My Take

[sutomcat]

Another quick one...

I guess it isn't a surprise that BC has no fans for basketball. They have no players, no coach and no real basketball facility, so why would you expect fans to come and watch this group try and play basketball? Maybe their coach is okay though...I credit him for at least getting those guys in BC uniforms to play hard. Props to our fans BTW for coming out on a cold night to watch SU play. BC fans should be ashamed at the scene in their home facility.

But one wonders why Milon has been getting so little playing time. He appears to be a genuine D1 player. Clifford played hard and was did well enough on offense and rebounding to almost excuse him for his efforts attempting to play defense (I can't in good conscience say that he actually did play defense). He was helped by another suspect group of ACC refs, who ignored the little dance he did just after getting the ball and just before bulling his way to the basket. He travelled further than Syracuse did for this game.

SU didn't do a great job playing defense yesterday. I was particularly disappointed by how long it took to realize Milon was having a field day and adjusting (you have to cover that guy!). We got beat in transition too much, which has not been a problem much recently, and were way out of position way too often, resulting in lots of good looks for BC, mostly from the perimeter. If we didn't get Milon in foul trouble, it could have been a game Syracuse could have lost.

Liked the passing we did on offense. Not often when 5 players all get 3 or more assists in a game. MR continues to impress here; he had 5 assists for the second straight game. While he didn't shoot really well inside the paint, he is showing a lot of dimension to his game. Silent G continues to quietly fill the scorebook with good acts. Has a knack for making a big 3 when we need it most. I like his willingness to take big shots. He was really efficient scoring again. 17 points on 8 shots from the field is outstanding.

Don't know what happened with DC2. The weird thing is that he was in good position a lot and was primed to have a big day rebounding and scoring but he just couldn't hold on to the ball. I wonder if he has a minor hand injury.

In the last couple of games, TL has really opened up his game offensively and is killing it with points in the paint. He is doing it in a variety of ways; power dunks, fall away jumpers, mini hooks, simple short jumpers, running 1 handers...etc. I am wildly impressed. He appears to like playing teams from New England.

But the biggest disappointment was how poorly we defended Clifford. Have to do better here. If we don't, we have no chance against UL and UNC and not much against Pitt.

We doubled Clifford a lot in the second half and he still scored or drew a foul on a consistent basis. No offense to him but there are a lot of big guys who are better than him in the ACC and the rest of college basketball. Would love to see TL and DC2 set up to draw a charge against limited talent strong bigs who like to bull rush to the basket.

 

[RF2044]

"In the last couple of games, TL has really opened up his game offensively and is killing it with points in the paint. He is doing it in a variety of ways; power dunks, fall away jumpers, mini hooks, simple short jumpers, running 1 handers...etc. I am wildly impressed. He appears to like playing teams from New England."


Lydon has immense potential. Kid was much better than his national ranking [as evidenced by his stint on USA basketball as a JUNIOR in high school].

We haven't had many frosh as "ready" to play at such a high level as Lydon.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Is this guy's name really "Clifford" or are we just comparing him to the big red dog because he's a tall redheaded stiff?

 

[CusefanATL]

Is this guy's name really "Clifford" or are we just comparing him to the big red dog because he's a tall redheaded stiff?

did you not watch the game? his name is dennis clifford.

not sure i'd call him a stiff. he was pretty good.

 

[reedny]

did you not watch the game? his name is dennis clifford.

not sure i'd call him a stiff. he was pretty good.

He was pretty good, and he followed the coaches game plan. If I had to guess, this is what it was:

1. Put a body on Robi (they knew he'd decimate them on the O-glass, and this worked pretty well (Robi had only 6 rbs in 38 m); the tradeoff is that it opened things up for Lydon, who went for 20));
2. When Lydon's at the 5, drive (this also worked well, as Clifford repeatedly bulled his way past the smaller Lydon for buckets. He did not drive much against DC2); and
3. Position yourself at the FL on O and feed the outside or cutters (he did both well), or turn and hit the shot (he did this only 1-2 times to DC2 b/c he was given room).

Overall, we had too much firepower for BC. But Clifford and Milan had good games, Milan having the usual outer-body experience to which we're accustomed from BC players.

 

[Fly Rodder]

Clifford did well probably on 60% of his possessions. On 10% he turned it over and on the other 20% he got away with a lot of push-offs and travels. The refs let them play extremely physical underneath for the bulk of the game.

 

[stuckinbig11]

DC hand injury? Maybe. He reminded me of myself as a soph in high school (without a hand injury).

 

[retro44]

 

[billsin01]

We haven't had many frosh as "ready" to play at such a high level as Lydon.

This is a really interesting line relative to this team because while Richardson was a highly rated kid, we've had plenty of those before and seen inconsistent results, to say the least. Lydon, of course, checked in much lower on the list at 64 per one site. What's interesting is that both have really played basketball -- not scored points or grabbed boards showed off a great handle or blocked shots into the third row -- but played basketball really well.

Richardson's overall numbers aren't gorgeous but he's really shown a ton of versatility in his game (as Tomcat referenced) and he's produced in the ACC perhaps even more consistently than prior to the ACC. Including the tough 0-for-11 game from three vs. St. John's, he had a 9-game stretch where he hit just 10 of 56 from three. Ouch. But that stretch included just one BE game (Pitt). Even including that game vs. Pitt, he's hit 35 of 76 (.461) from three in ACC play. He's scored at least 13 in all but one game and that was a dismal effort vs. Wake in a game SU won easily anyway. He's not a world-beating rebounder, but he's solid, he's passed the ball well, put it on the floor. Really a strong all-around performance.

Same goes for Lydon. He's been a bit more up-and-down in terms of his production but his efficiency and versatility is something you just don't see from frosh very often. He has been asked to play out of position at the 5 quite often and we've been abused at times, but he's battled admirably. He's also displayed a ton of polish offensively, hitting 3s, passing the ball, putting on the floor at times, showing an assortment of moves in the paint. It's really pretty phenomenal -- 10 and 6 isn't crazy production but at .480/.447/.789 it's really rare. That's incredible efficiency.

Anyway, the point is these guys have been really good. I don't see either leaving early (I could be wrong) but if they did leave, I would feel better about it then losing some of the other guys recently (Grant, McCullough, Fab Melo) because we've seen these guys play hoops at a really high level. The team had more success during Grant's and Melo's tenure, but the overall team was simply really strong. McCullough barely played and showed tremendous skill but relatively little basketball acumen, IMO (to be that big and athletic and have zero post game is still hard for me to process).

It will seem completely ridiculous to say this, but I see polish as the greatest currency in basketball recruiting these days. Getting top rated kids is obviously important and getting kids who are still developing to stay for an extra year is huge, but finding kids who come in ready to contribute to a winning team (this is more than getting numbers from a kid) is a huge key. I know it's simplistic but the more often you can hit on a kid who hits the ground running (Ennis, Lydon, Richardson, MCW) with considerable skill but also with a good understanding of the team concept, the better. I don't think we'll ever see a day when we turn down a fab melo or jeremi grant or McCollough (I get that they are very different players) nor should we turn those players down. But you have such limited time with talent these days, that you run the risk with a talented kid of working through a transition and then losing him before he becomes anywhere near as valuable as he has the potential to be (Like if waiters or Fab Melo inexplicably bolts after Year 1 or what happened with McCollough; Grant was excellent but could have been a monster with one more year).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I'm impressed at the way the two frosh have played, not only in terms of numbers but in those subtler ways that help the team win.

 

[realorange]

I'm impressed with all three freshman. Frank is gradually coming into his own. His passing and ball handling is something we haven't seen since ??? Especially as a freshman.

As for Lydon's ranking, I'd bet that if he signed with Duke he'd have suddenly become a top 20. As someone else said, he was a USA team member as a junior! Open your eyes rating services!

 

[Flacusian]

"In the last couple of games, TL has really opened up his game offensively and is killing it with points in the paint. He is doing it in a variety of ways; power dunks, fall away jumpers, mini hooks, simple short jumpers, running 1 handers...etc. I am wildly impressed. He appears to like playing teams from New England."


Lydon has immense potential. Kid was much better than his national ranking [as evidenced by his stint on USA basketball as a JUNIOR in high school].

We haven't had many frosh as "ready" to play at such a high level as Lydon.

Fortunately for us we have another "ready frosh" in Malachi Richardson. The kid has been showing an incredibly well rounded game as a freshman and his name is going to be on the tongues of announcers all over America next year.

 

[Flacusian]

This is a really interesting line relative to this team because while Richardson was a highly rated kid, we've had plenty of those before and seen inconsistent results, to say the least. Lydon, of course, checked in much lower on the list at 64 per one site. What's interesting is that both have really played basketball -- not scored points or grabbed boards showed off a great handle or blocked shots into the third row -- but played basketball really well.

Richardson's overall numbers aren't gorgeous but he's really shown a ton of versatility in his game (as Tomcat referenced) and he's produced in the ACC perhaps even more consistently than prior to the ACC. Including the tough 0-for-11 game from three vs. St. John's, he had a 9-game stretch where he hit just 10 of 56 from three. Ouch. But that stretch included just one BE game (Pitt). Even including that game vs. Pitt, he's hit 35 of 76 (.461) from three in ACC play. He's scored at least 13 in all but one game and that was a dismal effort vs. Wake in a game SU won easily anyway. He's not a world-beating rebounder, but he's solid, he's passed the ball well, put it on the floor. Really a strong all-around performance.

Same goes for Lydon. He's been a bit more up-and-down in terms of his production but his efficiency and versatility is something you just don't see from frosh very often. He has been asked to play out of position at the 5 quite often and we've been abused at times, but he's battled admirably. He's also displayed a ton of polish offensively, hitting 3s, passing the ball, putting on the floor at times, showing an assortment of moves in the paint. It's really pretty phenomenal -- 10 and 6 isn't crazy production but at .480/.447/.789 it's really rare. That's incredible efficiency.

Anyway, the point is these guys have been really good. I don't see either leaving early (I could be wrong) but if they did leave, I would feel better about it then losing some of the other guys recently (Grant, McCullough, Fab Melo) because we've seen these guys play hoops at a really high level. The team had more success during Grant's and Melo's tenure, but the overall team was simply really strong. McCullough barely played and showed tremendous skill but relatively little basketball acumen, IMO (to be that big and athletic and have zero post game is still hard for me to process).

It will seem completely ridiculous to say this, but I see polish as the greatest currency in basketball recruiting these days. Getting top rated kids is obviously important and getting kids who are still developing to stay for an extra year is huge, but finding kids who come in ready to contribute to a winning team (this is more than getting numbers from a kid) is a huge key. I know it's simplistic but the more often you can hit on a kid who hits the ground running (Ennis, Lydon, Richardson, MCW) with considerable skill but also with a good understanding of the team concept, the better. I don't think we'll ever see a day when we turn down a fab melo or jeremi grant or McCollough (I get that they are very different players) nor should we turn those players down. But you have such limited time with talent these days, that you run the risk with a talented kid of working through a transition and then losing him before he becomes anywhere near as valuable as he has the potential to be (Like if waiters or Fab Melo inexplicably bolts after Year 1 or what happened with McCollough; Grant was excellent but could have been a monster with one more year).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I'm impressed at the way the two frosh have played, not only in terms of numbers but in those subtler ways that help the team win.

Excellent post!

 

[OttoMets]

This is a really interesting line relative to this team because while Richardson was a highly rated kid, we've had plenty of those before and seen inconsistent results, to say the least. Lydon, of course, checked in much lower on the list at 64 per one site. What's interesting is that both have really played basketball -- not scored points or grabbed boards showed off a great handle or blocked shots into the third row -- but played basketball really well.

Richardson's overall numbers aren't gorgeous but he's really shown a ton of versatility in his game (as Tomcat referenced) and he's produced in the ACC perhaps even more consistently than prior to the ACC. Including the tough 0-for-11 game from three vs. St. John's, he had a 9-game stretch where he hit just 10 of 56 from three. Ouch. But that stretch included just one BE game (Pitt). Even including that game vs. Pitt, he's hit 35 of 76 (.461) from three in ACC play. He's scored at least 13 in all but one game and that was a dismal effort vs. Wake in a game SU won easily anyway. He's not a world-beating rebounder, but he's solid, he's passed the ball well, put it on the floor. Really a strong all-around performance.

Same goes for Lydon. He's been a bit more up-and-down in terms of his production but his efficiency and versatility is something you just don't see from frosh very often. He has been asked to play out of position at the 5 quite often and we've been abused at times, but he's battled admirably. He's also displayed a ton of polish offensively, hitting 3s, passing the ball, putting on the floor at times, showing an assortment of moves in the paint. It's really pretty phenomenal -- 10 and 6 isn't crazy production but at .480/.447/.789 it's really rare. That's incredible efficiency.

Anyway, the point is these guys have been really good. I don't see either leaving early (I could be wrong) but if they did leave, I would feel better about it then losing some of the other guys recently (Grant, McCullough, Fab Melo) because we've seen these guys play hoops at a really high level. The team had more success during Grant's and Melo's tenure, but the overall team was simply really strong. McCullough barely played and showed tremendous skill but relatively little basketball acumen, IMO (to be that big and athletic and have zero post game is still hard for me to process).

It will seem completely ridiculous to say this, but I see polish as the greatest currency in basketball recruiting these days. Getting top rated kids is obviously important and getting kids who are still developing to stay for an extra year is huge, but finding kids who come in ready to contribute to a winning team (this is more than getting numbers from a kid) is a huge key. I know it's simplistic but the more often you can hit on a kid who hits the ground running (Ennis, Lydon, Richardson, MCW) with considerable skill but also with a good understanding of the team concept, the better. I don't think we'll ever see a day when we turn down a fab melo or jeremi grant or McCollough (I get that they are very different players) nor should we turn those players down. But you have such limited time with talent these days, that you run the risk with a talented kid of working through a transition and then losing him before he becomes anywhere near as valuable as he has the potential to be (Like if waiters or Fab Melo inexplicably bolts after Year 1 or what happened with McCollough; Grant was excellent but could have been a monster with one more year).

Anyway, that's a long way of saying that I'm impressed at the way the two frosh have played, not only in terms of numbers but in those subtler ways that help the team win.

Great post.

To put it more simply:

They know how to play the game. They make their teammates better. Their positive contributions are offset by virtually no negatives (OK, for those who want to quibble, Lydon's defense isn't always there; he's not playing his position, though).

This is rarely the case with our freshman, even the early-entry candidates.

 

[jr4750]

I'm impressed with all three freshman. Frank is gradually coming into his own. His passing and ball handling is something we haven't seen since ??? Especially as a freshman.

As for Lydon's ranking, I'd bet that if he signed with Duke he'd have suddenly become a top 20. As someone else said, he was a USA team member as a junior! Open your eyes rating services!

Agreed. the future looks bright, especially with next years freshman coming in. If we can get some solid defense from Chukwu, we can definitely make a run, with TROB, TB, MR, TY, and co.

The only thing I am worried about slightly is leadership. DC and TROB aren't your vocal leaders. May be a tough day for reporters at next years ACC media day with those two. Like talking to Coach Pop.

 

[billsin01]

Great post.

To put it more simply:

They know how to play the game. They make their teammates better. Their positive contributions are offset by virtually no negatives (OK, for those who want to quibble, Lydon's defense isn't always there; he's not playing his position, though).

This is rarely the case with our freshman, even the early-entry candidates.

Yes, that is definitely putting it much more simply. What I wonder though is whether there is a way to quantify this or not? I mean the rankings take the ability to contribute early into account, certainly, but to be a top 25 guy you have to have massive upside (at least theoretically). Something like top 10 are NBA read, for all intents and purposes, and then the next 15 are clearly NBA types as well, but may need to prove a bit more.

What I wonder is whether or not coaches have a way of quantifying a player's 'readiness'. For example -- you have Lydon and then any number of players in the top 25 who have gone on and struggled in college. So in this case Labissiere, Diallo, etc., who came in and struggled to make an impact but may leave anyway. Or, as we've seen a few times the past few years, players who stay a year or two, are good players but leave with a ton of development in front of them -- Grant, Melo, McCullough, Donte Greene.

So, anyway, just an interesting thing to watch in recruiting. I'm not saying you're turning down a Simmons or Jamal Murray or that type, but rather is there a way to put more emphasis on polish even if it comes at the expense of upside to a certain degree?

Edit: Just as a note -- I actually consider Frank Howard as one of these hit the ground running recruits as well. Upside is probably a bit limited (remains to be seen I guess), ranked just inside the top 100 by most lists. But then he shows up, is ready to play defense, hanldes the ball well and shows really nice creativity as a passer. And he's got good height/length for a guard in our zone. That, folks, is a really good recruit even if we would have loved to have had a Jamal Murray type.

 

[br801]

Yes, that is definitely putting it much more simply. What I wonder though is whether there is a way to quantify this or not? I mean the rankings take the ability to contribute early into account, certainly, but to be a top 25 guy you have to have massive upside (at least theoretically). Something like top 10 are NBA read, for all intents and purposes, and then the next 15 are clearly NBA types as well, but may need to prove a bit more.

What I wonder is whether or not coaches have a way of quantifying a player's 'readiness'. For example -- you have Lydon and then any number of players in the top 25 who have gone on and struggled in college. So in this case Labissiere, Diallo, etc., who came in and struggled to make an impact but may leave anyway. Or, as we've seen a few times the past few years, players who stay a year or two, are good players but leave with a ton of development in front of them -- Grant, Melo, McCullough, Donte Greene.

So, anyway, just an interesting thing to watch in recruiting. I'm not saying you're turning down a Simmons or Jamal Murray or that type, but rather is there a way to put more emphasis on polish even if it comes at the expense of upside to a certain degree?

I would think it would hard to predict "readiness" with any certainty when these kids are committing so far out from their freshman season. I'm sure the staff gets good and bad surprises with every class, along with others who arrive here with the skill sets they were anticipating.

 

[SWC75]

Agreed. the future looks bright, especially with next years freshman coming in. If we can get some solid defense from Chukwu, we can definitely make a run, with TROB, TB, MR, TY, and co.

The only thing I am worried about slightly is leadership. DC and TROB aren't your vocal leaders. May be a tough day for reporters at next years ACC media day with those two. Like talking to Coach Pop.

If someone could conince them to run for President we could have the Greg Popovich-Bill Belichick debates. Or not.

 

[SWC75]

Is this guy's name really "Clifford" or are we just comparing him to the big red dog because he's a tall redheaded stiff?

The problem is "Clifford" was being guarded by "Garfield".

 

[Dave85]

Is this guy's name really "Clifford" or are we just comparing him to the big red dog because he's a tall redheaded stiff?

I was thinking that the whole game.

 

[Dave85]

SU didn't do a great job playing defense yesterday. I was particularly disappointed by how long it took to realize Milon was having a field day and adjusting (you have to cover that guy!). We got beat in transition too much, which has not been a problem much recently, and were way out of position way too often, resulting in lots of good looks for BC, mostly from the perimeter. If we didn't get Milon in foul trouble, it could have been a game Syracuse could have lost.

I thought the defense was pretty good holding them to 61 points (our average is 64, see link below). If Clifford and Milon both did not have career type days we could have easily won by 30 points. I agree the zone has to adjust to a hot 3 point shooter. I thought he cooled off the second half after adjustments were made. The problem was defending Clifford sometimes took triple teams. You can't triple team a 7' guy and defend the 3 very well at the same time. I thought the guys hustled their butts off the whole game. I just can't criticize this team when it wins. Beating Duke at Duke is the whole season. Atlantis and everything else after this is icing in my opinion!

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/146

 

[bballbeadle]

I thought the defense was pretty good holding them to 61 points (our average is 64, see link below). If Clifford and Milon both did not have career type days we could have easily won by 30 points. I agree the zone has to adjust to a hot 3 point shooter. I thought he cooled off the second half after adjustments were made. The problem was defending Clifford sometimes took triple teams. You can't triple team a 7' guy and defend the 3 very well at the same time. I thought the guys hustled their butts off the whole game. I just can't criticize this team when it wins. Beating Duke at Duke is the whole season. Atlantis and everything else after this is icing in my opinion!

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/146

The Duke win was HUGE. And they are coming back to life, learning how to win without Jefferson.

 

[billsin01]

I would think it would hard to predict "readiness" with any certainty when these kids are committing so far out from their freshman season. I'm sure the staff gets good and bad surprises with every class, along with others who arrive here with the skill sets they were anticipating.

Completely valid point. I think what's interesting about it is that 'readiness' doesn't seem to come with ranking per se. Maybe the answer is more about the program recommending certain summer teams or leagues that help prepare players better? Not even sure that's within the rules. Maybe it's not entirely basketball related and more general maturity? Not sure, but you're probably right. How do you know when you're working with a freshman or sophomore?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I'm impressed with all three freshman. Frank is gradually coming into his own. His passing and ball handling is something we haven't seen since ??? Especially as a freshman.

As for Lydon's ranking, I'd bet that if he signed with Duke he'd have suddenly become a top 20. As someone else said, he was a USA team member as a junior! Open your eyes rating services!

Since Ennis?

 

[realorange]

Since Ennis?

Maybe. But there is something different about Frank. He seems to get passes to the big men that Ennis didn't always see or take. Maybe my imagination but --------
I'll go so far as to say I think Frank may have a better future than Ennis.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

The problem is "Clifford" was being guarded by "Garfield".

That's cute but also kind of a cheap shot at Coleman, who worked damn hard to shed weight and get back into shape after a major injury. He also can't help being "under tall" compared to the 7 foot or more Clifford. Yes he is playing inconsistently and it's frustrating but it's not due to excess weight or a lack of trying. Just look at how much better he's gotten from the FT line, for one thing.