General20
Basketball Maven
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 1,700
- Like
- 11,386
This was a fun game with actually a lot to break down, so I couldn't resists getting some of my thoughts out.
Bryant pressed for most of the game then fell back into a 2-3 zone (what I call the Rick Pitino D). When executed correctly its the most effective defense in college ball, but its the most difficult to execute and also the most difficult to recruit for, thus its rarely executed well, and this game was no exception. Bryant did a lot of pressing and played a lot of zone, but did neither well and SU carved them up pretty good. If Cuse wasn't really rusty early in the game they would have had a shot to crack 100 points. The one thing Bryant had going for them defensively is a rare thing for a mid major team to have, and that's a center who is a legit rim protector who I would take on the SU roster in a heartbeat.
The Rick Pitino D isn't played often so it was weird to see SU press pretty much the entire first half to then obviously fall back into a 2-3 zone. Off the top of my head I can't remember watching an entire half of basketball where both teams played that style. SU didn't fare any better than Bryant did. Our press got a few early turnovers then was pretty much carved up. Bryant's point guard was a little guy named Green who was lightning quick and was the rookie of the year last year, alongside him they played 4 and sometimes even 5 guards. I can't think of a worse opponent to press. Yet Syracuse pressed for a long time despite having very little success. Why? I don't know the answer, but I have a guess, let me know if you think its right.
More than any other D, the 2-3 zone, changes to take away the strength of the opponents. How SU shifts in the zone and when they trap are dictated by what the opponent is trying to accomplish. Since SU couldn't practice for 2 weeks leading up to this game, they might not have had the ability to relay a sophisticated gameplan to their players, and thus thought pressing - which is the same every time no matter who we are playing - might have been the better option.
That is my best guess for why Syracuse did something I've never seen them do before, which is stick with a press that clearly isn't working for 20 minutes. I'd love to hear other theories, if there are any.
This gets to my first big thought of the game. We all know Syracuse's defense was bad, but I think its important to note exactly what was bad. We were extremely bad pressing and we were extremely bad in transition. But when our 2-3 zone was set up, it was actually pretty good. To demonstrate this, lets take a look at what I consider to be the key stretch of the entire game - the last 5 minutes of the first half. With 5 minutes to go SU was up by 4, and looking ready to pull away for good. Then came a 14 point swing in Bryant's direction. Take away that stretch and SU wins by about the margin you'd expect them to win this game by.
So what happened in this stretch? Would you be surprised if I told you that Bryant scored 0 points against our set up 2-3 zone? Its the truth. They had 4 possessions against our D when it was set and came away with 0 points.
The 20 points they had in this stretch (we scored a couple baskets too) came against our press or in transition opportunities from things like blocked shots, or one of our guys diving for a ball but not coming up with it thus allowing Bryant to run down and play 4 on 5.
To recap - for a stretch of 5 minutes they shot 0% against our 2-3 zone and 100% in transition against an unsettled D and came away +14. You can take from that what you will. But my take away is, the transition D will be fixed now that the coaches can actually hold a practice. The thing that really matters, how we execute in the 2-3, was actually not bad and somewhat encouraging.
In the first half, Boeheim played 9 different players, had trouble in transition, and let up 51 points on 58% shooting. What would your solution be?
His solution was to go with experience, cut the rotation down, stop pressing, and focus on getting back on D. His solution was the correct one, of course. In the second half Bryant scored only 33 points on 47% shooting (only 22% from 3 down from 47% in the first half). Meanwhile Syracuse's field goal percentage jumped from 37% to a whopping 69%. I saw people complaining that Boeheim didn't play enough players in the second half. Those people are factually wrong by the numbers. Cutting the lineup helped improve both our offense and our defense.
The big decision that bothered most people was the decision to go with Girard (who was having a nightmare game) over Richmond (who looked pretty damn good, especially considering he was playing his first ever game coming off two weeks with no practice). Last I checked there was a 14 page thread about this decision with people throwing all kinds of wacky theories out there. Not once in my skimming of that thread did I see the glaringly obvious thing mentioned ... Bryant was playing zone and Girard is the better shooter. It really is that simple folks. If Bryant had been playing man I'd bet anything Richmond would have been in the game.
