So what is the problem here?

[Moontan]

ESPN's Insider article, for those with access.

 

[NineOneSeven]

We should run pick and roll ad nauseum with the shooters we have.

That doesn't mean run it with Roberson which we love to do. It means run the pick and pop with Lydon and Thompson. If the help defender comes off the wing, kick it to the wing shooter. If not, drive to the hoop where Frank needs to get stronger with the ball and Gillon needs to get smarter with his limitations. If both follow you, drop it off to Lydon or Thompson who can both hit the jumper, pass it to an open man or drive the lane.

Baye Keita (great dude) had double the fouls compared to baskets while setting screens

 

[realorange]

Your last sentence is big in the way we run our simplistic offense, IMO. The guards show VERY little ability to get by their man against better competition M2M. Like you said then if they can they aren't finshing or turning it over. This is a problem. We will need better screening up top I think to free them up. They way we execute screening is a disaster. White can be contained with a good athlete following him curling around. I think it will get a little better against M2M but to me it's mostly personnel issue and a scheme issue, secondary. Not that optimistic.

Frank made much the same comment about screening in his analysis of what they need to improve on.

 

[longislandcuse]

Baye Keita (great dude) had double the fouls compared to baskets while setting screens

It's like we draw up plays like "ok, who's is the least effective player to put in a pick n roll?.. Run it!!!"

 

[jordoo]

We can screen with White, Thompson or Lydon this year. Anyone else is a waste of time IMO. The problem comes when you have Roberson in the game, if he isn't screening where is he and what is his defender doing. Coleman is somewhat like that but he at least has a post game and has been making that 12-15' shot.

As the game swings back to being more and more offensively oriented (like its supposed to be and like the NBA) you need to be able to put 5 guys out there that are threats to score and the more guys you can put out there that are multidimensional offensive players the better you will be.

 

[longislandcuse]

We can screen with White, Thompson or Lydon this year. Anyone else is a waste of time IMO. The problem comes when you have Roberson in the game, if he isn't screening where is he and what is his defender doing. Coleman is somewhat like that but he at least has a post game and has been making that 12-15' shot.

Put them on the baseline during those sets to rebound and catch a dump off.

PG runs the PnR, Thompson or Lydon set it, PG comes off the screen with the options of: A) Drop it back to the screener B) Kick it to the wing for a Three from White, Battle or Gillon C) Penetrate and either 1) Try to score or 2) Dump it off to Roberson or Coleman.

I'd run that 90% of the time.

 

[jordoo]

Put them on the baseline during those sets to rebound and catch a dump off.

PG runs the PnR, Thompson or Lydon set it, PG comes off the screen with the options of: A) Drop it back to the screener B) Kick it to the wing for a Three from White, Battle or Gillon C) Penetrate and either 1) Try to score or 2) Dump it off to Roberson or Coleman.

I'd run that 90% of the time.

That might work better with Roberson as long as he goes for the dunk. I like it in theory but again I think they force the PG to score which we haven't proven capable of doing consistently, yet.

 

[orangefog]

We can screen with White, Thompson or Lydon this year. Anyone else is a waste of time IMO. The problem comes when you have Roberson in the game, if he isn't screening where is he and what is his defender doing. Coleman is somewhat like that but he at least has a post game and has been making that 12-15' shot.

As the game swings back to being more and more offensively oriented (like its supposed to be and like the NBA) you need to be able to put 5 guys out there that are threats to score and the more guys you can put out there that are multidimensional offensive players the better you will be.

Agreed, Roberson should only be setting off ball screens. Maybe even drawing his man away from the basket, clearing the way for more rebounds.

 

[SoBristol]

It can't be that because entering last night's game there was not that much that differentiated Georgetown, Monmouth, UConn, and Eastern Michigan in terms of power rankings. They are similar quality teams.

Maybe similar in power rankings, but the difference is that G-Town & UConn were able to win the inside battles, and not give up easy shots. SU over-powered E. Michigan inside -- and if you watched the inside play, we got handled inside in the games we lost. When your bigs can't finish inside, and the other team can, you usually lose.

 

[tbonezone]

"So my question is - what gives? Why are we able to completely manhandle these teams, and then lay complete eggs against decent to good teams? Is it a mental thing? Are we unprepared for the increased level of competition? Is it a scheme thing? It's baffling to me."

the good teams have quality big men. guards are relatively easy to find. the gene pool thins out when you're sampling around 6'8" plus .

 

[SoBeCuse]

Maybe similar in power rankings, but the difference is that G-Town & UConn were able to win the inside battles, and not give up easy shots. SU over-powered E. Michigan inside -- and if you watched the inside play, we got handled inside in the games we lost. When your bigs can't finish inside, and the other team can, you usually lose.

E Michigan looked even worse than we do in terms of def rebounding out of a 2-3 zone. That's bad.

 

[tbonezone]

blame the teacher.

 

[RF2044]

I've already griped in numerous threads about the poor half court offensive execution, our players' propensity to stand around, too much dribbling, etc. so I won't cover any of that here.

There is a lot of good information in this thread that I'll also avoid repeating. What I will add is that college basketball is not easy, and is a lot harder than it looks to play. It is a game that requires relentless effort and poise, and not every team is cut from that cloth. Effort only goes so far in terms of overcoming talent, but it can certainly offset a talent differential if the more talented team goes through the motions or doesn't expend the requisite amount of effort.

I look at our losses to USC, UConn, and Georgetown, and I saw not just poor execution, but a consistent lack of effort from our players. Which is unacceptable, IMO. I don't even need to single anybody out, because it was a team wide, systemic issue. Often times, our kids don't play hard enough--and thus far, this seems to be one of those years.

