Ranking this team against other SU squads: POLL

[RealSUFan]

Let's shift back to basketball. What's crazy about this year is how our success seems to have gone unappreciated so far. We're ranked 3/4, which is something we would have killed for a few years back. This is not like last year, where we struggled early to beat bad teams. This year, we have been dominating the teams we should dominate. In terms of quality, the team's been looking more like the team of two years ago than the team of last year. Yet, nobody seems thrilled.

It wasn't that long ago when we seemed to be a perennial bubble team. Twice in a row, we didn't even make the tournament. I recall those heady days during the ill-fated Flynn/Greene freshman year before Devo's injury, when we were positively giddy with the thought that we might actually be top ten (talk about premature celebration!). Since then, we have become a virtual fixture in the top 10, staying most weeks in the top 5, and legitimately. Are we already taking this new awesomeness for granted? Even when we won in 2003, we finished the year in the polls ranked only as high as #12 or so. Let's step back and take a look to appreciate the big picture: These last three years have been close to the "glory days" of 1985-1991, and the next few years look just as promising. We've been longing for a return to prominence ever since the early 90s, and it looks like we're really back there.

So that leads to this question: From the looks of it so far, where do you predict this will rank team against other SU teams of the past?

Here's my guess: #7.

1. 2002/3 Melo, NCAA Championship team
2. 2009/10 AO/Wes/Andy senior year
3. 1986/7 DC frosh year, NCAA Runner-up
4. 1989/90 DC senior year
4. (tie) 1988/9 Sherm's senior year
6. 1995/6 John Wallace's senior year, NCAA Runner-up
7. THIS YEAR
8. 1999/2000 Etan Blackwell Hart senior year.

Now it's your turn. Consider your response a vote to return to discussing basketball.

 

[EastCoast2]

If they win the title, you gotta put them tied at #1

 

[RealSUFan]

Poll preview and formatting isn't working -- I actually gave choices 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, and Lower than 12.

 

[Eric15]

It's extremely hard to say at this point. We've played 7 games, 2 of which against legitimate competition where we had to stage 2nd half comebacks to win.

Our lack of a legitimate post presence is a HUGE concern to me. We are unbelievably deep from 1-3, but we simply have no one at this point who can back their man down and score in the post, which is something that every other great SU team had.

I just can't formulate a prediction until after tomorrow's game (sorry for being boring).

 

[Eric15]

Poll preview and formatting isn't working -- I actually gave choices 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, and Lower than 12.

Hahaha, glad you posted that. I was about to say, is this guy really guaranteeing that this squad will be at worst the 4th best team in SU history?

 

[MyMeloMyMan]

around 10th

 

[Marsh01]

1989 Team had the best talent 1-7 we have ever had. It just so happens that there were dozens of teams that were loaded as well (including the 1989 Illinois team we lost to that would probably go 30-1 if they played in the Big 10 today) as players stuck around for more than 1-2 years.

Just because we didnt make the FF that year doesnt mean that this team wasnt great. That team would have easily beaten the 2009 team. Not even debatable.

 

[RealSUFan]

1989 Team had the best talent 1-7 we have ever had. It just so happens that there were dozens of teams that were loaded as well (including the 1989 Illinois team we lost to that would probably go 30-1 if they played in the Big 10 today) as players stuck around for more than 1-2 years.

Just because we didnt make the FF that year doesnt mean that this team wasnt great. That team would have easily beaten the 2009 team. Not even debatable.

Of course it's debatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

2009 had amazing chemistry when Wes wasn't injured. Individual talent matters, but it's not decisive in making a great team. It's about how the parts work together.

That said, I forgot about the 1989 team and would rank them in the top five SU squads of all time, pushing my prediction of this year down to #7.

 

[dash-30-dash]

10th at best. I see this team no higher

 

[orangefan13]

I think this team has a long way to go.
They need alot of work.

We have no big to catch the ball and go up strong. No isolation Big guys right now.