There were a couple other good reasons to keep Richmond on the bench. One, we were down double digits in the second half, every possession was critical, and freshman are notorious for making early season mistakes, especially freshman point guards, and Richmond is a freshman point guard who hasn't even been able to practice. Two, freshman are notorious for being bad at getting back in transition because the college game is played so much faster end to end than the high school game is, and we were trying to plug our holes in transition, not create new ones.
For those of you who are worried about Richmond not getting any playing time this year. Don't be. Most of our opponents are going to play man D against us and Richmond is going to be an extremely important piece on our team. If he doesn't play its going to be because he got his chance and failed. There is zero chance that he simply doesn't get the opportunity to succeed. We need the skills he brings to the table.
I'd also like to point out that the decision to keep Girard in the game actually worked. Syracuse outscored Bryant 41 to 33 in the second half, Girard hit probably the two biggest shots of the game, and SU won.
A loss here would have really sucked. SU managed to avoid the loss. I don't think there are many positives you can take from this game. But for all the reasons I listed above, I dont think there are many negatives we can take away from this game either. It was a kind of survive and advance game. A pass/fail test. We passed. Lets move on and judge the team when they are playing under more reasonable circumstances.
That said, let me go ahead an judge each player individually ...
Girard - He had a terrible shooting game as we know, which doesn't really bother me at all. He came through when it mattered most and the decision to keep him in the game was the right decision ... this time. What I saw that concerned me happened on the small handful of possessions where Bryant switched to man D. Originally Bryant had Green, their quick point guard, on Boeheim, but Buddy backed him down and easily scored right over him which caused Bryant to change their plans. Instead they switched him to Girard and the quick guard gave Girard fits. I was hoping Girard would look better playing point against man D this year than he did last year, but the early returns show that is not the case. I will warn that this only happened on 3 or 4 possessions, and its dangerous to take too much from a few possessions in a game where Girard clearly wasn't at his best. I'll keep my eye on this, but going only from this game, we are going to need Richmond to play major minutes at point this year. Another note on Girard's D. I dont think he was as fundamentally unsound as people are suggesting, but I do think that Bryant got 4 or 5 three pointers simply by having a taller guy shoot over the top of Girard, which is a weakness I dont think there is a solution for.
Richmond - Remember when I said Girard struggled the few possessions where Green played man D against him? Well Green also played man D for a single possession against Richmond in the first half. Richmond blew by him like it was the easiest thing in the world, got to the hoop, drew a foul and sank both free throws. I think Richmond looked great in this game considering the circumstances. I think Richmond is the future at point (the near future). I also think Boeheim made the right call to keep Girard in the game in the second half. These opinions are not contradictory.
Boeheim - He's not getting enough credit. He played a fantastic game. His 3 at the half time buzzer was gigantic for us. As were the back to back 3's he hit late in the second half to take us from down 7 to down 1. But its not just that. He looked much more fluid driving to the hoop, he was effective inside the arc, and his D was fantastic. Bryant went out of their way to avoid his side of the zone and when they did go in his area, Buddy made it hard on them. People seem quick to criticize him and slow to give him praise (I wonder why that is) but he was a star in this game. Did everything we could have asked of him.
Griffin - As advertised. Shooter. Rebounder. Athlete. High motor. I'll say this, until Griffin learns how to play our zone (which I am hoping will be soon since he comes from a basketball family and his father is a coach) his high motor is a double edged sward. There were times in this game were he was WAY out of position defensively. If we had another viable alternative at forward I think Griffin would have sat a lot the way Richmond did. None of this is a real knock on Griffin. He's going to be an important player for us this year, and be very good. Just as advertised.
