Bryant Thoughts

[cliftonparksufan]

That was gold, General. Great observations across the board. Thank you for the write up.

Loved the "Pitino D" reference and that style of play. I'm a big fan of the Pitino concepts on pressure D. Any thoughts on the difference between the type of zone presses used by each team since they both fell back to the 2-3?

Tonight is Pitino in his Iona debut vs his former assistant Kevin Willard and Seton Hall. Should be fun to watch Ricky in the MAAC. Wish it was up close.

 

[RF2044]

OUTSTANDING post, General!!!

One thing I was thinking of when they were reviewing that foul where Marek might have gotten disqualified at the end -- was how costly that first foul was on him, less than a minute into a game. That's my big fear for him playing center for extended lengths [don't have a problem with it situationally, or to close out games at the end in order to get our best 5 players on the floor] is that he is so foul prone due to his physique. And we can't afford for him to get in foul trouble, given how figural he is to our offensive concept [if game one is any indication].

 

[cliftonparksufan]

OUTSTANDING post, General!!!

One thing I was thinking of when they were reviewing that foul where Marek might have gotten disqualified at the end -- was how costly that first foul was on him, less than a minute into a game. That's my big fear for him playing center for extended lengths [don't have a problem with it situationally, or to close out games at the end in order to get our best 5 players on the floor] is that he is so foul prone due to his physique. And we can't afford for him to get in foul trouble, given how figural he is to our offensive concept [if game one is any indication].

Yup. Marek is going to play somewhere between 25 minutes and 40 minutes. It all depends on how the refs call the game. No matter how he tries to avoid the fouls, it's probably physically impossible for him to. One of the back ups is going to have to play at some point at the 5. It could be Quincy, could be Jesse or could be Frank. I guess we will see who's number gets called.

 

[orangefog]

Very well done. However, I think the term "Pitino D" means something altogether different in the Louisville metropolitan area.

 

[upperdeck]

if we have just an OK game from 3 instead of a below avg one we win by 15.. if we are up 10 instead of down the energy from Byrant plays out different too.

we shot 28% they shot 35% we are up 7 or so down the stretch

most games they shoot 35 and we shoot 28% are gonna be tough for us against anyone.

 

[OrangeYaGladi]

if we have just an OK game from 3 instead of a below avg one we win by 15.. if we are up 10 instead of down the energy from Byrant plays out different too.

we shot 28% they shot 35% we are up 7 or so down the stretch

most games we shoot 35 and shoot 28% are gonna be tough for us against anyone.

yeah, but these shooting percentages are not random events. If the other team is shooting 35% and making more than a dozen threes, its probably because they are shredding the zone and getting good looks.

 

[upperdeck]

no doubt but its not like we were getting bad looks too. i dont care if a team shoots 30-35 if they only get 10 OReb.. we won the rebounding battle and shot FTs ok so we hung around without the 3s

 

[NorSyr66]

Your analysis is a welcome sight (as always) and a great "pick me up" after the near disaster last Friday. I recognize it is a lot of thought and preparation on your part to produce this thorough analysis and only wish it was available sooner after the game to reduce my period of grief. At least in my mind, your analysis provides me a better reason to understand JB's rant during the press conference about who plays. I was happy to see your positive comments about Anselem and about Richmond's importance to the team as the season proceeds. I agree that Richmond has the skills to make us a better team. The one dilemma I agree will haunt us all season will be Girard on defense at 6 ft 2 in. Teams will continue to try and shoot over him to break our 2-3 zone.

 

[OmahaCuse]

Great recap and good analysis. The only comment is people wanted Richmond to get at least a few minutes in the second half even if 5 for Joe, and 5 for Buddy. While you say it worked going with Joe, yes we won and he hit a few bit shots. What we don’t know is we may have won by 10 if Richmond played, had a few steals, prevented a few threes, had a few assist and points, if Joe and Buddy each had a breather, who knows?

