"Golden Era"

[RF2044]

To be fair, it could be both.

as someone who was 4 years old during the 89 season, I can't speak to how good that team really was. I would tend to side with the people who say in general college teams were better in that era for no reason other than the best players were staying around for multiple years.

Indeed, which might help explain why some of the attributions Sarge is making seem so off the wall.

The original premise of this thread [as I understood it] makes two points--one I agree with, and one I completely disagree with. I'll start with the latter--that the players on some of our recent teams are "arguably" as talented as some of the all time program greats, and that our viewpoint on said all time greats / teams is clouded by nostalgia. That is pure bunk, with no basis whatsoever in reality. If you look at Billy Owens's freshman year statistics and reach the conclusion that he wasn't as good as Wes Johnson, or look at DC's numbers and conclude that "arguably" Rick Jackson was an equivalent rebounder, or that Scoop is on par with Sherman Douglas or Pearl [and I LOVE Scoop], I'm sorry--you're deluded. It has nothing to do with "romanticizing the past," or however Sarge described it above. If you took any of our top players from that era--go ahead, pick one--Pearl, Sherman, DC, or Billy Owens--and put him on the the teams we've had from the last three years [two of which were ranked #1 and were in the conversation for best teams in college hoops each respective year], the player you picked would be the BEST player on either team. Period. End of discussion.

The point Sarge made that I DO happen to agree with is that we're experiencing a recruiting resurgence, and that the results are manifesting in the quality of play we've seen 2 out of the last 3 years. This program is on the cusp of being consistently elite again, for the first time since the late 80s / early 90s. Recruiting is a factor. Having a HOF coach is a factor. And our recent success is also a factor. We might have gotten to another final four--or further--if our center hadn't ruptured his patella tendon in '09-'10, or if Fab hadn't self destructed off the court this past season. But the future looks bright--it's a great time to be an SU fan!

 

[Sgt Cuse]

That goof put up 10.1/7.8/3.1 during his sophomore year with Pearl. Wake me up when an SU center puts up those numbers along players as successful - in reality, against Georgetown and St. John's; not in some speculative projection, based on high-school accolades and garbage-time minutes or as a fifth option - as Pearl, Alexis, and Addison. Haven't seen that in recent years (not that that's necessarily the mark of a great team; just correcting your assessment).

And that's to say nothing of the '88 and '90 teams, each of which was loaded with talent. Real talent - guys who won scores of games and played in the NBA. Not guys who we hope will continue to improve and become great.

You better set your alarm then, because while it appears you missed AO, you should still be able to watch DC2 in action. And to the larger point, if you don't think Seikaly was a work in progress, you are taking romantizing the era to new levels.

The problem with over-romantizing the 80s is that it tends to have one denigrate the present. Loads of Real Talent is here! Flynn, Wes, Fab, Dion, MCW, and DC2 are headliners. They will be in the NBA, give them a chance. These are highly regarded McD type recruits. Now more than ever, they are coming in. I know it hits a nerve but Flynn vs Sherm, Wes vs Billy, there are comparables there.

As for guys who won scores of games, you're joking right? KJo just left with the most wins of anyone. BT is poised to break it. The era right now is winning more than any other time in SU history. And at a higher level and with better seeding and placing better in the conference. My original point is we are in the midst of the Golden Era right now!

It was Poppy who wanted nothing to do with win/loss records (along with other accolades). I had to use the '13-'14 squad because people who prefer the 80s, as a rule do not recognize or accept defense. The SU culture makes it hard to evaluate a defensive oriented team, especially when not allowed reference to win/loss records and such (and you know they will be the first in line to tell you that defensive efficiency is not a universally recognized stat).

Other unincluded subjects in the comparison along with defense are depth, coaching, and foul shooting. I believe that is because those subjects do not reside in the fond memories of the 80s portion of the brain.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

To be fair, it could be both.

as someone who was 4 years old during the 89 season, I can't speak to how good that team really was. I would tend to side with the people who say in general college teams were better in that era for no reason other than the best players were staying around for multiple years.

Whoa. That's your idea of fair?
You have no idea how good they were but you will apply a general rule to a specific team. Great. Is it any wonder how the Knicks get a bad name.

Why don't you look beyond the stars and gather an opinion on Matt Roe, Greg Monroe, Howard Triche, Michael Edwards, Derek Brower. These are people playing in this era that would not see the court today. If that wasn't bad enough try and find out who the subs were and how much they played. Don't think you'll find too many of them that went into the NBA draft.

You can say SU had a better team back then. It's just lazy to hear someone say "Oh the stars stayed around longer, so SUs best team was during that era".

 

[Knicks411]

You have no idea how good they were but you will apply a general rule to a specific team. Great. Is it any wonder how the Knicks get a bad name.

Considering that is not what I said at all, no.

as someone who was 4 years old during the 89 season, I can't speak to how good that team really was. I would tend to side with the people who say in general college teams were better in that era for no reason other than the best players were staying around for multiple years.

Btw, the first thing was a joke; was just having something fun. Hopefully no hard feelings.

 

[newmexicuse]

I love this thread and see points to both sides.

I do, however, have to say that many posters on this board love Stevie Thompson way too much. He was good guys, but he wasn't anything special, imho. At least not to the magnitude some on this board want to make out.

Cheers,
Neil

I am surprised to hear you say that Stevie wasn't a very special player. He may have had the best hops of anybody in Cuse history. He may have been the best inside finisher (for his size) of anybody this side of his namesake David.