Guerrier - Another guy who I don't think is getting the credit he deserves. This guy just had groin surgery. In a perfect world he wouldn't even be going at 100% right now. Yet he put up 15 and 12. I think we are just scratching the surface of what he can do for us. Right now you can see Guerrier overthinking everything. This is understandable as he's been rehabbing and hasn't played basketball since the UNC game almost a year ago. He needs to get up to speed physically and mentally, but when he does I think he will be a force. If 15 and 12 against a team with a legit shot blocker who was defensive POY last year is him rusty, what will he look like when he's at the top of his game? I think it will take a month or two to find out.
Dolezaj - 20, 9, and 6 is a great game by any standard. But I heard a lot of people suggest that we are going to be running our O through him from now on based on the evidence from this game, and I'm not so sure. Bryant played 2-3 zone, and Dolezaj was the guy we put in that high post spot that is a weak point. As we all know, players who can shoot, pass, and dribble from that point are killers of the zone ... and that's SU's zone which is good and actively tries to defend the high post. Bryant's D wasn't very good and they didn't seem very interested in defending the high post at all. Thus Dolezaj got to do whatever he wanted more or less unchecked. He played well. But a senior who averaged double figures last year and who was being essentially ignored by the defense all game long better play well. Things will never bee that easy for Dolezaj again. That doesn't mean he won't have a good year. It just means I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that our entire offense is going to run through him. If 20, 9 and 6 becomes the norm for Dolezaj we are in for a great year. I don't expect it to become the norm.
Braswell - Terrible. Had three wide open looks at the basket and missed them all. Looked to be aggressive on D, but not effective. Was scored on down low twice in only 3 minutes of play.
Sidibe - He's my big worry. If he is inured in any kind of serious way it will torpedo our season. We need him. Definitely looked like he has bigger muscles than last year though, which is a plus, but couldn't jump any higher than before, which is expected given his previous injuries, but still a bit of a bummer since we lack a rim protector.
Anselem - I watched him play in high school. I saw a guy with NBA athleticism who doesn't really know how to play basketball just yet, Its extremely encouraging that he was the first center off the bench. This kid has a bright future. But in this game he was a disaster. A big part of Bryant's 14 point run to end the first half came from Anselem's failed attempt to anchor our press.
Edwards - Didn't do much of note. Played one minute and put up all zeros in the box score.
Bryant pressed for most of the game then fell back into a 2-3 zone (what I call the Rick Pitino D). When executed correctly its the most effective defense in college ball, but its the most difficult to execute and also the most difficult to recruit for, thus its rarely executed well, and this game was no exception. Bryant did a lot of pressing and played a lot of zone, but did neither well and SU carved them up pretty good. If Cuse wasn't really rusty early in the game they would have had a shot to crack 100 points. The one thing Bryant had going for them defensively is a rare thing for a mid major team to have, and that's a center who is a legit rim protector who I would take on the SU roster in a heartbeat.
The Rick Pitino D isn't played often so it was weird to see SU press pretty much the entire first half to then obviously fall back into a 2-3 zone. Off the top of my head I can't remember watching an entire half of basketball where both teams played that style. SU didn't fare any better than Bryant did. Our press got a few early turnovers then was pretty much carved up. Bryant's point guard was a little guy named Green who was lightning quick and was the rookie of the year last year, alongside him they played 4 and sometimes even 5 guards. I can't think of a worse opponent to press. Yet Syracuse pressed for a long time despite having very little success. Why? I don't know the answer, but I have a guess, let me know if you think its right.
More than any other D, the 2-3 zone, changes to take away the strength of the opponents. How SU shifts in the zone and when they trap are dictated by what the opponent is trying to accomplish. Since SU couldn't practice for 2 weeks leading up to this game, they might not have had the ability to relay a sophisticated gameplan to their players, and thus thought pressing - which is the same every time no matter who we are playing - might have been the better option.
That is my best guess for why Syracuse did something I've never seen them do before, which is stick with a press that clearly isn't working for 20 minutes. I'd love to hear other theories, if there are any.
This gets to my first big thought of the game. We all know Syracuse's defense was bad, but I think its important to note exactly what was bad. We were extremely bad pressing and we were extremely bad in transition. But when our 2-3 zone was set up, it was actually pretty good. To demonstrate this, lets take a look at what I consider to be the key stretch of the entire game - the last 5 minutes of the first half. With 5 minutes to go SU was up by 4, and looking ready to pull away for good. Then came a 14 point swing in Bryant's direction. Take away that stretch and SU wins by about the margin you'd expect them to win this game by.