Good news is we won and we know JG had his worst game maybe in his basketball career and it looks like KR can ball. At least for a few minutes a game would like to see top of zone with KR and AG. Understand they both don’t have a ton of zone experience right now would be our all athletic lineup.

 

[General20]

That was gold, General. Great observations across the board. Thank you for the write up.

Loved the "Pitino D" reference and that style of play. I'm a big fan of the Pitino concepts on pressure D. Any thoughts on the difference between the type of zone presses used by each team since they both fell back to the 2-3?

Sure. The press that Pitino/Bryant played is actually a lot different than the press we do. I'll TRY to keep this short and sweet (though we all know that's not my specialty).

When we press we go for the home run. We trap whoever receives the inbounds pass then hit the passing lanes hard hoping to intercept the ball. Its really hard to get out of that initial trap (especially if all you did was prepare for the zone) but if you escape the initial trap you are heading towards our basket with a numbers advantage. Our press is a blitzkrieg designed to surprise the opponent and get us a few easy points off turnovers. Its not meant to be played for extended periods of time.

The Pitino press is a zone press designed to keep its shape and never allow the offense to obtain a numbers advantage going towards the basket, therefore you can play it all game long if you want to. If you screw up they will gladly pounce on it and take the turnover, but unlike our press a turnover isn't the only objective of this zone. They are also happy to simply slow you down and make it hard for you to get across half court that way you have less time to set up your offense to attack their zone.

 

[OrangeDW]

Sure. The press that Pitino/Bryant played is actually a lot different than the press we do. I'll TRY to keep this short and sweet (though we all know that's not my specialty).

When we press we go for the home run. We trap whoever receives the inbounds pass then hit the passing lanes hard hoping to intercept the ball. Its really hard to get out of that initial trap (especially if all you did was prepare for the zone) but if you escape the initial trap you are heading towards our basket with a numbers advantage. Our press is a blitzkrieg designed to surprise the opponent and get us a few easy points off turnovers. Its not meant to be played for extended periods of time.

The Pitino press is a zone press designed to keep its shape and never allow the offense to obtain a numbers advantage going towards the basket, therefore you can play it all game long if you want to. If you screw up they will gladly pounce on it and take the turnover, but unlike our press a turnover isn't the only objective of this zone. They are also happy to simply slow you down and make it hard for you to get across half court that way you have less time to set up your offense to attack their zone.

Remember a couple years ago JB actually brought Pitino in to practice and experimented with using the 2-2-1 a couple times early in the season.

 

[orangefog]

Sure. The press that Pitino/Bryant played is actually a lot different than the press we do. I'll TRY to keep this short and sweet (though we all know that's not my specialty).

When we press we go for the home run. We trap whoever receives the inbounds pass then hit the passing lanes hard hoping to intercept the ball. Its really hard to get out of that initial trap (especially if all you did was prepare for the zone) but if you escape the initial trap you are heading towards our basket with a numbers advantage. Our press is a blitzkrieg designed to surprise the opponent and get us a few easy points off turnovers. Its not meant to be played for extended periods of time.

The Pitino press is a zone press designed to keep its shape and never allow the offense to obtain a numbers advantage going towards the basket, therefore you can play it all game long if you want to. If you screw up they will gladly pounce on it and take the turnover, but unlike our press a turnover isn't the only objective of this zone. They are also happy to simply slow you down and make it hard for you to get across half court that way you have less time to set up your offense to attack their zone.

I don’t think our guards are quick enough to pull it off, but I love the idea of using the press to shorten the possession, making the zone even more effective.

 

[General20]

Great stuff, General.

But, I will say, that I do disagree about JB going "ride or die" with JGIII for the entirety of the 2nd half.

I get it, he's a "shooter" (not much of a "maker" until the last 6 minutes ), which is why - in theory - you'd want him out there when they are playing 100% zone.

