RF2044
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 30,833
- Like
- 99,733
Please note, this is not a thread intending / designed to bash Jim Boeheim. But if your preferences would be taken into account, what systemic changes would you like to see made for Syracuse University basketball?
Here's my list:
Here's my list:
- Recruit more basketball PLAYERS -- we've had a lot of success recruiting a certain profile of athlete to maximize their fit for the zone defense. But this strategy [while it can certainly optimize the defense] is directly responsible for some of the offensive struggles we've had in recent years. Especially with respect to the backcourt / wing positions. My opinion only, but I believe that there is a direct correlation to the poor offense we've seen some seasons, and having a deficiency of guys who can pass, dribble, and shoot. Guys like James Southerland are great defensively in the zone, but being limited with respect to perimeter versatility hamstrings the offense, especially when we face good defensive teams. By no means am I advocating going back to a situation where we have a 6-3 guy like Josh Pace manning the back line of the zone. But I'd much rather have wings who can shoot, put the ball on the floor, set up teammates, etc. -- a 6-6 or 6-7 guy who can do those things [like Theo Pinson or the guys Villanova seems to have manning the 3 seemingly every year] would offer adequate size on the back line [a la Kris Joseph]. We have lots of athletes, we need more guys who have high levels of basketball skill -- especially on the perimeter positions.
- Expanded use of the bench -- Jim Boeheim isn't the only coach who uses a 7 player rotation, but this is one area where I philosophically differ, and would prefer to see a more expanded use of the bench. I'm not suggesting that we have to run platoons of 10-12 players like some teams. But given my druthers, I'd like to see our players NOT leading the nation in minutes played. Beyond getting a bit more rest, playing more guys would help develop the bench and also enable us to get after it defensively more aggressively. Which segues into my next point...
- Defensive diversification -- I have no problem whatsoever being a heavy base zone team. In fact, I wouldn't care if we play zone 95+ percent of the time. But there are times when teams either get into a groove playing against the zone, or we allow them to dictate game tempo. Being able to switch out of zone to force the opposition to adjust would be disruptive and force the other team to react instead of just settling into a comfort zone [pun intended]. We use a press as a situational option, but generally only when we're trailing by a substantial amount. My strong preference would be to see us switch it up more often, while still employing the zone as a differentiating base package that is challenging for most teams to prepare for / simulate in practice. Mixing things up would also facilitate the two previous bullets above, without having any square peg / round hole situations.
- Recruit true lead guards -- this correlates with my first bullet above, but takes it a step further. College basketball is a heavily guard-driven game, and if there is one position where you shouldn't sacrifice skill for size, it's at point guard. Combo guards might provide bigger targets for the opposition to shoot over up top, but what we sacrifice in terms of running the team isn't worth the trade off. And please note that JB has shown a willingness to recruit smaller point guards [examples--Flynn, GMac, Green last year], so it isn't unprecedented. But we shouldn't make trade offs with respect to the most important position on the floor.
- Recruit a full roster -- JB generally eschews recruiting a full roster -- in all likelihood, due to the fact that he doesn't play a ton of guys. Keeping an open scholarship [or two] also enables him to elevate walk ons to scholarship status, which has a beneficial effect on boosting our team's APR rating. But the sanctions dug deep, and provided us with an extreme glimpse of what happens when we don't have a full compliment of scholarship players, and have unanticipated attrition and / or injuries [or both]. If we used the bench more, then it wouldn't be difficult to have 11 or 12 guys on scholarship, and keep the majority of them happy. Having 6 or 7 guys playing due to injuries and other factors these past two seasons has been absurd, putting it mildly.
- Pick a recruiting style and COMMIT to it -- our program's success has long been tied to getting quality system fits who end up being "better" than their rankings most of the team. And true to form, some of our best teams have blended high quality four-year program types with a sprinkling of higher rated players. But it seems as though we've deviated from that strategy a bit since 2012. The type of athletes we recruit are attractive to the NBA, which is why we've had guys jump to the league -- even those that don't seem "ready." Further complicating the situation is that we rarely land blue chippers -- so the guys we bring in that jump early generally aren't dynamic enough to put the team on their backs and take us to the next level. So we get the worst of both worlds -- decent but not transcendent play for the most part, and then many of them bail before actualizing their potential. I believe that we're suffering from our in-between recruiting approach. We're never going to recruit like the UK,'s Duke's, Arizona's, or Kansas's of the world that land classes full of blue chip prospects every year. And our younger guys often appear perpetually disadvantaged playing against teams that recruit four year players and retain those guys for the full duration of their careers [examples of teams successfully deploying that strategy are Virginia, Villanova, and Notre Dame]. This ties to the previous bullet -- we need more four year program guys to balance out the ebbs-and-flows of attrition, to enhance depth, and to step into bigger, more important roles when they become upperclassmen. We've lacked that stability for several seasons [with the exception of the 2016 backcourt], to the detriment of team performance. We need to decide whether we're going all in on blue chippers, or all in on guys who stick around for a few seasons. Because being in the middle and failing to accomplish either of those things isn't getting the job done.
- Lighten the mood -- college basketball is serious business, and these coaches face a lot of stress. One of JB's strengths as a coach is to not wear his emotions on his sleeves, and to avoid ranting and raving on the sidelines like many coaches do. This calm demeanor rubs off on the team, even when things are going poorly. But JB can also be acerbic, with a sharp tongue. And his lack of filter can wear on the team -- especially without a "good cop" to balance him out. Seeing the video clip of our team reacting to making the tournament was incredible -- and a marked contrast to seeing a positive kid like Matt Moyer sitting on the bench sullen these past 10 games, while JB rips into him on the sidelines. Sometimes the people who are the best in their field make it to that level because they are relentless -- and JB is clearly no exception. But I wish that he would lighten up a bit on the players. I think it is costing him the close relational tie that he clearly has with guys from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and early 2000s teams -- that's why those players return in droves and follow the team around the nation during tournament time. I hate to see him lose touch with an entire generation of players from our program who've had a different experience than their predecessors. Let the kids have fun out there.
- Dictate tempo to the opposition, not the other way around -- too often, we settle into games and let the opponent dictate tempo while we sit back in zone. This is especially problematic when we face strong rebounding teams, who might miss a shot or two or three, but retain possessions by hitting the offensive boards hard. We used to run teams off of the floor -- I hate letting inferior teams hang around and shorten the game, which mitigates the talent difference. Even against teams that are better [on paper], I'd like to see us take it to them more, look to force turnovers that lead to run-out opportunities and easy scores in transition. ESPECIALLY given that we've been offensively challenged. At one point late in the conference tournament game against UNC, they showed a graphic that indicated that late in the game, we had ZERO fast break points. Zero. That's unacceptable.
Last edited:
