Revionist history.

[BlueCurtain]

But see, you can't coach that way if you're committed to a probability-based approach.

If JB wants to rely on probability, he should be at the craps table at Bellagio. Even if this approach is successful 74% of the time, statistically it blows up when you need those odds in your favor 4, 5, or 6 consecutive games. I can't believe one poster suggested we should just tip our hat if the other team is hitting above their %. What? Yeah, let's just roll over.

When should we have abandoned the zone in that crazy run?

Nobody has advocated abandoning it. It's about disrupting the other team's rhythm - for at least a few possessions. Wisconsin was getting to the point where they could execute blindfolded.

This is why JB's best teams - historically - rely on the offense to carry them through adversity.

 

[Scooch]

If JB wants to rely on probability, he should be at the craps table at Bellagio. Even if this approach is successful 74% of the time, statistically it blows up when you need those odds in your favor 4, 5, or 6 consecutive games. I can't believe one poster suggested we should just tip our hat if the other team is hitting above their %. What? Yeah, let's just roll over.



Nobody has advocated abandoning it. It's about disrupting the other team's rhythm - for at least a few possessions. Wisconsin was getting to the point where they could execute blindfolded.

This is why JB's best teams - historically - rely on the offense to carry them through adversity.

I would reply to most other posters, but you're never interested in a discussion, so whatever.

 

[KingOtis]

I can't believe one poster suggested we should just tip our hat if the other team is hitting above their %.

That's OK, I can't believe most of what you post. And I can't believe you're a Syracuse fan.

I also can't believe Hop got the "coach in waiting" tag over you.

 

[KingOtis]

I remember seeing a special about the 1996 NCAA game against Georgia, where John Wallace hit a long three after taking it coast to coast to give us the win.

In talking about the game, JB said that he nearly called timeout when we struggled to get the ball inbounds, eventually getting it to Wallace. But since Wallace was our star, he let it ride. Luckily, J-Dub hit the shot and the game goes down in program lore.

But JB acknowledged that it was one of those things where if Wallace misses the shot, he would have gotten crucified for not calling the timeout. Paraphrasing how he put it, but since Wallace hit the shot, it was a brilliant coaching move.

It all comes down to players making plays.

Hindsight is 20-20.

I can't stand it when coaches call time outs with so little time left on the clock. It's one thing if there's 30 seconds remaining, but if it's 10 seconds or less, there's no reason to micromanage. All it does it give the opposing coach an opportunity to set up the defense. If there's a specific play you want to run, work on it in practice.

Remember Bryce Drew and Valpo? They worked on that play all year. I don't remember if they called a TO or not, but they didn't need to.

 

[Cusefan95]

Nobody has advocated abandoning it. It's about disrupting the other team's rhythm - for at least a few possessions. Wisconsin was getting to the point where they could execute blindfolded.

This is why JB's best teams - historically - rely on the offense to carry them through adversity.

I'd prefer we had as many tools in the toolbox as possible...but simply switching up defenses doesn't always work to disrupt the opponent. In the 2003 championship game Kansas went to a 1-3-1 for a grand total of one possession, because Syracuse sliced through it in about ten seconds for an easy basket. Part of the problem is change D is less likely to work against teams that have great offensive players...so what you're really advocating is that we include a hail Mary in the playbook for when we need it. Which I agree with...but I recognize it's a hail Mary, I don't believe you do.

The reason why JB sticks with zone now and didn't in 2003 has more to do with us playing much better zone now than in 2003. I just rewatched a few games from that season, our defense was pretty bad, not nearly as active as the last three years. I'd even go so far as to say that our defense - even though it's a zone - got us through adversity far more times this season than our offense did. Without our D, we lose at Louisville...and maybe give up a decent shot to Wisconsin at the buzzer instead of a 25 foot fadeaway that didn't have a prayer. I'd feel bettr about tonight if I had any confidence that our offense could carry us through adversity...that's the weakness of this team.

 

[KingOtis]

When JB wants to switch things up, he presses. That's probably more effective than going m2m.

 

[Col. Bleep]

The type of defense we played was almost irrelevant.
Most of their shots were contested.
It was just one of those nights...Wisconsin was on fire from 3.

The attempts came as no surprise.
The number they hit was abnormal.

 

[SyracuseFan]

qZs aF VDC V BBTRZAdx cvbwraq4cex xzaSa