And I will not argue that JGIII is absolutely the guy you want out there for the last 8 minutes of the 2nd half, since JAB always rolls with the guys he trusts most during 'winning time'.

But - I find it hard to believe that there was just no way possible to work Kadary in for 4-5 minutes at some point in the 2nd half???

Like, from the 16-12 timeout, or the 12-8?

Pretty much the only positive thing Joe did (prior to the last 6.5 minutes or so) in the 2nd half, was a steal and assist to AG (this was NOT the ooop, that came at 3:34).
Otherwise, it was 2 fouls, a board, and a bunch of missed shots. Several of which led directly to points at the other end - the "first pass in your opponents fast break, is a bad shot"

Kadary couldn't have at least done similar for 4-5-6 mins there??
Or maybe given us something more? Some spark?

Of course, we'll never know.

Of course Richmond could have ended up playing better than Girard. We know in retrospect that Girard didn't play very well, but I don't think anybody can argue that most of the time Girard will perform better against a zone than Richmond. Boeheim was playing the percentages and playing the percentages is the smart thing to do.

Your idea of playing a guy who is less suited to contribute is all well and good (and Boeheim did exactly that in the first half) but we had our backs against the wall in the second half. Remember we won by a SINGLE point. Had Boeheim took Girard out and Richmond did end up say throwing the ball directly to a Bryant player (something he did in the first half). Or failed to get back in transition and was forced to foul a Bryant player who beat him (another thing he did in the first half) that could have been the difference between a win and loss.

I get the feeling that no matter who Boeheim plays, when SU has a bad game people will complain that he should have played someone else more. I can't get behind that kind of reactionary thinking. If I told you going into the game that your choice against a 2-3 zone was Girard or a freshman who is not the strongest of shooters and hasn't practiced in two weeks everybody would choose Girard. Then when Boeheim does it, people act like it was an irrational decision. Girard missing a few shots doesn't mean that he will miss the next, and this game was proof.

 

[General20]

I don’t think our guards are quick enough to pull it off, but I love the idea of using the press to shorten the possession, making the zone even more effective.

That's the downside of that defense. You need tall long guys to zone well, and quick guys (who are usually short) to press well. Its hard to find guys who can do both, and hard to teach both at a high level with the limited number of practice time you get in college.

In theory though that defense is perfect for college. Most college players are either really skilled and not very athletic (thus they struggle against the press) or they are really athletic and not very skilled (thus they struggle against the zone). If you are both really athletic and really skilled you don't stay in college past age 18. In practice though, its really hard to recruit for and hard to teach.

 

[007]

Sure. The press that Pitino/Bryant played is actually a lot different than the press we do. I'll TRY to keep this short and sweet (though we all know that's not my specialty).

When we press we go for the home run. We trap whoever receives the inbounds pass then hit the passing lanes hard hoping to intercept the ball. Its really hard to get out of that initial trap (especially if all you did was prepare for the zone) but if you escape the initial trap you are heading towards our basket with a numbers advantage. Our press is a blitzkrieg designed to surprise the opponent and get us a few easy points off turnovers. Its not meant to be played for extended periods of time.

The Pitino press is a zone press designed to keep its shape and never allow the offense to obtain a numbers advantage going towards the basket, therefore you can play it all game long if you want to. If you screw up they will gladly pounce on it and take the turnover, but unlike our press a turnover isn't the only objective of this zone. They are also happy to simply slow you down and make it hard for you to get across half court that way you have less time to set up your offense to attack their zone.

Thank you for that level of detail and explanation. Always impressive, General.

