Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SoBeCuse, post: 2559220, member: 796"] I see both sides of it. Personally I think our overall talent level was subpar. If our big three were that great we wouldn’t have been a bubble team. Plenty of teams play 3 on 5 but do it with more passing and movement. I give Boeheim a lot of credit as well as the players for not giving up. A very taxing season. But, I think it’s a fallacy to think Boeheim did some incredible or transcendent job with this team. He completely scrapped the offense, slowed the game down, and put all the focus into the defense. The right thing to do but not rocket science. I mean I think there were more creative ways things could’ve been done on offense but generally I don’t think we had the horses. However, when late in the season you are still looking completely lost on offense and making the kinds of turnovers we were making late in games; that’s a problem. Having one guy dribble down the shot clock and either charge or force up a tough shot make or miss; that’s kind of an embarrassment. We encountered some teams who froze up and were inept dealing with the zone for the majority of the Tourney games and we barely hung on offensively. Compare us to Kentucky who had been playing as good as anybody the last month of the season. More talent at Kentucky yes. But they barely shot 36% from 3. Better inside players who are stronger and can finish better. Have some post moves. Nothing special even but Gabriel/Vanderbilt/PJ Washington are much better than Marek/Sidibe/Chukwu. They didn’t even need to give Richards minutes. They really played downhill and attacked the basket. SGA is a MUCH more dynamic version of Frank. Two different planes. We clearly lack talent. So, I truly think it was a success of a season based on the personnel. The staff and players deserve a lot of credit but I just don’t think it was some masterful job by Boeheim. We squeaked by then got on a little run. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?