ESPN classic right now '89 vs. Pitt

[Cuse House]

The 1989 game vs. Pitt is on. Early in the 2nd half, Cuse was down 12 and went on a big run. Basketball back then was so much crisper. Great offensive team, I wish I was alive during this period to see basketball played where everyone could shoot instead of being able to jump 12 feet high.

 

[Cuse House]

And boy could we run a fast break!

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Is that the one where Matt Roe hit two 4 point plays?

 

[Cuse House]

Is that the one where Matt Roe hit two 4 point plays?

Haven't seen one yet, just turned it on five minutes ago. He started the second half by hitting a corner three.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Haven't seen one yet, just turned it on five minutes ago. He started the second half by hitting a corner three.

Would have been early in the game.

 

[realorange]

The 1989 game vs. Pitt is on. Early in the 2nd half, Cuse was down 12 and went on a big run. Basketball back then was so much crisper. Great offensive team, I wish I was alive during this period to see basketball played where everyone could shoot instead of being able to jump 12 feet high.[/QUOTE]

I guess you weren't watching Stevie closely.

 

[MSOrange]

And did anyone notice what defense we were playing? Yes, all you young folks out there, we really did used to play some man to man

 

[Deano]

They are showing 1990 game SU at Pitt from 3-5EST tomorrow on Classic. I think Cuse won by 2.

 

[br801]

And did anyone notice what defense we were playing? Yes, all you young folks out there, we really did used to play some man to man

And its not just the youngins who need a history lesson. There are plenty of lazy media types perpetuating the myth that JB came out of the womb playing zone.

 

[OrangeDW]

The 1989 game vs. Pitt is on. Early in the 2nd half, Cuse was down 12 and went on a big run. Basketball back then was so much crisper. Great offensive team, I wish I was alive during this period to see basketball played where everyone could shoot instead of being able to jump 12 feet high.

Our starting PF and C (Owens and Coleman) that year were better passers and ball handlers than a lot of guards are now.

 

[OrangeDW]

And its not just the youngins who need a history lesson. There are plenty of lazy media types perpetuating the myth that JB came out of the womb playing zone.

As recently as 2009 we went man to man for big stretches of some of our best wins. Kansas stands out, where Flynn shut down Sherron Collins and forced him into a few turnovers during our comeback.

In 2003 we went man to man in the 2nd half of our two best regular season wins: Pitt and ND. I'd say around 1996 we became primarily a 2-3 zone team that would still mix in some man to man. Another example is the 2000 blowout of UConn where we played a ton of man to man and Hart locked El-Amin up. It's only been since 2010 that we went strictly 2-3.

 

[General20]

Here is the zone history lesson.

Prior to 1996 Syracuse played man most of the time, though in my memory they always played 2-3 zone when opposing offenses threw the ball in from under the basket.

1996 - Boeheim started playing zone most of the time.

2010 - Boeheim started played zone exclusively.

Boeheim has actually played pretty close to a 50/50 mix of zone and man in his career, and has had great success with both.

 

[joct]

Here is the zone history lesson.

Prior to 1996 Syracuse played man most of the time, though in my memory they always played 2-3 zone when opposing offenses threw the ball in from under the basket.

1996 - Boeheim started playing zone most of the time.

2010 - Boeheim started played zone exclusively.

Boeheim has actually played pretty close to a 50/50 mix of zone and man in his career, and has had great success with both.

Yeah, it was that 96 team that turned it. Sims/Cipolla/Janulius had to be one of the slowest backcourts he ever had, so this gave them a chance, knowing they were still pretty good on offense. I think he then saw that going to it most of the time created a lot of problems and helped them more than he thought it would.

 

[Cuse House]

The 1990 game vs. Pitt is on ESPN classic today at 3.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Here is the zone history lesson.

Prior to 1996 Syracuse played man most of the time, though in my memory they always played 2-3 zone when opposing offenses threw the ball in from under the basket.

1996 - Boeheim started playing zone most of the time.

2010 - Boeheim started played zone exclusively.

Boeheim has actually played pretty close to a 50/50 mix of zone and man in his career, and has had great success with both.