I fully agree that the primary difference between the 2-2-1 Pitino type press (and its multiple variations) and JB's singular 1-2-1-1 is the hyper aggression at the front of the press. They are selling out to make that entry pass as difficult as possible in JB's press (I'll call it the JB press but he did not invent it). The first "1" in the 1-2-1-1 is always a forward with quickness and length (for JB anyway) and the back 1 is always the center. The front 1 (chaser) is going to play on the ball and then turn and chase the inbounds pass and trap hard - if he can get there in time. Goal one is to deny or tip or steal that entry pass. Goal 2 is to hard trap the entry pass once it is made. The "2s" in that alignment are always the guards, one will trap with the chasing forward while the other guard will rotate to the center of the floor. The remaining forward will try to take away the sideline (leaving the center as the lone defender a the back). The rotations are more complicated than that, but that is the gist. If teams handle that initial onslaught, just like you said, they will almost always have 3 on 2 or, more likely, a 2 on 1 at the other end. The other more subtle difficulty with playing a 1-2-1-1 is that it is much harder to rotate back to a 2-3, compared to teams who use the 2-2-1 which more naturally morphs into the 2-3.

I could drone on and on a long, boring time about the many benefits of playing the 2-2-1 press in front of a 2-3 zone. I doubt many have read this far, and you have explained much more succinctly. Well done, brother.

Needless to say, I would love to see JB use the 2-2-1. He pulled it out once last year early in the season - I have NEVER seen him use it before... or since.

 

[SWC75]

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.

Another tour-de-force from our basketball savant. It's worth it to sit thro9ugh what are often frustrating games just to read you analysis of them. You give clear reasons why we stuck with the press and Girard and how this game doesn't tell us what will happen in other games. I just wish JB had responded to questions in this manner rather than treating questioners with contempt in the post game pressers.

 

[SWC75]

That was gold, General. Great observations across the board. Thank you for the write up.

Loved the "Pitino D" reference and that style of play. I'm a big fan of the Pitino concepts on pressure D. Any thoughts on the difference between the type of zone presses used by each team since they both fell back to the 2-3?

I like the Pitino 'D', too, for the same reasons. You can pressure the other team while maintaining the integrity of your half court defense and deny the opponent time to beat it when the cross the half court line. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't do that and play the Boeheim zone as well. I would think the more subtle approach would require less quickness than the all-Bansi charge JB uses.

 

[SWC75]

This is an astute observation, but I disagree with your conclusion. Our zone always looks a little off when we play 5 guard line ups. And the reason it looks off is because it is not designed to stop 5 guards. There are zero high major teams that will throw a 5 guard line up at us, so we dont prepare for it, even though we usually see one or two games a year where a mid major team tries it.

The end result is almost always that while our D looks a little awkward and lets up a few points it normally wouldn't we end up dominating on the boards and on the other end of the court in a way that makes those few extra points we give up not matter. That held true here too. In the second half (when they played the 5 guard line up because their big got in foul trouble) we shot 69% from the field. That's an unheard of number even for a high major team going against a low major team. We dominated on the boards too. It just didn't seem like it because we were clawing back from a double digit deficit.

Are we looking at the same box score? We shot 51.72% from the field in the second half and won the board battle 47-44 overall.

Bryant (0-1,0-0 NEC) -vs- Syracuse (1-0,0-0 ACC) (PDF) - Syracuse University Athletics

Bryant (0-1,0-0 NEC) -vs- Syracuse (1-0,0-0 ACC) (PDF)

cuse.com

 

[Mareiniss]

Are we looking at the same box score? We shot 51.72% from the field in the second half and won the board battle 47-44 overall.

Bryant (0-1,0-0 NEC) -vs- Syracuse (1-0,0-0 ACC) (PDF) - Syracuse University Athletics

Bryant (0-1,0-0 NEC) -vs- Syracuse (1-0,0-0 ACC) (PDF)

cuse.com

69% was SU's 2-point shooting % in the second half (11 for 16 from 2). The 51% figure in that box score represents the combined 2-point and 3-point shooting % in the second half.

 

[oTTo113445]

Unless a clear center option arises, I like the idea of tinkering with Guerrier at the 5, in the 2 2 1 for the first 6 minutes a game with an incentive not to hack at the ball. Then subbing the centers in and only using Dolezaj as the 4th option.

