Do you think the 2-3 zone keeps the best recruits away from Syracuse? | Syracusefan.com
.

Do you think the 2-3 zone keeps the best recruits away from Syracuse?

Jeremy L.

Jeremy L.

2018 Iggy Regular Season Record Winner
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
2,218
Like
4,678
Obviously McCullough is going to be a great player. I'm saying about players like Wiggins, Parker, Randle, etc. NBA scouts are iffy about players playing zone it seems like. Does our defense keep us from getting these guys? Or would they rather go to the "big name" schools (Duke, UK, UNC) (which also doesn't make sense because I'd consider Syracuse an elite program).

I will also state right now that I am a big fan of the zone. It's worked for over 35 years.
 
I don't think so. 1) This is a question of causality. Are our players generally poor NBA defenders because they played zone or are they just poor defenders because that's what we recruited? I would confidently say it's the latter, not the former. 2) The caliber players you're talking about are one-and-doners. One year of zone will not hinder their defensive progress significantly, if at all. 3) These types of players are really only worried about the offense they will play in and NBA teams couldn't care less whether or not their top 5 pick can play D; they'll teach them that.
 
Jeremy L. said:
Obviously McCullough is going to be a great player. I'm saying about players like Wiggins, Parker, Randle, etc. NBA scouts are iffy about players playing zone it seems like. Does our defense keep us from getting these guys? Or would they rather go to the "big name" schools (Duke, UK, UNC) (which also doesn't make sense because I'd consider Syracuse an elite program).

I will also state right now that I am a big fan of the zone. It's worked for over 35 years.
Expand...

NO! First of all, Syracuse is one of the best recruiting teams in the country so that pretty much blows that theory out of the water right there.

Second of all, high school players are not as good at shooting as college players so WAY more high school teams play zone. To a high school kid, there is nothing unusual about playing zone D.
 
I don't think NBA scouts look down on our players for playing in a zone. How many lottery picks have we had lately? Some of them weren't considered future lottery picks coming out of high school either (Wes and Dion). Scouts can see whether a guy moves well and stays in front of his man in our defense. They just don't see our guys chase players all over the court without the ball. Scouts also know that some players can play defense when they choose to. Melo locks guys down when he wants to, he just doesn't choose to do it consistently.

I think high school kids are more likely to choose a school based on offense rather than defense. A lot of these kids haven't had to play real team defense before.
 
General20 said:
NO! First of all, Syracuse is one of the best recruiting teams in the country so that pretty much blows that theory out of the water right there.

Second of all, high school players are not as good at shooting as college players so WAY more high school teams play zone. To a high school kid, there is nothing unusual about playing zone D.
Expand...

"One of the best." But, there's a pretty significant chasm of difference between THE best few schools and SU. While we're getting geeked up about getting a top 5 player once every ten years, Duke and Kansas and NC and Kentucky are getting them every year.

While we would like to think the zone hasn't affected recruiting, i can guarantee that if i were recruiting against Syracuse, i'd be using the zone as a negative. We need to be objective about our 'fandom' and our alma mater. We like/accept/appreciate/love the zone because our team plays it. How many times have you heard a fan of another school bemoaning the fact that his team doesn't play zone? And, frankly, while i'm 'anti-zone,' and i do acknowledge its benefits, when appropriate, i find games between two man-to-man teams to be much better to watch.

And, second of all, a high school player's familiarity with the zone has little to do with his college expectations and professional hopes. Not being "unusual" is not the same thing as being 'preparatory' toward an NBA career.
 
Zelda Zonk said:
"One of the best." But, there's a pretty significant chasm of difference between THE best few schools and SU. While we're getting geeked up about getting a top 5 player once every ten years, Duke and Kansas and NC and Kentucky are getting them every year.

While we would like to think the zone hasn't affected recruiting, i can guarantee that if i were recruiting against Syracuse, i'd be using the zone as a negative. We need to be objective about our 'fandom' and our alma mater. We like/accept/appreciate/love the zone because our team plays it. How many times have you heard a fan of another school bemoaning the fact that his team doesn't play zone? And, frankly, while i'm 'anti-zone,' and i do acknowledge its benefits, when appropriate, i find games between two man-to-man teams to be much better to watch.

And, second of all, a high school player's familiarity with the zone has little to do with his college expectations and professional hopes. Not being "unusual" is not the same thing as being 'preparatory' toward an NBA career.
Expand...


So Syracuse is not the single best recruiting school in the country and you blame that on playing zone despite the fact that recruiting is better now that we are playing zone full time than it was when we were playing man to man full time? Seems like your reasoning is seriously flawed. There can only be one best school, Syracuse is not it, but we are in the top 1 or 2% of D1 schools in recruiting.

Also, there is not a significant chasm between Syracuse and any of those other schools you mentioned. We have had at least one better recruiting class than every school you mentioned in the last five years (except for Kentucky who is cheating at an all time rate) and we have even beaten Kentucky head to head for a recruit recently.
 
