no strategy other than have Ennis or Fair take the ball and try to score. That's all on Boeheim.

 

[Eagles20]

It's his job to design plays/schemes that get more open shots.

It's his job to develop his players and improve their shooting.

It's his job to recognize that certain players are playing poorly and replace them with other players throughout the game.

It's his job to make in-game adjustments if the team can't make jump shots.

It's his job to coach them to play as a team that moves the ball and plays together. This team plays offense literally like a pickup game with no strategy other than have Ennis or Fair take the ball and try to score. That's all on Boeheim.

this sounds pretty easy...wonder why more coaches don't do this.

 

[swish7]

• 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."

• The lack of fundamental development over the course of the season is worrisome. Rarely does the team truly improve its consistency in those areas throughout the season.

Great post. Above are the bullets I agree with most.

The successfull mid majors seem to be loaded with 6-7 games whom have mastered what you call "situational awareness". While you can recruit guys with higher levels of that awareness, retaining it and getting the whole team to have it is a coaching thing. How do the mid majors get it? Why don't we have it?

I think JB brings it on himself by not treating players equally. He rewards seniors no matter how they play. And he abuses young role players. Abuse is not a good teaching technique, IMO.

Having an inbred assistant coaching crew may be great for recruiting, but it does not add any diversity to what can be taught.

 

[sufandu]

What adjustments would you like??? Our transition game has not been that great either.

Here are a few ideas. When the half court offense isn't working, run some press to speed up the game and get some layups. There aren't any rules forcing us to wait until we're down in the last 2 minutes to press the other team. Develop some depth early in the season so our guys aren't gassed at the end of the year.

 

[Ghost]

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.

Fantastic post, Coach.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Just got home from game & pretty much lost my voice screaming, pleading even, for Boeheim to instruct his team to play some pressure defense. How many possessions do you need to watch an inferior team hold the ball, pass the ball around the perimeter, basically unharassed for 30 seconds EVERY SINGLE TIME before putting up a shot, completely dictating the pace of the game, before you instruct your team to start putting heavy pressure on the ball on defense?

What's the worst that happens if you start to pressure the ball more? More fouls? Good! Dayton ended up hitting only ~60% of their free throws, so that's better then watching them waste 30 seconds & still score a 2 or even a 3 pointer. And maybe we even start getting some steals & run outs with more pressure defense.

I may really never know why Coach Boeheim allowed a clearly inferior team to completely dictate the pace of this important game, without instructing his team to ratchet up the pressure defense. (Until the last minute or so, when it was too late.)

I'm sorry, that is certainly within the Coach's ability & responsibility - and I absolutely feel Coach Boeheim was mistaken for not adjusting accordingly to Dayton's complete slowdown of the game every single offensive possession.

This is exactly why Barkley made the comment about how the zone allows inferior opponents to hang around. Just sitting back, negates your athletic advantage. Speaking from personal experience, I guarantee you these teams prefer to play against a zone that allows them to dribble 30 seconds off the clock. Why? Because if I am severely overmatched athletically, I'd take my chances against a D that allows open shots and plays the %'s.

It makes complete sense. You think Cooney would rather play against a zone or heavy pressure man to man?

Zone D is effective, but it's a product of your offensive efficiency as well. Completely agree we should have upped our pressure D to get run outs.

 

[sufandu]

It's not possible to design an offense that consists entirely of dunks and layups. As one of the other posters wrote: players have to make jumpshots. When nobody on the team shoots well, the team loses. Any team.

This is true. I guess we're just not as talented as the teams making jumpshots, then. How have re recruited so poorly that we have had so many poor shooting performances the last two months.

We can't claim to be a great recruiting program and simultaneously say we don't have players that can run successful offense. Either we've recruited well and we haven't put the players in the best positions or we haven't been getting as many great players as we think.

 

[djcon57]

This is exactly why Barkley made the comment about how the zone allows inferior opponents to hang around. Just sitting back, negates your athletic advantage. Speaking from personal experience, I guarantee you these teams prefer to play against a zone that allows them to dribble 30 seconds off the clock. Why? Because if I am severely overmatched athletically, I'd take my chances against a D that allows open shots and plays the %'s.

It makes complete sense. You think Cooney would rather play against a zone or heavy pressure man to man?

Zone D is effective, but it's a product of your offensive efficiency as well. Completely agree we should have upped our pressure D to get run outs.

