Prospective depth chart for '16-'17 Syracuse Orange

[RF2044]

"Sorry, Tyler. Even though you're projected to be a lottery pick, you're the odd man out because Roberson is too sensitive to handle being the sixth man."

I don't think many on this forum give Roberson enough credit. He has good enough character to handle a slight "demotion" (if that's what we want to call it). And maybe he'll even thrive with less pressure of starting games and having a sixth-man role where he can come in and dominate the boards.

Lydon starts, regardless of what happens.

Just for perspective, if Lydon plays 36 mpg -- or 90% of the available game time, and closes every game, it is tough to see him complaining.

 

[orangenirvana]

But mine isn't a character judgment, anyway. Different kids are wired differently, different kids have different situation skill sets, it's been clear with Roberson since his first year (when he could've filled a role but missed the summer experience due to a delayed enrollment). He's a starter who will struggle to produce off the bench. He might struggle to produce in his starts, too, and that's when he'd be replaced by someone who is productive in a non-starting role.

"Different kids are wired differently" - I agree, which is why I think it's possible that Roberson could thrive in a role with less spotlight on him. Why are you so certain he will struggle to produce off the bench?

 

[orangenirvana]

Just for perspective, if Lydon plays 36 mpg -- or 90% of the available game time, and closes every game, it is tough to see him complaining.

I don't see Lydon complaining regardless. But I also don't see Roberson complaining if he has a bench role. Complaints aren't the issue.

 

[RF2044]

I don't see Lydon complaining regardless. But I also don't see Roberson complaining if he has a bench role. Complaints aren't the issue.

Not everybody can start, and we have 8 guys who could legitimately stake a claim to one of those 5 starting roles. Somebody deserving is going to be left out of the starting lineup. Will be interesting to see who that is, and how the bench is utilized on this squad.

 

[OttoMets]

"Different kids are wired differently" - I agree, which is why I think it's possible that Roberson could thrive in a role with less spotlight on him. Why are you so certain he will struggle to produce off the bench?

Well, I probably should've noted that I'm not certain (though my tone does sound that way). Just a strong feeling, based on his difficulty in 2014 (missed the summer, obviously had skills Fair and Grant lacked but didn't fully capitalize in limited minutes), 2015 (did very little off the bench, then blossomed and was arguably better than McCullough after he took McCullough's starting spot), and 2016 (had that rough spell after Virginia Tech when Boeheim jerked the minutes around and said crazy things, then played some of his best basketball when he was getting the public praise and had consistent minutes restored).

He just seems to lack inner confidence and that leads to unproductive play (which takes that confidence down further). It seems that guaranteed minutes are the best way to keep his head up, and the easiest way to do that is by starting him and getting him a couple early touches. (This I've heard.)

Also, though I think he has more to offer, his limited skill set (or maybe more fair to say limited role in the offense) seems to better lend itself to starting than coming cold off the bench - scorers will score, but he's not that guy.

 

[FrancoPizza]

You're focused on the wrong aspect of what he was suggesting, I think. If we force a turnover or if we force a shot clock violation, both are stops. But the former leads to a fast break / potential easy scoring opportunity in transition, while the other leads to inbounding the ball with no other advantage gained.

The 2012 team was masterful at forcing turnovers, and we had the depth to rotate guys in and out of the game, so the entire team ran hard. And then when the opposition began to tire, into the game came Dion Waiters [who was "better" than both of our starters and arguably the best player on the floor most of the time] and CJ Fair--two guys who could hit double digits, coming off of the bench. That team used its depth to force a ton of turnovers and capitalize in transition, which helped offset our lack of low post scoring that year.

Instead of allowing teams to shorten the game by milking every shot clock for 30 seconds, we're better off trying to force the action and create turnovers. And even if we gamble and get beat, then we have the safety valve of a 7-2 shotblocker manning the interior to help negate attempts.

Bingo. Taking it a step further, teams that are vastly outmatched will often view a shot clock violation as a "neutral" outcome. Their goal is to minimize the number of possessions and force us to play half-court basketball. While a shot clock violation does not result in points, it maximizes the length of that possession, forces the defense to play hard for the entire 30 seconds, and takes away our transition game which is often how we blow inferior teams out.

 

[RF2044]

Bingo. Taking it a step further, teams that are vastly outmatched will often view a shot clock violation as a "neutral" outcome. Their goal is to minimize the number of possessions and force us to play half-court basketball. While a shot clock violation does not result in points, it maximizes the length of that possession, forces the defense to play hard for the entire 30 seconds, and takes away our transition game which is often how we blow inferior teams out.

The other reason that I believe the FG% defensive stat to be misleading is that we are generally average to below average in securing offensive rebounds. So, if we force a miss, the other team gets the offensive rebound and misses again, gets another offensive board and gets blocked, but then gets a fourth crack at it and finally converts--our FG defensive percentage is 25%. But the net result of the possession is a bucket. Misleading stat.

