Random Thoughts on the Season So Far

[CuseCPT]

St. John's is a very good basketball team. They played like they had a chip on their shoulder and came in with a swagger. We also got their best effort, the players talked about how much beating Syracuse meant to them. Nobody gets that amped up to play average programs so that's a good reflection on us I suppose.

The sophomores. For arguments sake, lets say they aren't ready to contribute (which I don't buy). The question is why? Either we keep recruiting kids that can't play (which I don't buy) or they're not developing when they get here. Either way this is on the coaches.

I'm fine with losing some regular season games, especially early on if we're using minutes to develop our younger players. I remember people laughing at UConn for stumbling early last year against Houston, SMU and Stanford while we piled up the regular season wins. Guess who was ready to peak in March?

The sky isn't falling, it's not even Christmas and have a talented group of players. Let's see what these young men can do, LGO.

 

[Brooky03]

I disagree with putting all the blame on the coaching staff. The problem with that argument is that it assumes other programs are better developing sophomores who didn't play as freshman. 'Program players' are not typically too good in their second years, especially when their second year is their first year of real playing time. This is true of all teams, not just ours.

 

[pfister1]

The sophomores. For arguments sake, lets say they aren't ready to contribute (which I don't buy). The question is why? Either we keep recruiting kids that can't play (which I don't buy) or they're not developing when they get here. Either way this is on the coaches.

All 3 of the sophs are very young from an experience standpoint.

TR played a total of 162 minutes last season
BJ played 55 minutes
Bus played 54 minutes

Not a lot of developmental time coming into this season. From what we have seen so far they haven't been ready to simply step in, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't expect them to continue to develop over the course of this season and the two years of eligibility that they'll have remaining after that. Unfortunately, it may not be fast enough to save this season, but the blame for the direction that this season currently seems to be headed (if there should be any - sometimes stuff just happens) should probably lay at the feet of the coaching staff for not anticipating the early defections of Ennis and Grant and the unavailability of Coleman.

The beautiful difference between college basketball and college football is that we can still make our way to the National Championship even if we lose all of these "must win" games that we play before March because as long as the conference gives its automatic bid to its tournament champion no game is truly must win until March.

 

[CuseCPT]

I disagree with putting all the blame on the coaching staff. The problem with that argument is that it assumes other programs are better developing sophomores who didn't play as freshman. 'Program players' are not typically too good in their second years, especially when their second year is their first year of real playing time. This is true of all teams, not just ours.

Therein lies the problem.

 

[jordoo]

Therein lies the problem.

But this is a catch 22 because its very obvious to all of us now why they didn't play much last year and the coaching staff expected Grant and Ennis back. Then we would have had a backup/developing PG to our stud PG. We also wouldn't have had to play one of Roberson or Johnson big minutes because of Grant.

 

[CuseCPT]

But this is a catch 22 because its very obvious to all of us now why they didn't play much last year and the coaching staff expected Grant and Ennis back. Then we would have had a backup/developing PG to our stud PG. We also wouldn't have had to play one of Roberson or Johnson big minutes because of Grant.

But that's exactly why you give up precious minutes to your developing players. So when player X goes to the draft or, player Y gets hurt in the conference tourney you aren't left looking at guys that haven't seen a true game situation since high school.

 

[jordoo]

But that's exactly why you give up precious minutes to your developing players. So when player X goes to the draft or, player Y gets hurt in the conference tourney you aren't left looking at guys that haven't seen a true game situation since high school.

Are you sure? When you are walking a tightrope to get to 25-0 and you may know that once the ship tips it may never right itself? In retrospect its hard to say which is right or wrong. How much better would we have been this year if Roberson played more? How much worse would we have been last year? Its a valid argument each way but the bottom line with this team is the staff thought they had corrected the 1 PG issue by bringing in an understudy to a guy they knew had a 2 year college plan. He had the opportunity to go early and now the understudy is taking his lumps in live action and we struggle to initiate offense. If playing Roberson, Johnson and Patterson a good bit last year would have meant Ennis came back then that would have made a bigger difference than any of their development IMO although certainly the development always helps.

 

[DonLightfoot]

Back to the original post. Where the heck is "our" swagger and desire? Haven't seen much of it this year to be honest. We cannot continue to go on the premise that "We Are Syracuse" and expect to win simply based on that. I feel we have decent talent, but just need to play with a little more "umph". Just my thoughts.

 

[jimsonjunction]

Back to the original post. Where the heck is "our" swagger and desire? Haven't seen much of it this year to be honest. We cannot continue to go on the premise that "We Are Syracuse" and expect to win simply based on that. I feel we have decent talent, but just need to play with a little more "umph". Just my thoughts.

That's a fair assessment, and I'll say what I said in another post because I think it applies here too. We get every small school's best shot. St. John's wanted to scalp us at home. LaTech is going to want our scalp too. They rarely play big-time opponents, and this is their only shot to say they came into the Dome and beat the Orange.

The good news is that our guys will be motivated to cleanse their palates and silence the doubters. I'm expecting an aggressive, urgent SU team on Sunday. Just wish I didn't have to wait so long!

