Greatest SU team ever!

[newmexicuse]

I think the 2010 team is very under-estimated. No injury to AO & it is hard to imagine those guys not getting at least to the FF on the Butler path.

Unfortunately, years from now the injury will be forgotten & it will just look like those guys were another early round disappointment.

Not much mention of our 2003 champions in this thread. The beauty of those guys were that they were young & just kept getting better & better. They had great grit as they overcame nagging injuries to both Melo & GMAC in the tourney to win their banner.

 

[Oakland]

When they were on their game. I think many people tend to buy into the myth of the late 80's teams (either they are too young to remember or time plays tricks on the mind) Those teams were great but incredibly inconsistent. I remember how frustrated I'd become because they didn't always play to potential. Many times they would play like crap and get away with it because they'd turn it on and off when they wanted. It's not just by bad luck of the draw that we lost to Rhode Island, Minnesota & the F**in' Spiders. Bur damn, I loved those teams...

They also had weak benches.

 

[realorange]

I think that comparing starting fives is not at all fair or reasonable. RAK is a starter but CJ gets the minutes. Dion is as explosive as Stevie and he comes off the bench. Don't get me worng, I loved that teram, but this one just wins and I love the success and the chemistry that brings. I also love the fact that I never worry about foul trouble as every player has a capable backup.

I would have loved to see Dion driving the lane against DC. If there was a second time, it would not have been pretty.

 

[RF2044]

Someone spiked the kool-aid this morning.

We get it--you think our 28-1 team sucks, and anyone who is excited about how the year has gone is a delusional pollyanna.

 

['72 Orange]

After 29 games we all know what the talent level is of this team and it is an interesting exercise comparing teams from different eras. I have to believe that the '12 team would lose to the '89 team but the story of the '12 team is not complete. Although the talent of the current team will not change materially over the next few weeks, their legacy as a great team or as an underachiever has yet to be written. If by some stroke of luck they win out, they have to be included in the discussion of greatest SU teams. I will still believe that some of the '80s teams would beat their brains out, but one could make a case for the greatness of a 0ne, two or three loss national champion team. All I am saying is that the won/loss record and performance in the tourney will affect my estimation of this team.

 

[AZOrange]

I hear your argument but player for player 1989 would dominate 2012. Three players on that team have jerseys hanging in the rafters in the dome. Competition was better back then and you had loaded teams in every conference. Again I think they underachieved big time (not 1989 seeing they lost in the elite 8 to an Illinois team who had 5 NBA players...no shame there) during that era but actual talent isnt even close IMO.

I guess. I am not sure how much of a believer I am that the eras are that different in terms of talent (I hear similar NBA arguments all the time). I mean just the physicality and size of players is much increased now (god DC was a beanpole here). 2012 would give them a good run (especially with the bench).

 

[AZOrange]

Speaking of the 1989 team, our current team reminds me a LOT of the Missouri team that the 1989 squad played TWICE that season--once in a preseason tournament in MSG, and later in the NCAA tournament. Very good squad, way more depth than us, a bunch of good but not great players.

[not comparing our current players to the ones on that Missou team--they had Doug Smith who was a pretty good PF and obviously our team lacks a PF, for example. Just that the composition of that team with 9 guys who played regularly for them reminds me of the 2012 SU squad].

Interesting comparison. For some reason they remind me of the early 2000 Yukon type teams. Built around d, had a few playmakers on o, athletic, long...

 

[CusefanATL]

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

I used to walk 5 miles to school in 3 feet of snow. uphill, both ways.

 

[cto]

Yikes. Why would anyone pick any team other than the 2003 team? They are the ones with the rings.

By definition, they are the greatest ... to date.

 

[orange79]

This is the greatest SU team ever. Best record, many ways to win, and so far has always found a way to win. Some of our posters need to wake up. 28-1, SPECTACULAR.

Future pro talent on the roster. Even if JB has shrunk the rotation there are still 10 players that can be trusted if needed on this roster. Whether SU makes the final fout, wins a national championship or not, this teamshould be absolutely appreciated for what it has done. All of the players and coaches have pulled together and done a good job this year. I don't care about the warts people see, the bottom line is these players and coaches win. Enjoy the ride, let the coaches worry about the problems.

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between this board and the Sons of Sam Horn where most constantly manic depressive Red Sox fans complain just to hear ourselves complain. (Most Sox fans wouldn't feel it was baseball season of the sky was not imminently falling). Beleive me, enjoying a team's winning is much more fun than worrying about the bad things that just might happen.

I am reminded of some sage advice given by the mysterious Mr. Wolf...

 

[rrlbees]

Why would 1989 win? The 2012 team WINS their games. The 1989 team lost 8 times. I don't care what you think the matchups would be - this year's team wins games, the 89 team didn't or couldn't put it together on a consistent enough basis to win games like this team does. The 89 team lost 5 times to unranked teams, including 3 in a row at one point.

Maybe the competition was better?

