I guess when your players can't shoot, and you have no size... | Page 3 | Syracusefan.com

I guess when your players can't shoot, and you have no size...

No confusion here. Your original intent was clear. Just as it's clear now that you're backpedaling.

Why not just acknowledge that a 6-6 PF will never wear orange so long as Boeheim is the head coach? This back-and-forth should have ended a long time ago.

So Boeheim would never recruit Charles Barkley?
LGO !!!
 
KingOtis [not sure what your handle was on the other board], I've really enjoyed your commentary of late on this forum--especially on the Fine mess board.

Not sure why you are being so combative on this issue. Lighten up.

You first. The compliment was nice and all, but don't act like you're debating/arguing any different than I am. We can disagree without resorting to that stuff. What other board?

Secondly, it wasn't backpedaling at all--it was hyperbole, spoken in the aftermath of an exciting win. But since you seem intent on splitting hairs, I'll bite. The notion that a 6-6 forward wouldn't play on the back end of the zone and occasionally man the PF position is historically false. There have been many instances when we've had undersized guys playing the back line of the zone at either forward position. Guys like Pace and Harris played there at roughly 6-4. Far from ideal, but it happened. Dave Johnson played out of position at PF at roughly 6-5 / 6-6. We sported a "formidable" forward tandem of Shumpert and Duany there for the better portion of one season, both of whom stood around 6-6--which of them was the "PF?" And the great John Wallace--one of my all time favorites--was about 6-7--and he played alongside a guy in the pivot who wasn't much taller than 6-7 himself. Hell, we played two 6-7 forwards primarily on the back line in Johnson and Joseph. This year, we play a lot of Joseph and Fair at the wing positions--again, both 6-7. The notion that we'd never see it is false. In fact, 6-6 players have been manning the back end of the zone ever since Boeheim began using it as a staple...and some of them even played PF.

Josh Pace was 6-6 and was forced to play SF because a certain freshman led us to a national championship and left for the NBA. Harris was also forced to play SF because Donte Green left early. We were more effective defensively when they played SG at the top of the zone.

Dave Johnson was from a different era.

The team with Shumpert and Duany wasn't that good, but played a lot better with Warrick at one of the forward spots. Like Pace and Harris, Duany was always more effective as a SG.

John Wallace and Otis Hill were both 6-8 (Todd Burgan was 6-7). Hill worked in the middle because he took up a lot of space, not unlike Jeremy McNeil and Arinze Onuaku. But now JB is looking for centers listed at 6-10 and up.

Wes Johnson's wingspan is over 7 feet. And don't forget Rick Jackson.

I can't stress length enough. All of the guys we're talking about had long arms. I'm not saying Crowder is built like Karl Malone, but he doesn't appear to have the wingspan of the prototypical SU forward.

Lastly, to your point about 6-6 PF--people get too hung up on position labeling. Boeheim plays combinations of players that he trusts irrespective of what their natural position might be--which is why we see Johnson / Joseph and Joseph / Fair pairings [both natually small forwards]. Crowder might be 6-6, but he's a good defender and a tenacious rebounder--which happens to be this team's lone relative weakness. He also has the requisite athleticism to run the floor, cover ground defensively, to say nothing of his offensive versatility. Frankly, it's hard NOT to imagine him being a solid contributor in our system. Suggesting that Crowder, an all conference candidate, wouldn't play here due to being 6-6 alone tells me that you are focusing on the wrong attribute.

It tells me that you don't know this system very well. You say my argument is historically inaccurate, then you go on to say that a numbers of SU players (including one of your all-time favorites) were shorter than they actually were. And you're the one who said we would win a national championship with Crowder at PF. If you didn't want to defend the label, you should have used a different label or none at all.

The fact is, you can't name a 6-6 PF because there hasn't been one. We've had some SFs that size (Lucious Jackson's name hasn't been mentioned yet), but our best teams had taller forwards with long wingspans. And it's clear to see that JB is going for the tallest, longest, most athletic players he can find at every position on the floor right now.
 
So Boeheim would never recruit Charles Barkley?
LGO !!!

Back then? Sure. Now? Not a chance. Barkley was a freak of nature. I doubt we'll ever see a player like him again. Truly one of a kind.
 
FWIW...Barkley was almost unrecruited out of HS. Lots of teams pass on 6'4" PF's. Most of them end up at D-II schools.
 
FWIW...Barkley was almost unrecruited out of HS. Lots of teams pass on 6'4" PF's. Most of them end up at D-II schools.

He also weighed over 300 pounds (maybe not in HS, but definitely at Auburn).
 
He's two inches shorter...and I think he's generously listed at 6-6. His arms don't look as long either. Boeheim would not recruit someone like him to play PF.
Paul Harris?
 
Paul Harris?


Paul Harris was a SG who played SF on occasion. And when he did, the smart teams (like Oklahoma in the tournament) exploited his area of the zone.
 
Paul Harris was a SG who played SF on occasion. And when he did, the smart teams (like Oklahoma in the tournament) exploited his area of the zone.

On occasion? He played the wing of the zone about 80% of his time at SU and the only time he played up top was when Devo and Rautins were both out for the year.
 
On occasion? He played the wing of the zone about 80% of his time at SU and the only time he played up top was when Devo and Rautins were both out for the year.


Semantics. He was more effective as a SG, period.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
172,022
Messages
4,989,632
Members
6,021
Latest member
OldeOstrom

Online statistics

Members online
297
Guests online
3,372
Total visitors
3,669


...
Top Bottom