How Bad is This Team? | Syracusefan.com

How Bad is This Team?

orange2win

orange2win

2nd String
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
920
Like
540
Well if you use just one measure, the AP poll, you get a surprising result.

Of the 39 teams JB has coached, this team is the worst. It was ranked Preseason at #23 and one subsequent week at #23. It has remained unranked ever since. Of course it could still end up being ranked again, but that seems unlikely. If that should hold, it will finish with the worst poll ranking in JB's reign.

Another question. How many JB teams have remained unranked all season? Answer zero. In fact 64% of JB's teams have made it into the Top 10 at least once during the season. Impressive.
 
orange2win said:
Well if you use just one measure, the AP poll, you get a surprising result.

Of the 39 teams JB has coached, this team is the worst. It was ranked Preseason at #23 and one subsequent week at #23. It has remained unranked ever since. Of course it could still end up being ranked again, but that seems unlikely. If that should hold, it will finish with the worst poll ranking in JB's reign.

Another question. How many JB teams have remained unranked all season? Answer zero. In fact 64% of JB's teams have made it into the Top 10 at least once during the season. Impressive.
Expand...

What's really scary is this may be the first time in all JB's career he has a losing record.
 
no matter what the record says this isnt the worst team he has had. what separates it is not winning the 2-3 chances it had against the better teams that we probably should have won. we could have the same record right now but reverse the mich/vill/miami games and we might well be ranked.
 
Let's face it, not a lot of talent on this team right now with the exception of two or three steady performers. Where would we be if Coleman and McCullough were able to play all year? Who knows.

I will say this after watching the North Carolina game. These kids really played their hearts out in that game and I was proud of them. They gave it all they had and left nothing on the table. Good hustle and effort throughout the game. With the minutes most of the starters are playing we just ran out of gas with about five minutes left. Unless Johnson and Patterson can all of a sudden play better I don't see us doing well against quality teams based on the players' minutes. Just my two pennies worth.
 
upperdeck said:
no matter what the record says this isnt the worst team he has had. what separates it is not winning the 2-3 chances it had against the better teams that we probably should have won. we could have the same record right now but reverse the mich/vill/miami games and we might well be ranked.
Expand...

we have had jut as many, if not more, games that we won where we could have lost. it evens out.

and this surely looks like a bottom 3 team we have ever had.
 
upperdeck said:
no matter what the record says this isnt the worst team he has had. what separates it is not winning the 2-3 chances it had against the better teams that we probably should have won. we could have the same record right now but reverse the mich/vill/miami games and we might well be ranked.
Expand...

The Vill game was really the only game that we should have won, could we have won the Miami or Mich game, sure, but we were outplayed in those games.
 
Looking at it from the perspective of "how bad" this team is infuriates me. I enjoy watching them, they may not be the best we've ever seen or the worst, but i'm behind the kids. This isn't the pros.
 
For some perspective, we're 65th in Ken Pom right now. Ken pom goes back to 2002, since then, the lowest we have ranked is 58th. (2002). 2006 we ere 51st, in 2008 we were 48, and 2007 we were 38th. We've been top 30 every other year (and top 16 each of the last six).
 
I simply do not believe this team is worse than the Roberts, Watkins teams (not that I have anything against either player). The numbers probably prove me wrong, but the eye test doesn't.

Take away the BET run, and there's no way we're worse than the 05-06 team
 
Tough to say - losing Chris really hurt.

We're witnessing a less aggressive version of Rak on D. Which is a necessity since he needs to be on the floor for almost 40 minutes, but since Chris went down he seems to have dialed it back a notch on D. We lose a bit of his rim-protection ability as a result. On a weak team, that's huge because defense is what will win us games. The offense certainly isn't going to on a normal day.

Our lack of a PG is the thing killing us though. We're sort of lost at the moment at that position. Our best PG may be our SF...never a good sign.

Overall - we're pretty bad. It'd give us 4.5 Stars on the bad-o-meter.
 
SUGIANT said:
Looking at it from the perspective of "how bad" this team is infuriates me. I enjoy watching them, they may not be the best we've ever seen or the worst, but i'm behind the kids. This isn't the pros.
Expand...
Every scholarship athlete is a qiausi professional. They have bartered their way to a quarter million dollar education if they want one which in many cases is debatable. All most want is a pathway to the big dream of cars and girls in the NBA.Going through the academic requirements is merely a gauntlet they must endure. i'm strongly for any kid who wants both but the real question on this team who was evaluating some of this roster's names to get them this scholarship? In a couple cases they might have wanted to skip those after dinner drinks before they did their scouting.
 