Its about the player not the defense.

The zone plays position defense, it might not go and try to take the ball in the halfcourt, or try to get opponents to dribble into a charge like m2m does, but our players still practice and can accomplish these things.

The zone can have good lockdown defenders who can also play good defense with their legs up top like Dion, MCW, or Rautins. You won't see those one on one lockdowns in the backline as much, because we double every ball that comes near the paint always. It also runs alot on hand reflexes traps and we do alot of full court pressing with it. You can take a all american defender and put him in the zone still. And you can draw a charge at any position in the zone just like m2m can. Just like m2m the zone does real well with a 7'0 shotblocker at center.
 
You may not like this answer but I think it's the "blue blood" status. Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas all have 3 or more championships, a TON of history, and a quality coach.

They're also bball schools, not football schools, and they commit to having turnover every year, so kids know that they'll play and star from day 1.

For Syracuse to get the Parker, Wiggins, and Randle types on a regular basis, a few more titles is a good place to start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
General20 said:
NO! First of all, Syracuse is one of the best recruiting teams in the country so that pretty much blows that theory out of the water right there.

Second of all, high school players are not as good at shooting as college players so WAY more high school teams play zone. To a high school kid, there is nothing unusual about playing zone D.
Expand...


Agreed--your second sentence more than adequately addresses the question at hand.
 
Every recruit dreams of the NBA and some are bound to think that going to a school that does not play the defense played in the NBA is a detriment. However, the pool is still big enough to allow our recruiting to continue to improve especially in light of the fact that the new no touch rules will push many teams to zone. The answer to your question is yes; but there is no need to worry.
 
anomander said:
I think MCW is single handily going to break all of that thinking that Cuse guys can't play D at the next level
Expand...

Jason Hart and Etan Thomas played some pretty good defense in the NBA for almost a decade each. And for a while there, Derrick Coleman could rebound and block shots with any PF in the league.

Also, though I can't prove it, had Johnny Flynn not gotten hurt, I think he'd have turned into a pretty good man-to-man ball hawk.

Then there's MCW, who in just a short amount of time is putting up good defensive stats... Still to small a sample size to project his career, but it's looking good.

Sure, John Wallace's lack of defense forced an early NBA exit, Dion Waiters will never be known For guarding opponents, Hakim Warrick and Billy Owens did themselves no favors on the defensive end of the floor, and no one is ever go a confuse Carmelo Anthony with "the glove", but the myth that all Cuse players can't play defense is just that... A myth.
 
I believe there are several factors as to why we don't consistently get the big name recruits on a yearly basis.

1. Brand name. We are not Duke, UNC, Kansas, UCLA, or UK. As another poster mentioned above, more final fours and a few more championships puts us into the elite category.

2. Weather. While it may not be a big deal to us, I think the amount of snow plays a small factor at times.

I love JB and the way he manages this program, but kids don't want to sit on the bench on year one. Hopefully players like MCW and Dion can help turn some heads about this progam.
 
I don't think JB recruits sure 1 and dones. He seems to like having guys there at least 2 years which matches his repeated statements against the 1 year rule. Melo wasn't even a sure fire one and done during recruiting. He had the skill but nobody knew he would add 30+ lbs so quickly and show up with an nba body as a frosh.

I'd also like to think were not interested in being part of the bidding wars that go on for the top 5 kids every year. We were after Anthony Davis very early and then seemed to walk away when t hings got murky.
 
Professional scouts, be it NBA, NFL or whatever, will always be tempted by that sweet fruit known as potential. If you check off the right boxes from an athleticism standpoint, they feel they can mold you. More often than not, they are wrong.
 
Carmelo was the number 1 or 2 recruit in the country when he came here. We played 90 percent zone then. Honestly besides pay pal cal, nobody else focuses solely on one and dones. Kansas May be an exception this year.
Duke and unc recruit a lot of 4 year type players. As does msu and ohio state.
 
General20 said:
So Syracuse is not the single best recruiting school in the country and you blame that on playing zone despite the fact that recruiting is better now that we are playing zone full time than it was when we were playing man to man full time? Seems like your reasoning is seriously flawed. There can only be one best school, Syracuse is not it, but we are in the top 1 or 2% of D1 schools in recruiting.

Also, there is not a significant chasm between Syracuse and any of those other schools you mentioned. We have had at least one better recruiting class than every school you mentioned in the last five years (except for Kentucky who is cheating at an all time rate) and we have even beaten Kentucky head to head for a recruit recently.
Expand...

You've either misread or misunderstood my response and fabricating conjecture from me isn't aiding your argument.

• The OP referred to "the best recruits." I'll leave it to you to assess what "best" means. I'll retain my own assessment. By mine, we don't regularly get 'the best.' And, since it seems this post was a reaction to the Kansas/Duke game, and the talent therein, i maintain that our Carmelo > Chris McCullough span of ten years isn't in the same league as Duke and Kansas.