 

[tbonezone]

theres's always a price to be paid for piling up easy wins as opposed to developing future talent. cha-ching!

 

[CaptainJ]

theres's always a price to be paid for piling up easy wins as opposed to developing future talent. cha-ching!

Everybody's got a price (for the Million Dollar Man)

 

[CuseCPT]

Are you sure? When you are walking a tightrope to get to 25-0 and you may know that once the ship tips it may never right itself? In retrospect its hard to say which is right or wrong. How much better would we have been this year if Roberson played more? How much worse would we have been last year? Its a valid argument each way but the bottom line with this team is the staff thought they had corrected the 1 PG issue by bringing in an understudy to a guy they knew had a 2 year college plan. He had the opportunity to go early and now the understudy is taking his lumps in live action and we struggle to initiate offense. If playing Roberson, Johnson and Patterson a good bit last year would have meant Ennis came back then that would have made a bigger difference than any of their development IMO although certainly the development always helps.

Yeah but who honestly cares about being 25-0?

 

[two3zone]

Yeah but who honestly cares about being 25-0?

Everybody here did when it happened while they ignored the warning signs.

 

[Dave85]

Everybody here did when it happened while they ignored the warning signs.

I agree.

Maybe if JB played more of the bench then they would have had more losses earlier in the season but more success in the NCAA tournament. And maybe both Ennis and Grant would not have left. But it's hard to question JB's coaching decisions at this point.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Everybody here did when it happened while they ignored the warning signs.

The writing was on the wall.

"It doesn't matter how you win!!"

I love that one. That might apply in a one and done tournament where it's about survival, but not the regular season. And it caught up to us.

 

[NineOneSeven]

I agree.

Maybe if JB played more of the bench then they would have had more losses earlier in the season but more success in the NCAA tournament. And maybe both Ennis and Grant would not have left. But it's hard to question JB's coaching decisions at this point.

It's impossible to predict. Playing for losses just doesn't make sense.

There's no right or wrong, only speculation both ways. But that's what these forums are for!

 

[dollarbill44]

It's impossible to predict. Playing for losses just doesn't make sense.

There's no right or wrong, only speculation both ways. But that's what these forums are for!

Why do you assume that you are playing for losses by using a deeper bench? Sometimes giving your best players some real breaks during the game means they make more plays down the stretch of games.
So, yeah, there might be one or two losses along the way, but there might also be as many, or more additional wins down the stretch.

 

[rstone7727]

Key words in the last few posts... Maybe, maybe, might, predict, speculation, assume, sometimes, might, and might. JB doesn't apply those words relative to winning games. No offense to any posters.

 

[billsin01]

Are you sure? When you are walking a tightrope to get to 25-0 and you may know that once the ship tips it may never right itself? In retrospect its hard to say which is right or wrong. How much better would we have been this year if Roberson played more? How much worse would we have been last year? Its a valid argument each way but the bottom line with this team is the staff thought they had corrected the 1 PG issue by bringing in an understudy to a guy they knew had a 2 year college plan. He had the opportunity to go early and now the understudy is taking his lumps in live action and we struggle to initiate offense. If playing Roberson, Johnson and Patterson a good bit last year would have meant Ennis came back then that would have made a bigger difference than any of their development IMO although certainly the development always helps.

Yeah, this sums it up from my end. The one pet peeve I have on message boards is that folks equate minutes (or snaps on the FB side) with development. Ideally, yeah, it's great for development b/c it's game speed and it's 'reps' and it's 'experience'. The problem is -- none of those terms actually mean anything. Theoretically, yeah, you gain more confidence the more you play and you get better with experience. The thing is, if you're not actually ready for those minutes or snaps, your development path can get completely screwed up. If you're not ready for those minutes you could cost a team games and still not be ready to contribute at the end of your frosh or soph season.

I don't know, I'm all for getting minutes for kids that are ready and I'm with most everyone else here in saying that I"m not a huge fan of the 7.5-man rotation. But I don't think we should all buy into some notion that simply putting BJ Johnson on the floor for 200 minutes last year would have somehow made him a 15 ppg scorer this year. The kid played on teams all summer, practiced all season, was supposedly in the weight room a bunch and then had a whole preseason and is now playing as a sophomore. Chances are he's about where he was going to be regardless of those ~150 mins.

 

[billsin01]

Why do you assume that you are playing for losses by using a deeper bench? Sometimes giving your best players some real breaks during the game means they make more plays down the stretch of games.
So, yeah, there might be one or two losses along the way, but there might also be as many, or more additional wins down the stretch.

Yes and no. Playing a bench for the sake of playing a bench or playing a bench to develop kids for the following season at the expense of potentially winning a game is a good way to get yourself canned. Having solid talent that could truly contribute or at least has a really strong chance of contributing meaningfully by the end of the season is very important.