I'm 10 years over my zone/man debate. At this point, I really appreciate the zone for what it is and have no problem playing it at all time...BUT it's always mentioned how we get "burned with the banked in 3 or some miracle 3"

Yeah. The zone gives that shot up. Sometimes it goes in...what are you gonna do?

 

[Longtimesu]

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.

 

[Henny & Coke]

I'm 10 years over my zone/man debate. At this point, I really appreciate the zone for what it is and have no problem playing it at all time...BUT it's always mentioned how we get "burned with the banked in 3 or some miracle 3"

Yeah. The zone gives that shot up. Sometimes it goes in...what are you gonna do?

Except I'm not saying we play man to man defense, I like the zone & realize it's what Syracuse plays exclusively.

What I said is "pressure defense" - we can still harass the player with the ball more in a zone defense (especially a zone defense with "man to man principles", like is often said to describe our zone). Where were all the traps in the corners? Feel like our guys simply stood in their zone positions, with their hands up, until the offense tried to move the ball forward toward the basket (which only happened after wasting 25-30 seconds each possession).

We have the superior athletes. Grant's wingspan is like an aircraft carrier. When we start putting pressure on the ball and trapping, it speeds up the decisions & dribbles of the offensive player, hopefully leading to a bad decision/pass that we can capitalize on. And if we get burnt by being out of position while trying to pressure/trap, we have the athletes to recover quickly.

 

[djcon57]

Except I'm not saying we play man to man defense, I like the zone & realize it's what Syracuse plays exclusively.

What I said is "pressure defense" - we can still harass the player with the ball more in a zone defense (especially a zone defense with "man to man principles", like is often said to describe our zone). Where were all the traps in the corners? Feel like our guys simply stood in their zone positions, with their hands up, until the offense tried to move the ball forward toward the basket (which only happened after wasting 25-30 seconds each possession).

We have the superior athletes. Grant's wingspan is like an aircraft carrier. When we start putting pressure on the ball and trapping, it speeds up the decisions & dribbles of the offensive player, hopefully leading to a bad decision/pass that we can capitalize on. And if we get burnt by being out of position while trying to pressure/trap, we have the athletes to recover quickly.

No...I'm not disagreeing with your comments..I agree with everything you said! I thought we should have pushed the ball all year. Specifically I felt Roberson was a great finisher on the break and could've gotten us some easy points here and there when our offense was dying.

My post just came to my mind when I just saw a comment about that dead-iron 3 they hit.

 

[Coach Orange]

Fantastic post. A question Coach? Kansas and North Carolina. Poor shooting teams. Certainly UNC. I somehow see way better spacing in those teams' offensive attacks. Surely teams are playing off of them because they are daring them to shoot. Have you watched them play? Is it just that Paige and Wiggins are elite and they can get their shot off against anybody? More players who can create off the bounce than SU? Better teams to be running ISO sets for?

Good question. These teams employ vastly different offenses than SU's.

North Carolina generally runs transition offense into secondary offense that is motion-based. Hence, their players are likely instructed to fill spots that are between 15-20 feet apart, and then to pass and cut and/or pass and screen away, filling these spots. They mix in occasional ball screens, which most offenses in modern pro and college ball do. When a motion team has strong players, such as Paige and McAdoo, those players use their fundamental skills and athleticism to create within the flow of the offense. Motion offenses are beneficial in that they are easily adaptable to specific players strengths. The key is that the players must keep spacing, must execute solid screens and cuts, and must be unselfish with the ball.

A major drawback of motion offense is that some players are better at being unselfish and at reading defenders than others. Another drawback is that the ball often ends up in the worst shooter's hands in spots where he will take a shot that the coach doesn't want. The offense, in its flexibility, lessens the control a coach has on who shoots what shot when. Finally, if all of the players in a motion offense possess the same skills (dribble driving ability, but no outside shooting; cutting ability, but little screening ability), the offense will quickly clog itself up.

Kansas runs a combination of offenses. Coach Self is most known for his 3-out 2-in high-low offense. This offense is a continuity motion offense. Once they learn the pattern, it is almost impossible for players to screw this offense up. It is designed to get the ball inside by popping a post player to the top of the key to make a high-low entry, but uses nice screening action to open shooters. What is great about his offense is that it utilizes the big men well and has sound counters to different strategies built into it. It also stresses ball movement--the players' motion is all based on reversing the ball side-top-side. Again, a player like Wiggins can actually use his athleticism within the offense effectively, as it contains several screening situations to get the ball into a strong player's hands in space.