So what happened in this stretch? Would you be surprised if I told you that Bryant scored 0 points against our set up 2-3 zone? Its the truth. They had 4 possessions against our D when it was set and came away with 0 points.
The 20 points they had in this stretch (we scored a couple baskets too) came against our press or in transition opportunities from things like blocked shots, or one of our guys diving for a ball but not coming up with it thus allowing Bryant to run down and play 4 on 5.
To recap - for a stretch of 5 minutes they shot 0% against our 2-3 zone and 100% in transition against an unsettled D and came away +14. You can take from that what you will. But my take away is, the transition D will be fixed now that the coaches can actually hold a practice. The thing that really matters, how we execute in the 2-3, was actually not bad and somewhat encouraging.
In the first half, Boeheim played 9 different players, had trouble in transition, and let up 51 points on 58% shooting. What would your solution be?
His solution was to go with experience, cut the rotation down, stop pressing, and focus on getting back on D. His solution was the correct one, of course. In the second half Bryant scored only 33 points on 47% shooting (only 22% from 3 down from 47% in the first half). Meanwhile Syracuse's field goal percentage jumped from 37% to a whopping 69%. I saw people complaining that Boeheim didn't play enough players in the second half. Those people are factually wrong by the numbers. Cutting the lineup helped improve both our offense and our defense.
The big decision that bothered most people was the decision to go with Girard (who was having a nightmare game) over Richmond (who looked pretty damn good, especially considering he was playing his first ever game coming off two weeks with no practice). Last I checked there was a 14 page thread about this decision with people throwing all kinds of wacky theories out there. Not once in my skimming of that thread did I see the glaringly obvious thing mentioned ... Bryant was playing zone and Girard is the better shooter. It really is that simple folks. If Bryant had been playing man I'd bet anything Richmond would have been in the game.
There were a couple other good reasons to keep Richmond on the bench. One, we were down double digits in the second half, every possession was critical, and freshman are notorious for making early season mistakes, especially freshman point guards, and Richmond is a freshman point guard who hasn't even been able to practice. Two, freshman are notorious for being bad at getting back in transition because the college game is played so much faster end to end than the high school game is, and we were trying to plug our holes in transition, not create new ones.
For those of you who are worried about Richmond not getting any playing time this year. Don't be. Most of our opponents are going to play man D against us and Richmond is going to be an extremely important piece on our team. If he doesn't play its going to be because he got his chance and failed. There is zero chance that he simply doesn't get the opportunity to succeed. We need the skills he brings to the table.
I'd also like to point out that the decision to keep Girard in the game actually worked. Syracuse outscored Bryant 41 to 33 in the second half, Girard hit probably the two biggest shots of the game, and SU won.
A loss here would have really sucked. SU managed to avoid the loss. I don't think there are many positives you can take from this game. But for all the reasons I listed above, I dont think there are many negatives we can take away from this game either. It was a kind of survive and advance game. A pass/fail test. We passed. Lets move on and judge the team when they are playing under more reasonable circumstances.
That said, let me go ahead an judge each player individually ...
Girard - He had a terrible shooting game as we know, which doesn't really bother me at all. He came through when it mattered most and the decision to keep him in the game was the right decision ... this time. What I saw that concerned me happened on the small handful of possessions where Bryant switched to man D. Originally Bryant had Green, their quick point guard, on Boeheim, but Buddy backed him down and easily scored right over him which caused Bryant to change their plans. Instead they switched him to Girard and the quick guard gave Girard fits. I was hoping Girard would look better playing point against man D this year than he did last year, but the early returns show that is not the case. I will warn that this only happened on 3 or 4 possessions, and its dangerous to take too much from a few possessions in a game where Girard clearly wasn't at his best. I'll keep my eye on this, but going only from this game, we are going to need Richmond to play major minutes at point this year. Another note on Girard's D. I dont think he was as fundamentally unsound as people are suggesting, but I do think that Bryant got 4 or 5 three pointers simply by having a taller guy shoot over the top of Girard, which is a weakness I dont think there is a solution for.