 

[rrlbees]

I dont care about wins and losses. I agree with you that 2012 is a better overall TEAM as far as success wise. No arguments there. Look at the starting 5 and you tell me who would win.

1989 - 2012

Sherm (Scoop)
Roe (Brandon)
DC (Fab)
Owens (Rak)
Stevie Thompson (Kris)

I mean come on...

Not even close. There isn't a 2012 player that would start on that team.

 

[orange2win]

But the point is completely invalid. That super talented 1989 team lost to less talented teams at least 5 times and maybe as many as 8 times. So their talent was not used effectively enough to say they would just crush this team that maximizes its winning percentage.

No denying the 1989 team had the talent with six NBA pros (Douglas, Thompson, Coleman, Owens, Johnson, Manning), listed in order of minutes played, but they were in many ways a bust. Teams on either side of them (86, 87, 90 and 91) won the league and the 88 team won the BE tourney. The 89 team got to the E8 in the NCAA's and that's it. They finished with a record of 30-8. They were not a great team, based on performance. Tougher competition arguments as the explanation are bogus in my view.

I would argue that the 2012 team has a much better coach and that is the biggest factor. JB is best in the country today and he is showing it this year. Don't get me started, but back in 89, JB stunk and that was the root of the 89 team's under achievment.

 

[sufandu]

The late '80's teams would smoke these guys.

Agreed. Two top three NBA draft picks on the team at the same time (Coleman and Owens), the ideal point guard setting them up (Douglas), and our best fast break finisher ever (Thompson).

 

[sufandu]

People are mostly talking about the late 80's teams, but I don't think this team would handle the 2003 team either. Forth would match up with a still developing Fab. Noone would handle Melo. Warrick was an offensive post presence. GMac and Duany were solid 3 point shooters. And by the time the tournament rolled around they went 8 deep with Edelin, Pace, and McNeil coming off of the bench. That team would score 15 off of offensive rebounds alone.

 

[realorange]

No denying the 1989 team had the talent with six NBA pros (Douglas, Thompson, Coleman, Owens, Johnson, Manning), listed in order of minutes played, but they were in many ways a bust. Teams on either side of them (86, 87, 90 and 91) won the league and the 88 team won the BE tourney. The 89 team got to the E8 in the NCAA's and that's it. They finished with a record of 30-8. They were not a great team, based on performance. Tougher competition arguments as the explanation are bogus in my view.

I would argue that the 2012 team has a much better coach and that is the biggest factor. JB is best in the country today and he is showing it this year. Don't get me started, but back in 89, JB stunk and that was the root of the 89 team's under achievment.

30-8, made the Elite 8 to lose a close game to an Illinois team of 5 NBA players and not be a great team? Not tougher competition? Does Georgetown with Mourning and Mutumbo ring a bell? Did you ever see any of these games? :crazy: This years team would be lucky to win one game in a ten game series with them.

 

[orange2win]

30-8, made the Elite 8 to lose a close game to an Illinois team of 5 NBA players and not be a great team? Not tougher competition? Does Georgetown with Mourning and Mutumbo ring a bell? Did you ever see any of these games? :crazy: This years team would be lucky to win one game in a ten game series with them.

Correct, Georgetown was very good that season. We got 3 tries at beating them and we never succeeded once. The 89 team lost three games in a row to unranked teams. How is that possible if they were the powerhouse you claim. Yes, they lost to a good Illinois team in the E-8, but Illinois lost in the next round, whereas Seton Hall got the final in 1989. That's right. The Hall out performed the 89 team in the NCAAs.

You simply cannot make a case for the 89 team. They were perhaps the best line-up that ever played for Syracuse, but their performance was very poor. Nowhere near this year's team.

(Oh and yes - I did see those Georgetown games. Every one of them).

 

[realorange]

Correct, Georgetown was very good that season. We got 3 tries at beating them and we never succeeded once. The 89 team lost three games in a row to unranked teams. How is that possible if they were the powerhouse you claim. Yes, they lost to a good Illinois team in the E-8, but Illinois lost in the next round, whereas Seton Hall got the final in 1989. That's right. The Hall out performed the 89 team in the NCAAs.

You simply cannot make a case for the 89 team. They were perhaps the best line-up that ever played for Syracuse, but their performance was very poor. Nowhere near this year's team.

(Oh and yes - I did see those Georgetown games. Every one of them).

As Bees said, there is nobody on this team that would take the place of anyone on the '89 starting lineup. Is this team great? Compared to who they've played they are great. Their record shows it. They would just not be able to beat the '89 team.

The problem with this whole thread is the use of the word "Great". We'd be better off talking about who would win a round robin tournament of all the excellent teams that Syracuse has put on the floor.

 

[SoBristol]

That 1989 team had great players, no doubt, particularly Sherm, DC and Billy Owens.

This 2012 team is winning ugly with defense and balance. It has a second ball-handling guard that the 1989 team could have used (not taking anything away from Matt Roe or Stevie Thompson in other areas). But it will need to win the BET or reach the FF to make its case.