Simply put Dolezaj is our best in transition, and Quincy, Griffin, Buddy are more chiseled for physical rebounds. We might be better off with Dolezaj further away from the physical scrum rebounds, and better with the occasional finesse rebounds, on the plays where he isn't leaking out. Dolezaj only averaged 5.2 rebounds in the last 14 games last year. With 1.8 of those being offensive, I Hope we are not dependent on a Big averaging 3.4 defensive rebounds in 30+mpg. Plus Dolezaj always gets 1-2 fouls on hustle plays, why risk foul trouble on 3 stupid low post hacking fouls, when we need his ball movement on offense.

This team is noticeably physically stronger at all positions with Sidibe from last year, and it shows. Edwards seems to have added a bit of lower leg strength, and Griff will be a bit more physical than Hughes in the long run.

 

[007]

I like the Pitino 'D', too, for the same reasons. You can pressure the other team while maintaining the integrity of your half court defense and deny the opponent time to beat it when the cross the half court line. I find it hard to believe that we couldn't do that and play the Boeheim zone as well. I would think the more subtle approach would require less quickness than the all-Bansi charge JB uses.

It's not that we couldn't do it. It is done all the time by teams everywhere. When JB presses he does it with the 1-2-1-1, pretty much exclusively. As I said before, it is easier to slide back into the 2-3 when pressing with a 2-2-1. Take my word for it (or not), the 2-2-1 can be played very aggressively at the front end.

 

[Newhouser]

Nobody is going to zone us - Marek at the top of the key with our shooters is a recipe for killing the zone. IF Marek had made his bunnies in the first half we win pretty easy the other night. Teams are going to play tight man against us as they think they can stay in front of our penetrators. The question is when that happens will JB go to Kadary and can he play at a high enough level to get us W's.

 

[Fat tire 13]

Echo the others here. Excellent analysis

One thing I noticed with JG3, and was curious if others shared the same thought. His shot seemed flat because it looked like he wasn't getting any power/spring from his lower body. Like he was tired. I know his form normally leans that way, but this seemed worse than normal.

 

[SWC75]

Unless a clear center option arises, I like the idea of tinkering with Guerrier at the 5, in the 2 2 1 for the first 6 minutes a game with an incentive not to hack at the ball. Then subbing the centers in and only using Dolezaj as the 4th option.

Simply put Dolezaj is our best in transition, and Quincy, Griffin, Buddy are more chiseled for physical rebounds. We might be better off with Dolezaj further away from the physical scrum rebounds, and better with the occasional finesse rebounds, on the plays where he isn't leaking out. Dolezaj only averaged 5.2 rebounds in the last 14 games last year. With 1.8 of those being offensive, I Hope we are not dependent on a Big averaging 3.4 defensive rebounds in 30+mpg. Plus Dolezaj always gets 1-2 fouls on hustle plays, why risk foul trouble on 3 stupid low post hacking fouls, when we need his ball movement on offense.

This team is noticeably physically stronger at all positions with Sidibe from last year, and it shows. Edwards seems to have added a bit of lower leg strength, and Griff will be a bit more physical than Hughes in the long run.

I find the idea of Guerrier playing center, at least on defense when we have three true centers besides Bourama, disturbing. I'd rather have a raw true center and 15 fouls to work with, (20 with Marek), than to have a 6-7 guy guarding the basket.

Buddy, (chiseled?) has never been much of a rebounder, despite his size. Joe, on the other hand, with his football players body and good anticipation, is pretty good at getting us the ball. he had 6 rebounds vs. Bryant to 3 for Buddy. last year Buddy averaged 1.7 rebs per 40 minutes, Joe 3.5, Marek 5.0.