The bottom line is that Cooney was never going to hit 45% all season long while playing 40 minutes every game. True frosh like Ennis were bound to wear down over time and, for that matter, getting a quick breather for CJ wouldn't have hurt even as a senior. And, if you have some athletes, a stretch of pressing each game could be a nice strategic option.

Bottom line, playing more than 7.5 makes sense for this program for the most part. The mistake people make is saying that it should be done for no reason other than development's sake. That makes no sense to me -- there's simply no direct relationship between minutes and development.

 

[billsin01]

Yeah but who honestly cares about being 25-0?

Not trying to be a pr!ck, but I'm pretty sure you and the 714 others who would be flipping out about the one loss in a 24-1 start. I love that people want a bunch of random frosh they've never seen before playing big minutes and then arguing that they wouldn't flip out on these boards with each loss we have. Should they have played? I don't know. BJ looked atrocious to me and Patterson was, eh, OK. I think the argument for Roberson is about 5x as strong as either of the other two.

 

[CuseCPT]

Not trying to be a pr!ck, but I'm pretty sure you and the 714 others who would be flipping out about the one loss in a 24-1 start. I love that people want a bunch of random frosh they've never seen before playing big minutes and then arguing that they wouldn't flip out on these boards with each loss we have. Should they have played? I don't know. BJ looked atrocious to me and Patterson was, eh, OK. I think the argument for Roberson is about 5x as strong as either of the other two.

Did you read my first post? We lost a couple games in December, who cares? I promise you I do not have a 25-0 shirt in my giant drawer of SU stuff.

 

[CuseCPT]

Yes and no. Playing a bench for the sake of playing a bench or playing a bench to develop kids for the following season at the expense of potentially winning a game is a good way to get yourself canned. Having solid talent that could truly contribute or at least has a really strong chance of contributing meaningfully by the end of the season is very important.

The bottom line is that Cooney was never going to hit 45% all season long while playing 40 minutes every game. True frosh like Ennis were bound to wear down over time and, for that matter, getting a quick breather for CJ wouldn't have hurt even as a senior. And, if you have some athletes, a stretch of pressing each game could be a nice strategic option.

Bottom line, playing more than 7.5 makes sense for this program for the most part. The mistake people make is saying that it should be done for no reason other than development's sake. That makes no sense to me -- there's simply no direct relationship between minutes and development.

I agree totally. That's the beauty of it, you get the development perks AND all the other positives you mentioned.

 

[pfister1]

Not trying to be a pr!ck, but I'm pretty sure you and the 714 others who would be flipping out about the one loss in a 24-1 start. I love that people want a bunch of random frosh they've never seen before playing big minutes and then arguing that they wouldn't flip out on these boards with each loss we have. Should they have played? I don't know. BJ looked atrocious to me and Patterson was, eh, OK. I think the argument for Roberson is about 5x as strong as either of the other two.

People might flip over that one loss at the time that it happens, but I guarantee looking back people would have taken a couple of early season losses and given up the 25-0 if it meant going deeper than one and out in the ACCT and the round of 32 in the NCAAs because looking back 25-0 meant {zilch}. Basketball is different than football. If you want to be in the hunt for a football championship you can't afford a loss. Basketball is not like that. You need to groom your team so it is collectively playing its best basketball in March while managing the record so that you don't miss out on the opportunity for an at-large bid. Many of us would argue that by playing a deeper bench we believe the team would be in a position to collectively play better in March.

Obviously JB doesn't agree, but that doesn't mean we have to give up our belief and accept his view as the correct view. March results are probably the one area where it is probably fair-? to criticize JB's performance. Given the quality of talent we have had, the records of our teams etc. we only have one championship. It's not like JB is John Wooden and has ripped off a string of 10 straight NCAA championships and is really beyond criticism. The goal is an NCAA championship and we have only one. Just because his results have been terrific, do we have to settle and not strive for better?

Offering this criticism doesn't make those of us that hold this view bad fans or disloyal to JB. For me personally, there isn't a coach in basketball that I would rather have over JB. He feels like a family member to me. Asking me if I would want to trade him for K or Calhoun would be like asking me if I want to trade my wife for Kate Upton. Kate Upton might seem like a more appealing woman, but my wife is my wife, and I'm not trading her just because someone else may be younger or better looking.

 

[General20]

But that's exactly why you give up precious minutes to your developing players. So when player X goes to the draft or, player Y gets hurt in the conference tourney you aren't left looking at guys that haven't seen a true game situation since high school.

Why do you think giving guys like Johnson, Patterson, and Roberson, a few minutes a game last year would have helped their development in any meaningful way? I'd love to hear this argument.

They were playing the likes of Ennis, Grant, Fair, etc. in practice every single day last year for hours a day. Why will a few game minutes against mostly inferior players help so much?

Will these game minutes put more muscle on Johnson?

I just don't understand this logic at all.

Not all players are ready to contribute by their sophomore year. That does not mean there is anything wrong with them or the coaches. You want some guys who will take a few years to develop, but be leaders and big contributors as upperclassmen. It would not surprise me at all if Roberson and Johnson lead SU to a national championship their senior year. You have to look at the big picture here.