Their m2m was never that great pre-1996. In fact it seemed like JBs greatest teams in the 86-91 era played defense as an afterthought more often than not. Between 96-2009 the m2m had surprising effectiveness more often than not because it was used as a change-up. In fact I think he had some sliding rule that they would switch out of the zone when they fell behind by 12 or more. I used to joke that the opponents were not aware of this and should have been more careful to not overextend their leads.

 

[Cuse House]

Cuse had over 30 offensive boards in this 1990 game

 

[General20]

Their m2m was never that great pre-1996. In fact it seemed like JBs greatest teams in the 86-91 era played defense as an afterthought more often than not. Between 96-2009 the m2m had surprising effectiveness more often than not because it was used as a change-up. In fact I think he had some sliding rule that they would switch out of the zone when they fell behind by 12 or more. I used to joke that the opponents were not aware of this and should have been more careful to not overextend their leads.

You can't compare defense then to defense now. Defense was basically non-existent in basketball in the 80's and 90's compared to what it is today, but if you compare Syracuse of the 80's to the rest of college basketball in the 80's they were good defensively.

 

[FrancoPizza]

You can't compare defense then to defense now. Defense was basically non-existent in basketball in the 80's and 90's compared to what it is today, but if you compare Syracuse of the 80's to the rest of college basketball in the 80's they were good defensively.

How do you explain some of those elite SU teams racking up 8-9 losses? Look at who they lost to.

 

[General20]

How do you explain some of those elite SU teams racking up 8-9 losses? Look at who they lost to.

I'm assuming you are talking about late 80's to early 90's teams because most of those teams had 8 or 9 losses and 26 or 27 wins. You, yourself call them "elite" teams. What I would call them is very good teams who were all ranked, and who played in a historically difficult conference where you were bound to rack up a few extra losses (unless you were Georgetown with Patrick Ewing). Those teams seemed more elite to Syracuse fans back then because we were new to being a national power. Coming off a stretch of multiple number 1 seeds, those teams might not seem as great now as they did back then, but that's only because we are spoiled.

I think most who remember that time will agree that those teams biggest weakness was shooting. They ran the floor as well as anybody, rebounded as well as anybody (especially the Coleman teams), and played good defense (again, by the standards of the time, which is terrible defense by today's standards). Each team has its own story, so I'm generalizing here in a way that's probably too lazy to be completely accurate across every team for a decade or even half a decade, but I'm not going to go back and look up every team's record and how they did defensively.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I'm assuming you are talking about late 80's to early 90's teams because most of those teams had 8 or 9 losses and 26 or 27 wins. You, yourself call them "elite" teams. What I would call them is very good teams who were all ranked, and who played in a historically difficult conference where you were bound to rack up a few extra losses (unless you were Georgetown with Patrick Ewing). Those teams seemed more elite to Syracuse fans back then because we were new to being a national power.

I don't think it's a matter of being new as a national power. Those teams were loaded with either high end NBA talent or elite all-around playmakers. There's a general sense of underachievement in that span from 86-91 that goes beyond the postseason disappointments. A healthy share of those regular season losses came to inferior opponents. The number 1 seeds that we attained recently (which actually seem like a decade ago now) have no bearing because you can't really compare to teams before the era of OAD. Coleman, Thompson, Owens, Douglas, and Seikaly would still destroy both the 09-10 or 11-12 teams.

 

[General20]

I don't think it's a matter of being new as a national power. Those teams were loaded with either high end NBA talent or elite all-around playmakers. There's a general sense of underachievement in that span from 86-91 that goes beyond the postseason disappointments. A healthy share of those regular season losses came to inferior opponents. The number 1 seeds that we attained recently (which actually seem like a decade ago now) have no bearing because you can't really compare to teams before the era of OAD. Coleman, Thompson, Owens, Douglas, and Seikaly would still destroy both the 09-10 or 11-12 teams.

Look at the list of players you named. There is one thing Coleman, Thompson, Owens, Douglas, and Seikaly have in common, and its not that they are all bad defenders. The thing they have in common is that none of them can shoot. In fact I'd say they are all way above average defenders, Owens and Coleman in particular being arguably the two best defensive forwards we have ever had. Douglas left as Syracuse's all time steals leader. Seikaly went toe to toe with hall of fame centers both in college and in the pros and held his own. Thompson is one of our all time best athletes, and was known as a strong defender capable of covering multiple positions.