 

[dcw914]

Really impressive analysis. Nailed so many of the themes, both positive and negative, that can be taken away from this game. Wanted to touch on a few of your points with some additional things I noticed:

JG3 - He was pressing and not being able to make shots made him press harder. I think a consequence of his struggles against a quick guard made him take some questionable shots. He said himself this year that he was looking to improve his shot selection and that didn't show in the first game. What JG3 should realize is that he doesn't have to score a ton to be effective. Case in point was the UNC game in the ACC tournament which was arguably our most impressive game of the season. He only scored 3 points in that game but was incredibly productive running the offense, controlling tempo, and making his teammates better. He's always going to look to score first, has flare, and can change the game with his shooting (and we don't win without his couple of clutch buckets with less than 5 minutes to play), but when shots aren't falling, he should take a 'less is more' approach to the game.

Griffin - Kid is a stud. He's going to play major minutes this year. However, I echo your analysis of his defense and I believe he had the most significant and frequent defensive lapses in this game. That's somewhat expected due to being a transfer and not being able to practice for two weeks, but something to keep an eye on throughout the season. He seems to have the athleticism, physicality, and instincts to do well in our zone. It's just a matter of knowing where to be which he will hopefully pick up sooner than later.

Quincy - One thing I wanted to add is his shot looked improved. I remember one three in particular went in and out of the hoop. I would love to see Quincy become more of a threat in the mid-range game since I believe he's a good enough shooter to atleast make shots near the free throw line. This would be a nice added layer to his game which could lead up to him taking more 3s. If he can even be respectable from distance, like anything over 30%, he becomes a really dangerous player.

Buddy - Couldn't agree more with everything you wrote. Despite his physical and athletic shortcomings, I believe he has a nice feel for the zone and typically is where he needs to be. Offensively, this team loses a lot if he's off the court and it's crazy to think otherwise. Buddy would play major minutes on any team in the country and he just keeps getting better.

Dolezaj - Wow was he impressive and I actually think he left some meat on the bone in terms of his opportunities to score. He's going to be a matchup nightmare for opposing teams this year because he plays really well over guys smaller than him but is also skilled enough to get by guys bigger than him. While I agree that the offense won't necessarily run through him, I'd bet JB finds ways to get the ball in his hands on most possessions. He simply needs to stay out of foul trouble because he's too valuable on the court for us.

Rebounding - Really curious to see if this team rebounds better than in years past. Griff and Guerrier are an impressive physical combo on the wings to rebound the basketball. Bryant doesn't have great length but they did a pretty good job having all their guys crash the boards so I'm cautiously optimistic our rebounding won't be a major flaw this year. Obviously, having Sidibe back will improve this area as well. Also, is it possible that Griff's and Guerrier's rebounding prowess comes at a detriment to their defense? Something I'm not sure of, but could be possible in particular with Griffin.

Center Position - Tough blow for Bourama who looks like he bulked up quite a bit in the offseason. We were all hoping his success from late in last season would carry over, but this injury will inevitably set him back some. Let's hope he's ready to go in January and can make a difference early on. In the mean time, I'm eager to see who out of Edwards or Anselem steps up because you'd think atleast one of them will be getting minutes. If I had to bet, I'd say Edwards becomes our 7th man while Sidibe is out. I think there's a lot to like with Edwards still, am I the only one who thought he seemed to have a knack for making plays when he got a chance last year? He's got length, has decent footwork and touch around the basket, and I don't recall him being a totally liability defensively last year when he was in there. From everything I've read and heard, the issue seems to be that he isn't physical/strong enough to make a difference which may be true. I haven't seen enough of Anselem but he certainly does look the part. Very curious to see who gets a chance in game to play center when Marek needs a break.

All in all, this was one of the strangest games I've witnessed during the entirety of my Syracuse fandom. Quite fitting given the state of the world in 2020. It's easy to look at this game and think critically of this team and have a pessimistic outlook, but i'll reserve judgement until we can get a few more games (and practice) under our belt. On no planet can you judge a team after one game that hasn't played in a couple weeks against a pretty impressive Bryant team. Hopefully this team improves against Niagra and Rider leading up to Rutgers which should be a nice litmus test.