 

[FrancoPizza]

The other reason that I believe the FG% defensive stat to be misleading is that we are generally average to below average in securing offensive rebounds. So, if we force a miss, the other team gets the offensive rebound and misses again, gets another offensive board and gets blocked, but then gets a fourth crack at it and finally converts--our FG defensive percentage is 25%. But the net result of the possession is a bucket. Misleading stat.

That's why Points Per Possession (PPP) is a much more honest metric. Just don't tell JB - he loves to cite those FG% stats especially when we lose 60-57 white-knucklers.

 

[RF2044]

That's why Points Per Possession (PPP) is a much more honest metric. Just don't tell JB - he loves to cite those FG% stats especially when we lose 60-57 white-knucklers.

And the defensive stats often ARE impressive, especially when the team is clicking. But nothing pisses me off more than hemorrhaging offensive rebound after offensive rebound to lousy teams like Pitt, and giving them 2, 3 or 4 cracks to score. We've lost a lot of games that way over the years.

 

[orangenirvana]

That's why Points Per Possession (PPP) is a much more honest metric. Just don't tell JB - he loves to cite those FG% stats especially when we lose 60-57 white-knucklers.

Yeah that silly Boeheim has no idea what he's doing!

 

[Cusefan0307]

That's why Points Per Possession (PPP) is a much more honest metric. Just don't tell JB - he loves to cite those FG% stats especially when we lose 60-57 white-knucklers.

And we have been top 20 in PPP ever year from 2010 on. Defense wasn't the reason we lost more games than usual the past couple years. Offensive production was.

One of the main reasons we couldn't run last year was because we had to "gang" rebound just to get a rebound. If G or Cooney leaked out we had no chance on the glass.

 

[FrancoPizza]

And we have been top 20 in PPP ever year from 2010 on. Defense wasn't the reason we lost more games than usual the past couple years. Offensive production was.

One of the main reasons we couldn't run last year was because we had to "gang" rebound just to get a rebound. If G or Cooney leaked out we had no chance on the glass.

Our backcourt the past 3-4 years was ill suited for the fast-break. The best we could ever hope for was a 3 in transition from a drifter. I hope that finesse ends starting this year and we start taking it straight to the rack.

I don't know that we've ever been a "good" zone rebounding team unless we have forwards that excel at coming down with the ball in traffic. Where I think we excelled in 09-10 and 11-12 was forcing turnovers not rebounding. This is where having an offense that can score reliably makes a huge difference. The other team gets a little more impatient against the zone when they know they have to score instead of milking the clock. That impatience can often lead to mistakes.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Our backcourt the past 3-4 years was ill suited for the fast-break. The best we could ever hope for was a 3 in transition from a drifter. I hope that finesse ends starting this year and we start taking it straight to the rack.

I don't know that we've ever been a "good" zone rebounding team unless we have forwards that excel at coming down with the ball in traffic. Where I think we excelled in 09-10 and 11-12 was forcing turnovers not rebounding. This is where having an offense that can score reliably makes a huge difference. The other team gets a little more impatient against the zone when they know they have to score instead of milking the clock. That impatience can often lead to mistakes.

I agree to a point, but Gbinije and Cooney were great on the break in the tourney. Part of that was we forced turnovers, as you explained above. We will be better there this year.

We also were pretty good in transition in 12-13 with Triche and MCW. For some reason people forget that. Maybe it was because they weren't good shooters.

 

[jsshap]

JB will want his 5 best players on the court together at times. So a Gillon, Battle, White, Lydon and Robey lineup is certainly very possible. I know many people think there is no way Lydon sees any minutes at the 5, but I fully expect it to happen far more often than some believe.

Having never seen Chukwu play, I may stand to be corrected here -- and would love that to be the case -- but I tend to agree. JB has seen success with Lydon at the 5 and in games where SU falls behind big or in one of those games where JB often says at halftime that "we just have to outscore them tonight" its going to be very tempting to use the lineup you mention above, or Howard, or some combination that has Lydon at the 5 with 3-4 other strong offensive players. There has been chatter on the AW thread about whose minutes he takes...for this reason it seems possible it could be Chukwu who sees his minutes in jeopardy as much as anyone.

 

[RF2044]

Having never seen Chukwu play, I may stand to be corrected here -- and would love that to be the case -- but I tend to agree. JB has seen success with Lydon at the 5 and in games where SU falls behind big or in one of those games where JB often says at halftime that "we just have to outscore them tonight" its going to be very tempting to use the lineup you mention above, or Howard, or some combination that has Lydon at the 5 with 3-4 other strong offensive players. There has been chatter on the AW thread about whose minutes he takes...for this reason it seems possible it could be Chukwu who sees his minutes in jeopardy as much as anyone.