Richmond - Remember when I said Girard struggled the few possessions where Green played man D against him? Well Green also played man D for a single possession against Richmond in the first half. Richmond blew by him like it was the easiest thing in the world, got to the hoop, drew a foul and sank both free throws. I think Richmond looked great in this game considering the circumstances. I think Richmond is the future at point (the near future). I also think Boeheim made the right call to keep Girard in the game in the second half. These opinions are not contradictory.
Boeheim - He's not getting enough credit. He played a fantastic game. His 3 at the half time buzzer was gigantic for us. As were the back to back 3's he hit late in the second half to take us from down 7 to down 1. But its not just that. He looked much more fluid driving to the hoop, he was effective inside the arc, and his D was fantastic. Bryant went out of their way to avoid his side of the zone and when they did go in his area, Buddy made it hard on them. People seem quick to criticize him and slow to give him praise (I wonder why that is) but he was a star in this game. Did everything we could have asked of him.
Griffin - As advertised. Shooter. Rebounder. Athlete. High motor. I'll say this, until Griffin learns how to play our zone (which I am hoping will be soon since he comes from a basketball family and his father is a coach) his high motor is a double edged sward. There were times in this game were he was WAY out of position defensively. If we had another viable alternative at forward I think Griffin would have sat a lot the way Richmond did. None of this is a real knock on Griffin. He's going to be an important player for us this year, and be very good. Just as advertised.
Guerrier - Another guy who I don't think is getting the credit he deserves. This guy just had groin surgery. In a perfect world he wouldn't even be going at 100% right now. Yet he put up 15 and 12. I think we are just scratching the surface of what he can do for us. Right now you can see Guerrier overthinking everything. This is understandable as he's been rehabbing and hasn't played basketball since the UNC game almost a year ago. He needs to get up to speed physically and mentally, but when he does I think he will be a force. If 15 and 12 against a team with a legit shot blocker who was defensive POY last year is him rusty, what will he look like when he's at the top of his game? I think it will take a month or two to find out.
Dolezaj - 20, 9, and 6 is a great game by any standard. But I heard a lot of people suggest that we are going to be running our O through him from now on based on the evidence from this game, and I'm not so sure. Bryant played 2-3 zone, and Dolezaj was the guy we put in that high post spot that is a weak point. As we all know, players who can shoot, pass, and dribble from that point are killers of the zone ... and that's SU's zone which is good and actively tries to defend the high post. Bryant's D wasn't very good and they didn't seem very interested in defending the high post at all. Thus Dolezaj got to do whatever he wanted more or less unchecked. He played well. But a senior who averaged double figures last year and who was being essentially ignored by the defense all game long better play well. Things will never bee that easy for Dolezaj again. That doesn't mean he won't have a good year. It just means I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that our entire offense is going to run through him. If 20, 9 and 6 becomes the norm for Dolezaj we are in for a great year. I don't expect it to become the norm.
Braswell - Terrible. Had three wide open looks at the basket and missed them all. Looked to be aggressive on D, but not effective. Was scored on down low twice in only 3 minutes of play.
Sidibe - He's my big worry. If he is inured in any kind of serious way it will torpedo our season. We need him. Definitely looked like he has bigger muscles than last year though, which is a plus, but couldn't jump any higher than before, which is expected given his previous injuries, but still a bit of a bummer since we lack a rim protector.
Anselem - I watched him play in high school. I saw a guy with NBA athleticism who doesn't really know how to play basketball just yet, Its extremely encouraging that he was the first center off the bench. This kid has a bright future. But in this game he was a disaster. A big part of Bryant's 14 point run to end the first half came from Anselem's failed attempt to anchor our press.
Edwards - Didn't do much of note. Played one minute and put up all zeros in the box score.
), which is why - in theory - you'd want him out there when they are playing 100% zone.