Ghost said:
Tough to say - losing Chris really hurt.

We're witnessing a less aggressive version of Rak on D. Which is a necessity since he needs to be on the floor for almost 40 minutes, but since Chris went down he seems to have dialed it back a notch on D. We lose a bit of his rim-protection ability as a result. On a weak team, that's huge because defense is what will win us games. The offense certainly isn't going to on a normal day.

Our lack of a PG is the thing killing us though. We're sort of lost at the moment at that position. Our best PG may be our SF...never a good sign.

Overall - we're pretty bad. It'd give us 4.5 Stars on the bad-o-meter.
Expand...
What ? You don't like Paterson?
 
GoHamSU said:
We are not bad. We are severely undermanned. I think there's a big difference.

We are average.
Expand...

I don't, that is just a reason why we aren't a good team, at the end of the day we aren't a very good team, whether we are undermanned, or weren't a good team to begin with.
 
Briancuse said:
I don't, that is just a reason why we aren't a good team, at the end of the day we aren't a very good team, whether we are undermanned, or weren't a good team to begin with.
Expand...

We aren't a good team.

We are average. Is there an echo in here?
 
GoHamSU said:
We aren't a good team.

We are average. Is there an echo in here?
Expand...

Right now we are an average team, at the end of the season we maybe looking at a bad team.
 
If the sanctions are anything like the rumors going around, this might be the best team we'll have in the next three years. Who knows what the roster will look like moving forward.
 
Brooky03 said:
I simply do not believe this team is worse than the Roberts, Watkins teams (not that I have anything against either player). The numbers probably prove me wrong, but the eye test doesn't.

Take away the BET run, and there's no way we're worse than the 05-06 team
Expand...

Maybe, maybe not. But you can't just take away the run. We've also beaten one team in the Ken Pom top 50 this year (Iowa, who is barely holding on at 47). Even without the BET run, we won @Notre Dame (28), @ Cincy (44), plus beat Louisville (40) and West Virginia (15) at home. Certainly we were lucky to win all of the games at MSG, but we played Uconn (3), Gtown (13), and Pitt (11) to essentially a draw. This team almost beat Nova (impressive, for sure) and...well, that's kinda it.
 
Knicks411 said:
Maybe, maybe not. But you can't just take away the run. We've also beaten one team in the Ken Pom top 50 this year (Iowa, who is barely holding on at 47). Even without the BET run, we won @Notre Dame (28), @ Cincy (44), plus beat Louisville (40) and West Virginia (15) at home. Certainly we were lucky to win all of the games at MSG, but we played Uconn (3), Gtown (13), and Pitt (11) to essentially a draw. This team almost beat Nova (impressive, for sure) and...well, that's kinda it.
Expand...

You're forgetting that there is a lot of season left
 
I'm confused by this question. Technically, we've been ranked this season and we've had several teams throughout the years that have not been ranked in the final poll. That's basically the entire measure being used??? Also, Coleman and McCullough would make a huge difference. Just having McCullough, we beat UNC and Miami.

Bottom line, we are a decent team with only 6 serviceable players, how many coaches could make that happen?
 
We don't have a six man, we lack bench scoring. Add Southerland or Kris Joseph (when he was coming off the bench) to this team and we'd be a different team.
 
GoHamSU said:
We are average.
Expand...

Average for 95% of other schools - bad for a Syracuse/Boeheim team.

We should have beat a top 10 team (Villanova) and with another player on the bench, likely beat another top 10ish team (UNC) away. That's probably a little above average.

I bet Duke, UVA, UL, UNC and ND fear SU the most out of the "bad" teams in the ACC.
 
Quazzum69 said:
Average for 95% of other schools - bad for a Syracuse/Boeheim team.

We should have beat a top 10 team (Villanova) and with another player on the bench, likely beat another top 10ish team (UNC) away. That's probably a little above average.

I bet Duke, UVA, UL, UNC and ND fear SU the most out of the "bad" teams in the ACC.
Expand...

Duke probably fears NC State and Miami more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,306
Messages
4,764,684
Members
5,947
Latest member
McCuse

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
1,032
Total visitors
1,235
Totals may include hidden visitors.


Top Bottom