A lot is going to depend on Chukwu's readiness. If he's a difference making shot blocker, then he might get a LOT of time, flanked by four guys who can score. Really, all we need him to do is rebound and defend, and then finish some easy ones off of penetrations by Gillon / Howard / Battle.

Floor spacing should be terrific, with shooters like Gillon / Lydon / White, and possibly Battle in a complimentary capacity. If those guys are threats from deep, teams won't be able to pack it in and clog the lane.

 

[Dave85]

SCV is a dead ball, side out I think. A TO is live .. makes it easier to run.

I totally understand what you are saying. But you missing the point. The original poster said he liked the longer shot clock because the teams we had when we had a longer shot clock had more points off transition. Do you think the teams we had that were good on transition were so because of a longer shot clock?

 

[reedny]

I totally understand what you are saying. But you missing the point. The original poster said he liked the longer shot clock because the teams we had when we had a longer shot clock had more points off transition. Do you think the teams we had that were good on transition were so because of a longer shot clock?

Ok, I misunderstood then. If the point was that SU benefited from a longer shot clock b/c there were more opportunities for steals/transition points, then ok. But that's not a truism, since a shorter SC might force some teams into sloppier ball-handling near the 30 second mark and therefore INCREASE our transition opportunities.

 

[Dave85]

Ok, I misunderstood then. If the point was that SU benefited from a longer shot clock b/c there were more opportunities for steals/transition points, then ok. But that's not a truism, since a shorter SC might force some teams into sloppier ball-handling near the 30 second mark and therefore INCREASE our transition opportunities.

That's what I thought. I ask for a clarification but I did not get any. Who cares what we talk about. It's July and November is a long way off.

 

[reedny]

That's what I thought. I ask for a clarification but I did not get any. Who cares what we talk about. It's July and November is a long way off.

Exactly, we have the rest of the summer to flame each other ... once our roster is officially set.

 

[JoeySimz]

Lots of interesting libeups but it really comes down to matchups.

Big ass lineup: Frank, Ty, Lydon, TT, Chuk

Traditional Offense: Frank, Ty/Gillon, AW/Lydon, Robey, DC

Small ball: Gillon, Ty, AW, Robey, Lydon

Speed: Gillon, Ty, Moyer, Robey, Lydon,

Remember 2003? Jimmy used many different combos of Edelin, Gmac, Pace, and Duany. We had 2 outstanding centers, not the best scorers but good rim protectors and screeners.

 

[JoeySimz]

I'm also in the camp with AW at 3. I just can't remember the last time we had a 2 with limited ball skills. Duany, I think played some 2 but now we almost always have a point and combo or 2 combos. Especially recently since Jimmy is using more pro style high pick n roll.

 

[Dave85]

Exactly, we have the rest of the summer to flame each other ... once our roster is officially set.

Bring it squire!

 

[thebigeast44]

Good post RF- I'm excited too. But it is interesting the perspective of an SU fan compared to a fan of a blue blood team like Kentucky, Duke, NC etc. They'd be looking at our roster and be saying - damn - down year - only 1 McDonald's AA and he's been around forever and been injured most of the time...

 

[Dave85]

Good post RF- I'm excited too. But it is interesting the perspective of an SU fan compared to a fan of a blue blood team like Kentucky, Duke, NC etc. They'd be looking at our roster and be saying - damn - down year - only 1 McDonald's AA and he's been around forever and been injured most of the time...

Given the players the coaches do get I think they've done a great job. Everyone would love to get five 5-star recruits. I kind of like rooting for 2, 3, and 4 year players. But everyone would probably prefer to win more than anything else.

 

[SC Orange]

Given the players the coaches do get I think they've done a great job. Everyone would love to get five 5-star recruits. I kind of like rooting for 2, 3, and 4 year players. But everyone would probably prefer to win more than anything else.

To add to this, while 5 stars are great, when they leave early it is not easy to build an identity as a program nor cohesiveness. I was recently talking to some other folks in my company that work in Kentucky. They thought it was funny that while watching an NBA game the announcers mentioned a player went to Kentucky and they completely forgot about them.

For Cuse fans we tend to have guys get drafted after 2 years or longer. (the recent spat of 1 and done players is not the norm, but may be becoming the norm) For the zone to be effective it is important to have upperclassmen that have mastered it. As we have seen too many times the freshman will always have moments where they look lost on defense, but they typically put it together by the end of the year.

Long story short I love the versatility of players we have been getting lately and am excited to see what combinations we utilize in different scenarios, although I do not think Jimmy B will break away from the norm of playing 7 guys, but with the glut of talent we have it may be hard to keep the bench that short.