One drawback of this offense is that less experienced players often play "spot basketball"--they are more worried about completing the next step in the pattern than creatively probing the defense for opportunities to score. Hence, the ball and the players just go around in circles with little meaningful activity. Another drawback is that, based on the post players' movements, there is often not great spacing for dribble penetration.

Because of these issues, Self also uses a ball screen continuity offense that allows his players to probe the defense off of the dribble. It literally just repeats side ball screens from one side of the floor to the other until the defense makes a mistake. The key here is having the proper personnel with great fundamental skills--guards that can dribble and read ball screens well to make the proper reads and distribute the ball accordingly (including that they are the first scoring option on the play at all times), a small forward that can shoot the ball, a big that can play out on the perimeter to set the ball screens and then pop, and a post player that can play on the weak side, looking for dump offs and offensive rebounds.

One drawback of any ball screen offense is if you don't have the personnel described above. Another drawback is that it can promote a lot of standing around on offense. Players need to learn to read the defense and move appropriately to get open.

The drawbacks of any offense include the inability to make shots, the inability to handle the ball, the inability to pass effectively, the inability to properly maintain spacing, and the inability to make the proper reads and counter what the defense is doing.

I hope this helps.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Let's not belabor this.
Given the talent we had, we were an overachieving team for most of the season.
The last part of the season we underachieved.
Overall, we played about to the average...if not somewhat above.
We're all so disappointed because of the great expectations our early play created.

Jim Boeheim is the head coach.
Ultimately, he's responsible for the players and the style of play.
He's not responsible for the execution.
He's not on the court.

If our shooting guard suddenly can't shoot...it's fair to point a finger and ask why we have no other options.
He can't be blamed though, for not calling more plays to get the shooting guard open.
That wouldn't make sense.

He also can be faulted for game management.
I thought it was a mistake to take that last time out with :16 left and Dayton inbounding with no time outs.
It cost us in the final possession...we couldn't set anything up.

In the end, our great freshman guard made two back-to-back uncharacteristic errors.
He put up jumpers instead of taking it to the hoop.
His "fault" for poor execution.
The coach's fault for not making sure his point guard knew what HAD to be done.
Those were shots Dayton was only too happy to see in that situation.

 

[richard levy]

I understand everyone was is frustrated as we all should be. Losing this game was unacceptable, but JB knew he had a bad offensive team. This team struggled to find shots, get open off screens, make the good looks they got the past month and a half. I'm not going to put total blame on the coach, because basketball is such a free lance sport where players need to be able to cause mismatches by breaking down their man and causing the defense to shift and rotate to then make plays. This team did not have the offensive players to get into an up and down game. People are pointing out that opposing teams where slowing the pace down, but Syracuse was also a half court team, limiting possessions to try to win games late.

T

I understand everyone was is frustrated as we all should be. Losing this game was unacceptable, but JB knew he had a bad offensive team. This team struggled to find shots, get open off screens, make the good looks they got the past month and a half. I'm not going to put total blame on the coach, because basketball is such a free lance sport where players need to be able to cause mismatches by breaking down their man and causing the defense to shift and rotate to then make plays. This team did not have the offensive players to get into an up and down game. People are pointing out that opposing teams where slowing the pace down, but Syracuse was also a half court team, limiting possessions to try to win games late.

if he knew we were going to be a bad offensive team, he is at least guilty of no recruiting to help correct it, he has been fortunate to be able to get players two years out, unlike most programs. We only really have lost two players recently unexpectedly, melo and mcw, both not huge contributes on o. Part of being a selector program is to anticipate need. Jb might just focus a little too much on players with the body type to play his zone. Might be wise to go for a waiters or two, every now and then, or center who is can hit a jumper in the lane, like the Stanford kid

 

[Eagles20]

T
if he knew we were going to be a bad offensive team, he is at least guilty of no recruiting to help correct it, he has been fortunate to be able to get players two years out, unlike most programs. We only really have lost two players recently unexpectedly, melo and mcw, both not huge contributes on o. Part of being a selector program is to anticipate need. Jb might just focus a little too much on players with the body type to play his zone. Might be wise to go for a waiters or two, every now and then, or center who is can hit a jumper in the lane, like the Stanford kid

Doesn't a selector program get top 10 recruits? Syracuse does a nice job mixing top 50 recruits, with kids who stay in the program. He gets kids that fit his system for the most part. He is going to recruit for the zone. This season the freshman didn't develop to his liking, so maybe in season player development is lacking by the coaching staff. I think they get the kids they can and will never be able to recruit like the so called selector schools.