We throw alot of long inside outside passes but haven't added to many midrange post up swing passes. Southerland hasn't shown up at all against the two best teams we played. Fab gets caught way way under the basket.

Rebounding at the 4 big issue. Will Christmas play more then 5 minutes come Big East? Come the end of the season?

Will KJO get back to health?

Will Dion find his driving spots at point guard will we get him on the side of the court he drives better from without effecting Triches offense by doing so?

I think the key for this team is all Dion .

IMO We need KJO and Dion to be our first two isolation threats and Triche to be our third scorer/third isolation player. If we have that we can be very good.

Its like Anthony and Warrick with Gerry being our third on the perimeter. Its like AO and Wes with Rautins being our third on the perimeter.

If we get that and CJ, Southerland, Melo or Xmas become light isolation scorers (rather then just getting into position scorers) then we could be the best team in the country hands down. Unfortunatly Southerland is the best scorer of those 4 right now but is lacking the rebounding.

I don't feel we are number 2 or 3 in the country right now. I don't feel we very far from being the best either, but we have 2-3 guys that need to get noticibly better offensively.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Of course it's debatable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

2009 had amazing chemistry when Wes wasn't injured. Individual talent matters, but it's not decisive in making a great team. It's about how the parts work together.

That said, I forgot about the 1989 team and would rank them in the top five SU squads of all time, pushing my prediction of this year down to #7.

LOL. How many games would the 2010 team lose if they played in 1989? More than five, that's for sure.

 

[Flacusian]

Too small a sample size and data available not relevant since we have yet to play a ranked team. That being said, my limited info guess would be 7-8 range

 

[RealSUFan]

LOL. How many games would the 2010 team lose if they played in 1989? More than five, that's for sure.

I don't get this sentiment of dissing the 2009/10 team. How quickly we forget. That team was simply amazing when Wes and Arinze were healthy. They played intense defense and could often get the ball in the net without ever even putting the ball on the floor. Maybe they didn't look great on paper, but on the court they had "it."

 

[SUSScuse]

Way too early to rank this squad.

 

[RoysRunts]

1989 Team had the best talent 1-7 we have ever had. It just so happens that there were dozens of teams that were loaded as well (including the 1989 Illinois team we lost to that would probably go 30-1 if they played in the Big 10 today) as players stuck around for more than 1-2 years.

Just because we didnt make the FF that year doesnt mean that this team wasnt great. That team would have easily beaten the 2009 team. Not even debatable.

89 loses to Illini,Michigan beats Illini after losing twice to illini, Mich beats Seton Hall who SU beat
89 #2

 

[jcuse44]

the AO Rautins team defense was undeniable...Before AO gets hurt that was a national championship team that played better as a TEAM than the melo team.

 

[Marsh01]

I don't get this sentiment of dissing the 2009/10 team. How quickly we forget. That team was simply amazing when Wes and Arinze were healthy. They played intense defense and could often get the ball in the net without ever even putting the ball on the floor. Maybe they didn't look great on paper, but on the court they had "it."

Coleman
Douglas
Owens
Thompson

That pretty much ends the discussion. 3 jerseys are hanging in the Dome and the other one should be hanging. Throw in Dave Johnson who was just starting to peak and its not debatable. Teams were just better then and that is why this team is overlooked.

They had "it" because teams are weaker now. They were very talented and I am not debating that. Dont get me wrong I loved that team like my own child but they would lose 8 out of 10 games if they played the 1989 team 10 times.

 

[jcuse44]

true

 

[RealSUFan]

Coleman
Douglas
Owens
Thompson

That pretty much ends the discussion. 3 jerseys are hanging in the Dome and the other one should be hanging. Throw in Dave Johnson who was just starting to peak and its not debatable. Teams were just better then and that is why this team is overlooked.

They had "it" because teams are weaker now. They were very talented and I am not debating that. Dont get me wrong I loved that team like my own child but they would lose 8 out of 10 games if they played the 1989 team 10 times.