• I didn't/don't blame the zone on not being "the single best recruiting school." I do, however, see it as a factor. How significant a factor is not something any of us will ever know, but denying that it means something is just silly. And, you ignored my point. That it is being used against us in recruiting.

• I would put Bing, Pearl, DC, and Owens as a group above any four recruits in the 'all zone' era. But, never mind that. We get better 'total classes' now than we did then. Crediting that as a consideration in favor of the zone is also silly. Our current recruiting relies on history and the school's 'brand,' and that was built over time.

• It's a matter of personal opinion as to how to characterize the differences in recruiting classes. You may consider us in the top 2% and find comfort and satisfaction in that. I, on the other hand, see that we're in a conference with Duke and NC, and they will regularly pull top 10 players. Each year. And, in multiples, per year. Heck, Duke regularly fields almost an entire squad of McD players. We're not doing that. That does not give me comfort or satisfaction. You may be a 'glass half full' kinda guy, and being better than 98-99% of other programs (i don't agree with your math, but whatever). I'm a 'glass half full — but of poison' kinda guy. And, all i see is the 2% ahead of us. I don't give a rat's about beating Colgate or Cornell, or Virginia or NC State. Winning those games won't compare to the order of magnitude of suck if/when we lose to Duke.

• Having "at least one better recruiting class" also isn't comforting. It's good. But, we have to compete with great. And beating each of those teams once in five years, while fantastic, still means not beating them four out of five years. Again, the OP's question was about "the best."

• Who are you citing, re: beating Kentucky for a recruit? Coleman? Firstly, he was in our backyard. Secondly, Scout had him listed as the seventh best player at his position. I don't believe that's what the OP had in mind. I may be wrong, but i don't think so... Either way — my sense was that we were talking about 'program changers.' Regardless of length of commitment. We don't often get them. Our successes have never been as a result of a collection of them.

• Again, the orange-tinted glasses thing... Blaming Kentucky for cheating is ludicrous. There's no reason for them to cheat. They have a ton of guys in the NBA, get tons of coverage, automatic high rankings, and expect to play for the championship every year. What HS star doesn't already want that? And, even if there might be smoke, you're accusing them while fervently supporting a team that just emerged from a child sex scandal, swept positive drug tests away, was itself on probation, had its star player pay to avoid prosecution on a larceny charge, and seems to persistently be involved in NCAA investigations. And, i'm leaving out some stuff. So, you know: glass houses and all that.

But, back to your original specious argument:
"NO! First of all, Syracuse is one of the best recruiting teams in the country so that pretty much blows that theory out of the water right there."

NO! Being "one of the best" doesn't mean that some upper echelon recruits haven't stayed away because of the zone. That theory is most certainly not blown out of the water by your 'logic.'
 
It is hard to argue against SU's recruiting success by any measure, especially since the opening of the Melo Center. But, I tend to agree more with Zelda's point. It is naive to believe that SU's exclusive use of the zone is not used to recruit against us when competing for the very elite kids. These kids are being told that the risk of going to SU is that, despite your obvious potential, your ability to play great man to man in game situations will not be demonstrated to NBA scouts and might create doubt or, even worse, cost you money when you are slotted.
 
The point of my thread isn't to bash Syracuse and their recruiting. We've made the Final Four and Elite 8 the last two years, as well as other season with amazing success. They happened to be a lot of four year type guys (Dion/Fab/MCW obviously are the big recruits but they had quiet freshman years).

My question is if we call ourselves an elite program (or the tier just below elite) then why are we not the BEST players. Wiggins, Parker, Randle this year. Then past years best recruits such as Anthony Davis or Greg Oden type players. Players that will change the landscape of their team just by signing with your school.

I think somebody mentioned in this thread that we get way too excited about a top 5 recruit (which is a great thing to have!) but teams like UK and Duke can get top recruits with a snap of a finger it seems like.

But what keeps these top kids away from Syracuse? If the top players all plan on playing in the NBA the year after college, why would they want to hurt their stock by playing in a zone defense? Yes, our zone has man-to-man principles up top, but it's still a zone. That's why I believe that it hurts us getting the BEST recruits.
 
I think we recruit too well to say that any one thing keeps the TOP recruits from coming to SU. I mean we are a top 10ish team recruiting wise correct? 1st we would have to be recruiting these specific players in question and 2nd they would have to be picking another program because we played the 2-3. We get a lot of the guys we really want but not all of them. No one recruits like UK right now and they aren't going there because SU plays 2-3 or some other team does this or that. They are going to UK because of what UK is doing or offering them. I don't think SU playing 2-3 has anything to do with us NOT getting say top10 players in the class regularly. We still get some of these players but no one gets them like UK right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
173,971
Messages
5,124,423
Members
6,086
Latest member
1776

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
1,812
Total visitors
1,998
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom