Observations after Northeastern

[billsin01]

Wow, so a lot to chew on after an eyesore of a game. Been reading the board and think it looked different to me than someof you, so figured I'd post in a different thread.

Here we go:

Let's start with everyone's favorite: the rotation
I don't know if I'm naturally the contrarian but I thought JB's rotation at least made sense. I'm not sure it's *right* necessarily, but it made sense. You had Buddy and Griff giving you a combined nothing, or next to nothing. Both had awful games. The difference, from my watching it and judging from JB's reactions/presser, was that Buddy was working hard and Griff just seemed mentally off. It happens. But I think JB had had enough by the time he inexplicably carried the ball near midcourt, he moved Buddy to the 3, and we played better (thanks in part to some nice defense on Kadary's part) and JB rode it out the rest of the game. Could he have inserted Kadary and Woody (like he did in the first half) and gone that route? Certainly. Would that have been the better choice? Maybe, but Woody doesn't quite have JB's full trust in a super tight game like that yet to card 20 mins or so.

Bottom line is JB plays guys he trusts. What makes Buddy different is A) he's not a superior athlete and B) he's JB's kid. That seems to kill people on this board. But I think he's taking it slow with Woody, which is not shocking, and I think he was frustrated with Griff's energy and focus. Could Kadary have played 25 and Buddy 26? I guess, but it wasn't the biggest issue in this game.
As far as playing 'a backup 5' which I saw some griping about ... huh? We don't even know who our 'backup 5' is and our starting 4/5 guys were the only reasons we were actually in that game. Getting Frank or JBA or Edwards a few minutes theoretically may help their development, but it does absolutely nothing for us trying to win that game. I really don't think that's even debatable.

Northeastern was extremely well-prepared and well-coached in that game
What is funny to me is not that people criticize JB, but what the constant criticisms are. I mean, if we hadn't pressed, for example, people would have been losing their minds that we didn't press. But since we did, it's all about the rotation. There are much bigger issues to discuss here (more to follow), but in my mind I thought Coen outcoached JB in this one. Northeastern (which I keep wanting to call BU) played straight up man, made every effort not to help outside the paint and were determined to make us shoot over the top of them. That hurt us. Additionally, they grabbed us going around picks all game. You can complain about officiating, but it was a good strategy. They were ready for everything we tried to run offensively. The result was a ton of bad shots on our part.

Offensively, they were pretty deliberate unless they had a fast-break opportunity, they moved the ball well and knew where they wanted to go with it. That led to a lot of open shots (they actually missed two WIDE open threes that might have put us in an even deeper hole early). The press and eventually the bad turnovers in the last 10 minutes got them, as well as their PG going down -- but I thought Coen was really impressive.

We have trouble creating ... in general
This is a two-pronged issue in my mind and one that I think folks could certainly criticize JB for (whether it's recruiting a creator or running a crisper, more varied offense). But, to me, the reason we didn't see Kadary more is he's still figuring things out offensively and even at his best, he's not an overwhelmingly dynamic creator ... yet. Joe was OK but his best move remains shooting a really deep three (that's not exactly a criticism as he made at least one, but it's not really a compliment either). Buddy has broadened his game, but he's never going to make his living inside the three-point arc. I can't really remember us getting a really good look at three, we had a couple easy baskets in transition when they had a breakdown (Kadary to Q for one, Joe to Marek on the other), Joe had the big three-point play, and otherwise it was heavy lifting inside by our two bigs.

Now, it's not worth overreacting to one game, but this is going to be a question all year. Griff will have much better games but he's not Elijah yet and with the extra weight, Joe hasn't done much of anything inside the arc. Buddy, as previously mentioned, is solid at getting a few good looks a game (the baseline jumper in this one as well as the 15-footer that Marek put back late), but we have to get better and more effective in our ball screen game and ideally we need to find more ways to create looks (Marek/Q high-low action; some sort of pin-down screen or double screen for a shooter; etc.). This will be an issue in many games, IMO.

Playing on a Wed. afternoon in a silent dome didn't help matters
Mentioned this after the Bryant game as well but it's weird when it's dead silent in the dome, particularly when playing a team you're supposed to beat by 20, mid-week in the afternoon. No excuse for our performance but it's a weird aspect of this season. Much easier for Northeastern to get up for playing us, than the other way around.

Is Q our best player?
Not sure if Q is that much better than last year necessarily (thought his shooting has been better), but man, he just works so hard. It's one thing to put up 18 and 16 but Northeastern did a really nice job boxing out all night -- so 16 rebounds is insane. And 18 is great, but it's not like he had a bunch of catch-and-finish plays. He just worked his a$$ off for buckets. Have to hand it to him, he was outstanding.

Girard's energy was a positive
Feel like Girard is still adjusting a bit to the talent level and energy level of college basketball. Stuff he could do in his sleep at Glens Falls, is twice as hard even against a Bryant or a Northeastern. But his six steals were enormous for us and grabbed two really big rebounds late. Nice that he hit a couple threes (no one else can say that) and put up 21, but we need that energy level every game. Still would love to see him stretch it out in the open court and finish more effectively (as opposed to slowing up and straightening up), but his three-point play late was great and hopefully he can build on this one defensively.

At the end of the day, the jury is still out on this group
On the plus side, Northeastern might be a CAA school, but they have a win over UMass and Bryant is an NEC school but they're 5-2 so far and we have an ACC win. Otherwise, we caught Niagara and Rider in each of their first games and BC just had an awful night against us. So ... I don't know. We wait and see.

 

[NineOneSeven]

The center issue is a vicious circle. They don’t play because they aren’t ready. But when we have close games against teams we should beat, we lose a chance to get them out there. So it just re-enforces the point that they can’t play. And all of this without our actual starting center. I agree Marek and Quincy were the only efficient players tonight from the field so it’s not the time to wish they played the backup C’s, but it’s the bigger picture for me. Being down your actual center should be a great moment to get them some time. However if we are in tight games, it’s unlikely to happen.

 

[billsin01]

The center issue is a vicious circle. They don’t play because they aren’t ready. But when we have close games against teams we should beat, we lose a chance to get them out there. So it just re-enforces the point that they can’t play. And all of this without our actual starting center. I agree Marek and Quincy were the only efficient players tonight from the field so it’s not the time to wish they played the backup C’s, but it’s the bigger picture for me. Being down your actual center should be a great moment to get them some time. However if we are in tight games, it’s unlikely to happen.

Don't disagree with any of this. The only thing I'll add is that Edwards got screwed by the pandemic, JBA was always going to be something of a project and Frank is a few months into his career -- rare for a big to be effective that early.

But bottom line: I agree. Love to get those guys minutes, but to come away from tonight's game disappointed they weren't on the floor is beyond my comprehension.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yes, Guerrier is our best player, and it's criminal that we don't feed him the ball.

It's a crime against basketball, I do declare!

 

[billsin01]

Yes, Guerrier is our best player, and it's criminal that we don't feed him the ball.

It's a crime against basketball, I do declare!

We’ve never been great feeding the post, sadly. I do think Q needs to work on his moves and feel down there but he’s been excellent and shown a few pretty nice moves at times this year.

 

[CapitalO]

The center issue is a vicious circle. They don’t play because they aren’t ready. But when we have close games against teams we should beat, we lose a chance to get them out there. So it just re-enforces the point that they can’t play. And all of this without our actual starting center. I agree Marek and Quincy were the only efficient players tonight from the field so it’s not the time to wish they played the backup C’s, but it’s the bigger picture for me. Being down your actual center should be a great moment to get them some time. However if we are in tight games, it’s unlikely to happen.

It just goes to show that our staff sucks at developing big men in the 44 years Jim has been our head coach we have had only a handful of very good centers who had excellent careers at SU. and beyond. Jim is the guy who hires the assistant coaches to develop these players, so simple math relates to how many centers has Jim had on his roster over the last 44 years lets go with 2 per year ( 88 ) and how many of them ended up being major contributors over the 44 year period ? the ratio is horrible .The Boeheim staff throughout his regime has been mainly former guards who coach these big men and yes maybe a former forward such as Louis Orr. I believe that if other coaches had the same center prospects SU. has had they would have turned out to be much better college / pro players.

 

[Col. Bleep]

Two points:

First, as mentioned, NU is very well-coached. So is Bryant. That's a big reason they gave the Orange big trouble. They know what they want to do and they execute pretty well. (And you have to wonder if SU would have gotten so many turnovers and had an effective press if Tyson Walker hadn't gone down).

Second, even if Quincy Guerrier and Marek need better inside scoring moves, when they get the ball inside they have to be played. And played hard...maybe doubled in some situations.
So getting them the ball should open up the floor.
The point is instead of hoisting so many long 3's, perhaps the Orange should be doing more inside-out play. Marek is certainly a good enough passer to work that.

 

[billsin01]

Two points:

First, as mentioned, NU is very well-coached. So is Bryant. That's a big reason they gave the Orange big trouble. They know what they want to do and they execute pretty well. (And you have to wonder if SU would have gotten so many turnovers and had an effective press if Tyson Walker hadn't gone down).

Second, even if Quincy Guerrier and Marek need better inside scoring moves, when they get the ball inside they have to be played. And played hard...maybe doubled in some situations.
So getting them the ball should open up the floor.
The point is instead of hoisting so many long 3's, perhaps the Orange should be doing more inside-out play. Marek is certainly a good enough passer to work that.

Yeah agree on all points. The thing that was interesting was that Northeastern played mostly straight up. Rarely ever reached and rarely doubled. When they did help, it was typically on a big down low. I thought the prettiest play of the night was Q's little backdoor pass to Marek for a deuce. But I think their thought was that if they were going to lose, they were going to make Syracuse execute their half-court sets or make them make a play off the bounce. How rarely we did that is concerning.

We didn't routinely get easy shots even down low. Those points were tough, physical, hard-earned effort points. Would love to see Q continue to grow down there and Marek get a bit more effective in those spots as well.

Overall, I agree, however. A bit more inside-out would help this team (we seem to say that every year) and the loss of Walker certainly hurt Northeastern. I wasn't blown away by him and his decision-making, but his energy and athleticism was missed in the second half. Far fewer open looks.

 

[pearl31]

To say one or more of those 3 reserve centers couldn't have spelled Marek for a couple minutes each half is silly. I mean, JB was even willing to do it in the Rutgers game - why not yesterday?

 

[007]

Wow, so a lot to chew on after an eyesore of a game. Been reading the board and think it looked different to me than someof you, so figured I'd post in a different thread.

Here we go:

Let's start with everyone's favorite: the rotation
I don't know if I'm naturally the contrarian but I thought JB's rotation at least made sense. I'm not sure it's *right* necessarily, but it made sense. You had Buddy and Griff giving you a combined nothing, or next to nothing. Both had awful games. The difference, from my watching it and judging from JB's reactions/presser, was that Buddy was working hard and Griff just seemed mentally off. It happens. But I think JB had had enough by the time he inexplicably carried the ball near midcourt, he moved Buddy to the 3, and we played better (thanks in part to some nice defense on Kadary's part) and JB rode it out the rest of the game. Could he have inserted Kadary and Woody (like he did in the first half) and gone that route? Certainly. Would that have been the better choice? Maybe, but Woody doesn't quite have JB's full trust in a super tight game like that yet to card 20 mins or so.

Bottom line is JB plays guys he trusts. What makes Buddy different is A) he's not a superior athlete and B) he's JB's kid. That seems to kill people on this board. But I think he's taking it slow with Woody, which is not shocking, and I think he was frustrated with Griff's energy and focus. Could Kadary have played 25 and Buddy 26? I guess, but it wasn't the biggest issue in this game.
As far as playing 'a backup 5' which I saw some griping about ... huh? We don't even know who our 'backup 5' is and our starting 4/5 guys were the only reasons we were actually in that game. Getting Frank or JBA or Edwards a few minutes theoretically may help their development, but it does absolutely nothing for us trying to win that game. I really don't think that's even debatable.

Northeastern was extremely well-prepared and well-coached in that game
What is funny to me is not that people criticize JB, but what the constant criticisms are. I mean, if we hadn't pressed, for example, people would have been losing their minds that we didn't press. But since we did, it's all about the rotation. There are much bigger issues to discuss here (more to follow), but in my mind I thought Coen outcoached JB in this one. Northeastern (which I keep wanting to call BU) played straight up man, made every effort not to help outside the paint and were determined to make us shoot over the top of them. That hurt us. Additionally, they grabbed us going around picks all game. You can complain about officiating, but it was a good strategy. They were ready for everything we tried to run offensively. The result was a ton of bad shots on our part.

Offensively, they were pretty deliberate unless they had a fast-break opportunity, they moved the ball well and knew where they wanted to go with it. That led to a lot of open shots (they actually missed two WIDE open threes that might have put us in an even deeper hole early). The press and eventually the bad turnovers in the last 10 minutes got them, as well as their PG going down -- but I thought Coen was really impressive.

We have trouble creating ... in general
This is a two-pronged issue in my mind and one that I think folks could certainly criticize JB for (whether it's recruiting a creator or running a crisper, more varied offense). But, to me, the reason we didn't see Kadary more is he's still figuring things out offensively and even at his best, he's not an overwhelmingly dynamic creator ... yet. Joe was OK but his best move remains shooting a really deep three (that's not exactly a criticism as he made at least one, but it's not really a compliment either). Buddy has broadened his game, but he's never going to make his living inside the three-point arc. I can't really remember us getting a really good look at three, we had a couple easy baskets in transition when they had a breakdown (Kadary to Q for one, Joe to Marek on the other), Joe had the big three-point play, and otherwise it was heavy lifting inside by our two bigs.

Now, it's not worth overreacting to one game, but this is going to be a question all year. Griff will have much better games but he's not Elijah yet and with the extra weight, Joe hasn't done much of anything inside the arc. Buddy, as previously mentioned, is solid at getting a few good looks a game (the baseline jumper in this one as well as the 15-footer that Marek put back late), but we have to get better and more effective in our ball screen game and ideally we need to find more ways to create looks (Marek/Q high-low action; some sort of pin-down screen or double screen for a shooter; etc.). This will be an issue in many games, IMO.

Playing on a Wed. afternoon in a silent dome didn't help matters
Mentioned this after the Bryant game as well but it's weird when it's dead silent in the dome, particularly when playing a team you're supposed to beat by 20, mid-week in the afternoon. No excuse for our performance but it's a weird aspect of this season. Much easier for Northeastern to get up for playing us, than the other way around.

Is Q our best player?
Not sure if Q is that much better than last year necessarily (thought his shooting has been better), but man, he just works so hard. It's one thing to put up 18 and 16 but Northeastern did a really nice job boxing out all night -- so 16 rebounds is insane. And 18 is great, but it's not like he had a bunch of catch-and-finish plays. He just worked his a$$ off for buckets. Have to hand it to him, he was outstanding.

Girard's energy was a positive
Feel like Girard is still adjusting a bit to the talent level and energy level of college basketball. Stuff he could do in his sleep at Glens Falls, is twice as hard even against a Bryant or a Northeastern. But his six steals were enormous for us and grabbed two really big rebounds late. Nice that he hit a couple threes (no one else can say that) and put up 21, but we need that energy level every game. Still would love to see him stretch it out in the open court and finish more effectively (as opposed to slowing up and straightening up), but his three-point play late was great and hopefully he can build on this one defensively.

At the end of the day, the jury is still out on this group
On the plus side, Northeastern might be a CAA school, but they have a win over UMass and Bryant is an NEC school but they're 5-2 so far and we have an ACC win. Otherwise, we caught Niagara and Rider in each of their first games and BC just had an awful night against us. So ... I don't know. We wait and see.

Excellent post and insights. Very impressed with your analysis of the NE game plan relative to how and when they provide help and what they were forcing SU to do (settle for). I suspect you have a coaching background billsin01

I like the move to the modified man press (at least in the front) against this team. At least the trap rotations looked better and the transition back to the 2-3 was reasonable as was the transition defense during the conversion back. I think this has been an emphasis in practice.

Given the game plan from NE, I was hoping to see more of an emphasis on attacking the rim off the dribble, even as a concept. We were way too passive. Kadary, by far, is the best at this - wish JB would turn him loose more in those situations.

At the end of the day, NE lost this game because of the TOs. Good thing we had a great night at the foul line.

 

[billsin01]

Excellent post and insights. Very impressed with your analysis of the NE game plan relative to how and when they provide help and what they were forcing SU to do (settle for). I suspect you have a coaching background billsin01

I like the move to the modified man press (at least in the front) against this team. At least the trap rotations looked better and the transition back to the 2-3 was reasonable as was the transition defense during the conversion back. I think this has been an emphasis in practice.

Given the game plan from NE, I was hoping to see more of an emphasis on attacking the rim off the dribble, even as a concept. We were way too passive. Kadary, by far, is the best at this - wish JB would turn him loose more in those situations.

At the end of the day, NE lost this game because of the TOs. Good thing we had a great night at the foul line.

LOL -- fake coaching from the couch and yelling at 9-year-olds who give up the baseline is the extent of my coaching background. But I do like to pretend I'm a coach

Agree on Kadary and my guess is we'll see more of that as we go along. He's really our only option right now (maybe Griff?) to break anyone down off the dribble. Having said that I'm not sure he's going to make a living doing that either. Hopefully he does.

 

[billsin01]

To say one or more of those 3 reserve centers couldn't have spelled Marek for a couple minutes each half is silly. I mean, JB was even willing to do it in the Rutgers game - why not yesterday?

I'm not saying one of them *couldn't* have spelled Marek, I'm saying to what end? Does 4 minutes in that game make them better players? Would they have played well and helped us get/stretch the lead? To me, at least, Marek and Q were really the only things working and JB stuck with them. I'm OK with that versus hoping Jesse or Frank or JBA could buy us a couple minutes each half.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I'm not saying one of them *couldn't* have spelled Marek, I'm saying to what end? Does 4 minutes in that game make them better players? Would they have played well and helped us get/stretch the lead? To me, at least, Marek and Q were really the only things working and JB stuck with them. I'm OK with that versus hoping Jesse or Frank or JBA could buy us a couple minutes each half.

Yes, yes it makes them better players.

Especially in February when we need 10 minutes from one of them against UNC because Marek and Sid both have 4/5 fouls.

Give them a bit of time now to work on their confidence for when it matters later.

 

[pearl31]

I'm not saying one of them *couldn't* have spelled Marek, I'm saying to what end? Does 4 minutes in that game make them better players? Would they have played well and helped us get/stretch the lead? To me, at least, Marek and Q were really the only things working and JB stuck with them. I'm OK with that versus hoping Jesse or Frank or JBA could buy us a couple minutes each half.

A) No player, on any team, should be playing 40 minutes.
B) Yes, I think it would definitely help in the development of any/all of those 3 guys to get them a few minutes of "real" (i.e. not at the end of a blowout) time in every game.
C) If you don't think A and B are legit you'd be going contrary to essentially 99% of dI coaches.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Enjoy Q's last season in Orange. He's been fun so far

 

[supp]

Agree with Coen outcoaching Boeheim. Pikiell and Coen ran the Calhoun plan to beat JB teams. Aggressive man-to-man d with little doubling and try to beat us up on the boards with sound positioning. Even in retirement, Calhoun owns Boeheim.

 

[upperdeck]

we made 2 threes.. 2 for 18... even on an avg day we should make like 6 and thats shooting 30%.. do that and we win by 15-20 and the rotation changes as the game is not close and NE cant just slow it down to try to win.,

pretty clear every game we shoot 20% is gonna be a struggle.. .NE shot 9-28 so 32% just an avg day from 3.. thats all you want to do is hold teams to avg days from 3.. Then combine that we shot just avg from inside the arc and its a tough slug fest.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Agree with Coen outcoaching Boeheim. Pikiell and Coen ran the Calhoun plan to beat JB teams. Aggressive man-to-man d with little doubling and try to beat us up on the boards with sound positioning. Even in retirement, Calhoun owns Boeheim.

Uhh that’s just not true. I think you might want to check our record against Connecticut while Calhoun was there.

 

[Nicknack]

Enjoy Q's last season in Orange. He's been fun so far

Oh no, just what we need more of, the "he gone" talk.

Billsin01... very nice recap and points. I enjoyed the read.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Oh no, just what we need more of, the "he gone" talk.

Billsin01... very nice recap and points. I enjoyed the read.

Turns 22 in May. He gone indeed lol

 

[billsin01]

Yes, yes it makes them better players.

Especially in February when we need 10 minutes from one of them against UNC because Marek and Sid both have 4/5 fouls.

Give them a bit of time now to work on their confidence for when it matters later.

This is opinion stated as fact. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, merely that it is opinion. The common ground is that reps and, in college basketball in this instance, game reps are utterly essential in a player's development and greatly improves their chances of improvement. We can both agree on that, I would think.

The issue I have is how many posters draw a direct line between minutes in Nov/Dec (in a typical season) and level of play in Feb/March. For some players, this works. But the idea that stealing a four minutes a game for one of these guys automatically makes them better players by Feb/March just doesn't ring true to me.

A) No player, on any team, should be playing 40 minutes.
B) Yes, I think it would definitely help in the development of any/all of those 3 guys to get them a few minutes of "real" (i.e. not at the end of a blowout) time in every game.
C) If you don't think A and B are legit you'd be going contrary to essentially 99% of dI coaches.

There was zero reason to take Quincy off the floor last night. So I'd disagree that no player should ever play 40. I agree that a few real minutes in real games helps -- don't disagree at all. But I'm absolutely not taking a chance of losing a game for whatever the benefits of those minutes might be.

i really think the key in getting minutes is more the Woody range where, if you're good enough, you get a legit run each game and then you potentially are ready when we need you for 20 some game. The couple 2-3 minute stretches don't hurt but I"m not sure how much they help. I also feel you need to be able to play at a certain level to earn minutes. What drives me nuts is people pointing to Goodine last year when at no point did he ever display he was ready to be a real contributor last season (even though I believe he was and remains a solid prospect going forward).

 

[pearl31]

This is opinion stated as fact. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, merely that it is opinion. The common ground is that reps and, in college basketball in this instance, game reps are utterly essential in a player's development and greatly improves their chances of improvement. We can both agree on that, I would think.

The issue I have is how many posters draw a direct line between minutes in Nov/Dec (in a typical season) and level of play in Feb/March. For some players, this works. But the idea that stealing a four minutes a game for one of these guys automatically makes them better players by Feb/March just doesn't ring true to me.



There was zero reason to take Quincy off the floor last night. So I'd disagree that no player should ever play 40. I agree that a few real minutes in real games helps -- don't disagree at all. But I'm absolutely not taking a chance of losing a game for whatever the benefits of those minutes might be.

i really think the key in getting minutes is more the Woody range where, if you're good enough, you get a legit run each game and then you potentially are ready when we need you for 20 some game. The couple 2-3 minute stretches don't hurt but I"m not sure how much they help. I also feel you need to be able to play at a certain level to earn minutes. What drives me nuts is people pointing to Goodine last year when at no point did he ever display he was ready to be a real contributor last season (even though I believe he was and remains a solid prospect going forward).

You make good points, argue them well, and I generally agree w you - and I used to, as recent as a couple years ago, be of the persuasion that it's fine for some guys to play 40. I've come around to believe it's just never warranted, or at least in the very rare roster-attrition situation

 

[billsin01]

You make good points, argue them well, and I generally agree w you - and I used to, as recent as a couple years ago, be of the persuasion that it's fine for some guys to play 40. I've come around to believe it's just never warranted, or at least in the very rare roster-attrition situation

I don't love it for shooters on a consistent basis. i also think it's good to get other guys run if you can. My personal opinion is that our roster is more of an issue than the rotation -- finding minutes for MCW is different than finding minutes for Goodine.

 

[Cusefan0307]

I don't love it for shooters on a consistent basis. i also think it's good to get other guys run if you can. My personal opinion is that our roster is more of an issue than the rotation -- finding minutes for MCW is different than finding minutes for Goodine.

The argument THIS year is the talent level is up. I get guys like Battle being marathon men (even though I couldn’t stand his style of play), but this team has 7-8 guys who can play.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

The argument THIS year is the talent level is up. I get guys like Battle being marathon men (even though I couldn’t stand his style of play), but this team has 7-8 guys who can play.

Exactly. Can we stop with the Goodine talk?