Your opinion about which team is better is perfectly reasonable, even though I happen to disagree with it. It's your comment that the topic isn't even debatable that's over the top. If something's not debatable, it's that the topic itself is debatable.

Basketball is a team sport, so you can't reasonably claim Team A must be better than Team B because Team A has better individual players. FWIW, I agree that the DC/Owens/Thompson team had better players. It's just that they weren't quite as good as a team. I didn't watch SU as closely back then, but from what I remember, they tended to play without intensity for long stretches, and their outside shooting was spotty outside of Matt Roe. The 2009/10 team had multiple outside threats and played with much more consistent intensity on both sides of the ball, which is something that you don't see when you just look at a roster. They also had a better record than the 88/89 squad did and most likely would have been even more dominant were it not for untimely injuries.

 

[Eric15]

1989 Team had the best talent 1-7 we have ever had. It just so happens that there were dozens of teams that were loaded as well (including the 1989 Illinois team we lost to that would probably go 30-1 if they played in the Big 10 today) as players stuck around for more than 1-2 years.

Just because we didnt make the FF that year doesnt mean that this team wasnt great. That team would have easily beaten the 2009 team. Not even debatable.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, why did that great 1989 team lose 4 games to unranked teams in a span of 13 days (1/4/89 - 1/16/89, Pitt Nova SJU UConn)? I'm honestly curious, as I was only 7 years old at the time.

 

[jekelish]

As excited as I am about the team, it's waaaaaay too early. Let's wait to see how we do tomorrow and, more importantly, in conference play.

That said, this team has so much depth it could easily be one of the top 5-10 teams in SU history, but it lacks the star power of the Melo/Pearl/Sherm/Owens/DC/Wes, etc teams.

 

[Oakland]

89 loses to Illini,Michigan beats Illini after losing twice to illini, Mich beats Seton Hall who SU beat
89 #2

Actually SU beat Seton Hall three times that season

 

[Marsh01]

Just to play Devil's Advocate, why did that great 1989 team lose 4 games to unranked teams in a span of 13 days (1/4/89 - 1/16/89, Pitt Nova SJU UConn)? I'm honestly curious, as I was only 7 years old at the time.

2 losses were by 2 points each if I rememer correctly. Pitt was an NCAA team that year an St. Johns won the NIT I beileve.

 

[pfister1]

I don't even put this team in the top 20 yet, they have a lot to prove.

People don't like to remember the 90-91 team because of the absolute melt down in the post season, but that was a pretty darn good team as well.

Owens 23.2 ppg
Johnson 19.4 ppg
Ellis
Autry
Edwards

Mcrae
Hopkins

 

[Marsh01]

Your opinion about which team is better is perfectly reasonable, even though I happen to disagree with it. It's your comment that the topic isn't even debatable that's over the top. If something's not debatable, it's that the topic itself is debatable.

Basketball is a team sport, so you can't reasonably claim Team A must be better than Team B because Team A has better individual players. FWIW, I agree that the DC/Owens/Thompson team had better players. It's just that they weren't quite as good as a team. I didn't watch SU as closely back then, but from what I remember, they tended to play without intensity for long stretches, and their outside shooting was spotty outside of Matt Roe. The 2009/10 team had multiple outside threats and played with much more consistent intensity on both sides of the ball, which is something that you don't see when you just look at a roster. They also had a better record than the 88/89 squad did and most likely would have been even more dominant were it not for untimely injuries.

I hear your argument. My argument is that if you put the 1989 team up against the competition of 2009 they would have stemrolled teams. Records aside.

The 89 team also had injuries.

They lost to Pitt and Villanova in very close games.. Then Sherman hurt his back against St. Johns and didnt play and they lost. Then with Shem still hurt (but he tried to play) we lost to Uconn. Then Coleman hurt his back and didnt even play in the NCAA game against Bucknell. We had a lot of injuries that year.

Georgetown was a top 5 team that year an Seton Hall should have won the NC. Big East was brutal back then.