We could really use somebody with an edge. White, Battle, Gillon, Lydon, etc. seem to play too "polite."

I also think that this team lacks leadership. That doesn't mean that one of the players needs to be a feisty, raving lunatic who is feverishly demonstrative on the court -- IMO, being a loud mouth, demonstrative player is often the opposite of showing leadership. Leadership can also be someone that the team can rely upon to make a play when we have zero momentum and the game is tight. Wish it was one of the guards.

 

[General20]

Two is, nobody on our team merits a double team.

General, what you mean to write is "nobody on our team merits a double team - yet." Right? Right?? (she asks with mounting hysteria)

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that Battle turns into that guy who needs to be double teamed.

 

[Knicks411]

The one thing that really seems to be lacking to me is PG play against the good opponents. Guillon has some strengths, but he often seems to overdribble and has trouble when he gets too deep in the paint.

 

[RF2044]

The one thing that really seems to be lacking to me is PG play against the good opponents. Guillon has some strengths, but he often seems to overdribble and has trouble when he gets too deep in the paint.

That's the ONLY thing that seems lacking to you?

 

[realorange]

The one thing that really seems to be lacking to me is PG play against the good opponents. Guillon has some strengths, but he often seems to overdribble and has trouble when he gets too deep in the paint.

I'm afraid that when we get into ACC play, Gillon will be as much a liability as an asset. Too small to shoot over defenders or drive to the basket without calling 911.

 

[shandeezy7]

"So my question is - what gives? Why are we able to completely manhandle these teams, and then lay complete eggs against decent to good teams? Is it a mental thing? Are we unprepared for the increased level of competition? Is it a scheme thing? It's baffling to me."

the good teams have quality big men. guards are relatively easy to find. the gene pool thins out when you're sampling around 6'8" plus .

I guess I know that, and that's the obvious answer. My question was more posed as a response to the huge dichotomy between how we look against the patsies versus how we look against the competent and semi-competent teams. It's such a striking difference in the quality of play from our guys, that the simple answer of we are playing better talent doesn't seem like enough to explain it.

 

[realorange]

You can make several mistakes against a weaker team and still come out OK.

You make that many against a Duke, UNC, 'Ville, etc. and you get killed.

 

[Knicks411]

That's the ONLY thing that seems lacking to you?

Yup, that's it. That's what i said.

It's the biggest thing that has stood out to me. My opinion.

 

[RF2044]

Yup, that's it. That's what i said.

It's the biggest thing that has stood out to me. My opinion.

Don't get me wrong--you're definitely entitled to your opinion.

I'm just shocked / surprised that this the "only" issue you're seeing, when it seems to be but one of the litany of problems this team has.

 

[tbonezone]

I guess I know that, and that's the obvious answer. My question was more posed as a response to the huge dichotomy between how we look against the patsies versus how we look against the competent and semi-competent teams. It's such a striking difference in the quality of play from our guys, that the simple answer of we are playing better talent doesn't seem like enough to explain it.

well we can't seem to get to the rim against quality bigs and are getting killed on the glass due to poor zone rebounding . factor in we're not going to shoot 55% deep every night ( 35% would seem avg.) . so those lost possessions off the glass and fewer points from the trey have spelled L-O-S-S.

 

[Knicks411]

Don't get me wrong--you're definitely entitled to your opinion.

I'm just shocked / surprised that this the "only" issue you're seeing, when it seems to be but one of the litany of problems this team has.

I never said it was the only issue? it was the primary one that stood out to me and the one I decided to comment on. (Going back to re-read my comment, I guess you could interpret it as I meant it was the only one. I didnt. I think it's the biggest one though)

 

[TinyManInside]

Read Orangefog's thread called Against a Zone. Syracuse is good against zone's and terrible against man to man.

The worst teams we have played (South Carolina St., Eastern Michigan, etc) have also all zoned us, so we win huge against them. The best teams we've played (Wisconsin and South Carolina) went man to man against us so they blew us out.

Georgetown zoned us for stretches, and we scored 71 points despite missing about a thousand lay ups - we could and probably should have scored close to a hundred in that game too. We were up 11 on UConn despite many shots being half way down and rimming up until they switched to man to man and we completely fell apart blowing the lead and the game.

The explanation is, Syracuse runs a decent zone offense and an embarrassingly bad man to man offense.

If you want to know why, there are a few reasons. One is team cohesion, there is a lack of crisp passing and ball movement against man to man defense, and that's usually a product of guys not understanding what they are suppose to do. Hopefully this will get fixed in time.

Two is, nobody on our team merits a double team. Its easy for man defenses when each guy on their team can handle each guy on our team, and nobody ever has to double or get out of position.

Three, our guards are not a threat to penetrate and score. Even when we beat somebody off the dribble we miss the layup, so again, nobody has to leave their man to protect the rim which means there are no open shots for us.

Four, we don't/won't/can't replicate quality man to man defense in practice, so it's hard to adapt when we see it in game situations.

 

[TinyManInside]

The biggest difference to me is that the PG position has been night and day in the games against the cupcakes and the big boys. Gillon looked like a completely different player against SC, GTown, UConn, and Wisc than he did against the scrub teams. Howard averages nearly 10 assists a game against the scrubs, but less than 3 against the good teams.

So far our PGs are simply not prepared to play against bigger, more physical defenders. I'm worried about Gillon's lack of size (with no jumpshot) against ACC teams, and Frank's lack of development against them as well.