 

[anomander]

Just got home from game & pretty much lost my voice screaming, pleading even, for Boeheim to instruct his team to play some pressure defense. How many possessions do you need to watch an inferior team hold the ball, pass the ball around the perimeter, basically unharassed for 30 seconds EVERY SINGLE TIME before putting up a shot, completely dictating the pace of the game, before you instruct your team to start putting heavy pressure on the ball on defense?

What's the worst that happens if you start to pressure the ball more? More fouls? Good! Dayton ended up hitting only ~60% of their free throws, so that's better then watching them waste 30 seconds & still score a 2 or even a 3 pointer. And maybe we even start getting some steals & run outs with more pressure defense.

I may really never know why Coach Boeheim allowed a clearly inferior team to completely dictate the pace of this important game, without instructing his team to ratchet up the pressure defense. (Until the last minute or so, when it was too late.)

I'm sorry, that is certainly within the Coach's ability & responsibility - and I absolutely feel Coach Boeheim was mistaken for not adjusting accordingly to Dayton's complete slowdown of the game every single offensive possession.

Because then we would exert more energy, and since we only play 6 guys...well you know the rest

 

[alphaorange]

This is true. I guess we're just not as talented as the teams making jumpshots, then. How have re recruited so poorly that we have had so many poor shooting performances the last two months.

We can't claim to be a great recruiting program and simultaneously say we don't have players that can run successful offense. Either we've recruited well and we haven't put the players in the best positions or we haven't been getting as many great players as we think.

Yes, I caught your condescension. Take a look at the team and tell me who the shooters are that are ready to play. Rak? Grant? Ennis? Fair is a decent shooter usually and Cooney is a very good shooter that is either slumping or tired. And since he is the lone distance threat, teams key on him to limit his looks. Tell me again what's left? Our success is predicated on being able to shoot over 40%. Its a pretty attainable number usually, but the team is just not shooting well, even when getting open shots.

 

[sufandu]

Yes, I caught your condescension. Take a look at the team and tell me who the shooters are that are ready to play. Rak? Grant? Ennis? Fair is a decent shooter usually and Cooney is a very good shooter that is either slumping or tired. And since he is the lone distance threat, teams key on him to limit his looks. Tell me again what's left? Our success is predicated on being able to shoot over 40%. Its a pretty attainable number usually, but the team is just not shooting well, even when getting open shots.

That's exactly my point. You can point at the players, but the coaches are the ones that recruited them and are responsible for developing them. We did nothing different throughout the season to get guys better looks. How is it that in four years CJ never learned even a little of a post game so he could take advantage of small players? Cooney ran himself ragged, and I don't think it's a coincidence that his shooting percentage suffered at the end of the year. Why did we not run the back pick for Grant that we used to run for Warrick all of the time. Why is it that teams less talented than us seem to be able to use set plays to get looks for their players. When we have a transcendent offensive talent we have good offense. When we don't we suffer. That's not the case at every school.

 

[SBU72]

If you go by all the reasoning here, coaches are the blame for every lose for every team. Wrong offensive sers, wrong defense, bad recruits' etc. In this sesnse, all loses are the blame of the coach.

 

[sufandu]

If you go by all the reasoning here, coaches are the blame for every lose for every team. Wrong offensive sers, wrong defense, bad recruits' etc. In this sesnse, all loses are the blame of the coach.

While it's true that it sounds as if some of us are saying that, it's also true that some are suggesting JB should receive no blame for our lack of scoring. Had this been one game where we shot the ball poorly playing the game we've played all year, I would agree with you. That's not the case, however. Our offense looked bad for nearly two months and nothing ever changed in regards to what we tried. It's not as if the fans are the only people suggesting JB pretty much just rolls the ball out and let's them play. Raftery nearly said as much during the game, and he knows JB and the way he coaches better than most.

 

[Dave85]

I do not always agree with Boeheim; however, anyone who blames this loss on the coach has not watched this team at all this year. This team lost because it could not shoot,and had great difficulty scoring pretty consistently since the first Duke game. Blaming it on the coach is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I totally agree with you unless the coach is Jamie Dixon. Then saying the coach lost the game is totally valid.