The drawback w Stevie was that he did not have a traditional position. Clearly he wasn't a natural PG, he lacked the outside threat of a 2G, and he lacked the size of a frontcourt player.

All I know about Stevie is that he was a player and a winner.

Nuff said.

 

[OttoMets]

You better set your alarm then, because while it appears you missed AO, you should still be able to watch DC2 in action. And to the larger point, if you don't think Seikaly was a work in progress, you are taking romantizing the era to new levels.

Arinze had comparable numbers - better, minus the blocked shots - to Seikaly's sophomore season during two of his years. The point stands - Syracuse centers who put up Seikaly's sophomore numbers are few and far between, even in recent seasons. You claimed he was never good when he played with Pearl. 10+/7+/3 suggests otherwise.

Fact is, the 1986 team was a very good one; its center (a work in progress, sure) managed to put up numbers that we rarely see (and certainly haven't seen during this Golden Era).

The problem with over-romantizing the 80s is that it tends to have one denigrate the present. Loads of Real Talent is here! Flynn, Wes, Fab, Dion, MCW, and DC2 are headliners. They will be in the NBA, give them a chance. These are highly regarded McD type recruits. Now more than ever, they are coming in. I know it hits a nerve but Flynn vs Sherm, Wes vs Billy, there are comparables there.

That's crazy. They're comparable in that all were Syracuse basketball players. Sherm's one of the greatest players in school history. Flynn wasn't. Owens was a career underachiever who still managed to achieve a lot in three years; save for three-point shooting, everything he did on a basketball court was head-and-shoulders better than Wes (who, for the record, I personally like a lot more than Billy).

As for guys who won scores of games, you're joking right? KJo just left with the most wins of anyone. BT is poised to break it. The era right now is winning more than any other time in SU history. And at a higher level and with better seeding and placing better in the conference. My original point is we are in the midst of the Golden Era right now!

It was Poppy who wanted nothing to do with win/loss records (along with other accolades). I had to use the '13-'14 squad ...

I'll stop you right there - there's no such thing as the '13-'14 squad. It doesn't exist yet. You can't compare it to any real teams and their body of work because we don't know who plays for it, who coaches it, who its opponents will be, and how it will perform.

Other unincluded subjects in the comparison along with defense are depth, coaching, and foul shooting. I believe that is because those subjects do not reside in the fond memories of the 80s portion of the brain.

We're pretty deep now. Not as deep as some of us would've liked during our final weeks, but deeper than our late-'80s teams were at many positions. And it's still a mediocre free-throw shooting bunch, though it's much better than it was in the Coleman years.

I'm sure the 2010 and 2012 teams did some things better than any of the 1986-1991 teams did. I think that many of the players from the earlier era were better than their modern counterparts. (What starter from this past year's team would any reasonable person select over the 1988 starters? Triche instead of Matt Roe...maybe. Just because Derek Brower and Herm Harried never became star players doesn't mean they're less valuable than Baye and his incomplete body of work; further, just because one team's bench is better than the other team's bench doesn't mean the deeper team is better.)

Regardless, it's odd to claim that those earlier teams would be double-digit dogs against the current ones. And it's dumb to make any claims about 2014 other than "I'm excited to see how that group comes together."

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Considering that is not what I said at all, no.



Btw, the first thing was a joke; was just having something fun. Hopefully no hard feelings.

No hard feelings, sorry if my reply on the Knicks came off harsh (hey earlier I had put that note in about universally recognized stats for your benefit).

It's tough to represent the current State of the program. No one likes defensive oreinted teams. And they're trying not to let me use the '13 squad -just because there is that little technicality that it hasn't happened yet. But that was kind of the point, we're right in the middle of it. It started early and it is going to continue. It's kind of hard to say it's going to get better, just really maintain and add longer tourney runs.

But the point is to try and rally the troops for the "All in" cry. Force the nephews, kids, grandkids, whatever to watch these guys. 25 years from now they will be ones watching Hops twilight years and saying "These teams don't hold a candle to the 2010 30 win per year teams, I don't care about titles". And they younger generation will get all mad and call Brandon a scrub.

 

[Knicks411]

No hard feelings, sorry if my reply on the Knicks came off harsh (hey earlier I had put that note in about universally recognized stats for your benefit).

Appreciate the shout out, ha.

Does anyone have the defensive efficiency numbers for those earlier teams? Or the efficiency numbers in general? SWC; I feel like you've done this before?

 

[OttoMets]

No hard feelings, sorry if my reply on the Knicks came off harsh (hey earlier I had put that note in about universally recognized stats for your benefit).

It's tough to represent the current State of the program. No one likes defensive oreinted teams. And they're trying not to let me use the '13 squad -just because there is that little technicality that it hasn't happened yet. But that was kind of the point, we're right in the middle of it. It started early and it is going to continue. It's kind of hard to say it's going to get better, just really maintain and add longer tourney runs.

But the point is to try and rally the troops for the "All in" cry. Force the nephews, kids, grandkids, whatever to watch these guys. 25 years from now they will be ones watching Hops twilight years and saying "These teams don't hold a candle to the 2010 30 win per year teams, I don't care about titles". And they younger generation will get all mad and call Brandon a scrub.

That all sounds fair.

And I like our particular brand of defensive-oriented team (the Pitt/Georgetown style, not so much). Hopefully this Golden Era continues with help from the factors enjoyed (high-level recruits) and eschewed (focus and effort) by the earlier teams.