SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,818
- Like
- 65,185
- What a lousy way to begin what should be a great sports weekend. There have been a lot of promising Saturdays ruined by the SU game, (football or basketball), in recent years. Too many. This is supposed to be fun.
- This was the first game this year that we weren’t in coming down the stretch. We could have been 10-0 going into this one. And with this performance, we would have been 10-1.
- It was also the first game where I thought the effort lagged. The quality of effort can change from game to game but the quantity of effort should be consistent. The second half of this reminded me of the 12/21/16 game against St. John’s in the Dome where the Johnnies spent the whole second half fast-breaking and dunking on us. It also reminded me of the 2/23/70 game at Pittsburgh. The Panthers came into that averaging 65 points a game. We scored 71 points in a half – and lost by 19, 108-127. That’s’ the most points SU has ever surrendered. If you thought this one wasn’t fun…
- In the first game, we scored the first 11 points. Later, we had an 18 point lead. Pitt got it down to 4 and, thanks to Robert Braswell, we pushed it back out to 16. Teams don’t usually twice come back from deficits like that but Pitt did. In this game Pitt missed their first 10 shots and we took a 9 point lead. They came back to take the lead at 27-30. We went on a 10-2 to close the half and seemed in pretty good shape. Pitt opened the second half with an 11-27 run for an 11 point lead. We responded with another 10-2 run and it looked like it might go down to the wire. That’s when our effort collapsed and the rest of the game was 18-35. The team that kept going throughout both games won both games. It wasn’t us.
- The game had a weird flow to it. The second half got off to a horrendous start for SU with 4 turnovers in the first 4:22, during which we were out-scored 7-15. How many turnovers did we have in the rest of the game? 1. During that first Panther run, SU’s big problem was on offense. Turnovers and missed shots led to fast breaks. We couldn’t get our defense set. Then we started to score were able to se tup our defense and we stopped ‘em. That produced the second 10-2 run. In the 18-35 stretch, the problem was mostly on the defensive end. Our zone became a sieve, even when we were able to set it up. Threes were wide open. Drives into the paint turned us into matadors. We actually wound up with enough points to win most games, 76. But not this one.
- Pitt had 4 points in the first 8:15, a rate of 19 points over 40 minutes. They scored 92 points over the last 31:45, a rate of 116 points over 40 minutes.
- We again got hammered on the boards, 35-47 and again couldn’t make up for it in turnovers, 5-6.
- A very good question was asked during JB’s press conference, although the questioner was a little off in his numbers. He asked if after hitting 32% of our threes last year and 30% this year, (it’s actually 33% and 32%), should we still consider this to be a good shooting team? It’s a good question. You could say that the lack of an inside game enables to the opposition to focus on our shooters but I think we’ve gotten plenty of good looks. As JB says, we’ve got to make shots. The BC game showed what can happen when we do. The guys who are supposed to be our shooters are Buddy Boeheim, Joe Girard and Alan Griffin. Quincy Guerrier has added himself to that list, with Robert Braswell and even Woody Newton able to hit coming off the bench. Griffin is hitting a solid 36.8% of his shots. Guerrier has surprised with 35.5%. Joe Girard was never really a dead-eye in high school. He was more a ‘volume shooter’. He can hit the three and ahs good range. He’s averaging an “I’m not the problem” 33.8%. Braswell, after a terrible start, is hitting only 21.7% but had that run in the first Pitt game. Newton is 40.0%. The real problem is the coach’s son, who is hitting 26.7% after hitting 37.0% last year. In Buddy’s defense, he gets the most attention form the defense and that takes defenders away from his teammates. But if we are going to use the three as a major weapon, especially our major weapon, Buddy’s got to do better than 26.7%. we were 3 for 22 overall in this game. Pitt, supposedly the inferior shooting team, hit 34.8%.
- Bourama Sidibe was injured November 27th and was supposed to be out for 4 weeks. Justin Champagnie was injured December 20th and was supposed to be out 6-8 weeks. So, in a game played on January 16th, Champagnie scores 24 points and pulls down 16 rebounds. Bourama Sidibe: DNP.
- I was hopeful of this team breaking us our of our rut of mediocrity of recent seasons, (and giving us something to cheer about after the collapse of the football side). In retrospect, any hopes of that ended four minutes into the season when Bourama Sidibe went down. That and the lack of progress of his back-ups has robbed us on the boards, on inside scoring and on defense. We are trying to beat ACC teams with nothing but forwards and guards. Yeah, maybe Bryant and northeastern are better than people realize but if we are scraping by them, we aren’t going to do much in the ACC. I am now fearful for our 50 year streak of winning seasons.
- This was the first game this year that we weren’t in coming down the stretch. We could have been 10-0 going into this one. And with this performance, we would have been 10-1.
- It was also the first game where I thought the effort lagged. The quality of effort can change from game to game but the quantity of effort should be consistent. The second half of this reminded me of the 12/21/16 game against St. John’s in the Dome where the Johnnies spent the whole second half fast-breaking and dunking on us. It also reminded me of the 2/23/70 game at Pittsburgh. The Panthers came into that averaging 65 points a game. We scored 71 points in a half – and lost by 19, 108-127. That’s’ the most points SU has ever surrendered. If you thought this one wasn’t fun…
- In the first game, we scored the first 11 points. Later, we had an 18 point lead. Pitt got it down to 4 and, thanks to Robert Braswell, we pushed it back out to 16. Teams don’t usually twice come back from deficits like that but Pitt did. In this game Pitt missed their first 10 shots and we took a 9 point lead. They came back to take the lead at 27-30. We went on a 10-2 to close the half and seemed in pretty good shape. Pitt opened the second half with an 11-27 run for an 11 point lead. We responded with another 10-2 run and it looked like it might go down to the wire. That’s when our effort collapsed and the rest of the game was 18-35. The team that kept going throughout both games won both games. It wasn’t us.
- The game had a weird flow to it. The second half got off to a horrendous start for SU with 4 turnovers in the first 4:22, during which we were out-scored 7-15. How many turnovers did we have in the rest of the game? 1. During that first Panther run, SU’s big problem was on offense. Turnovers and missed shots led to fast breaks. We couldn’t get our defense set. Then we started to score were able to se tup our defense and we stopped ‘em. That produced the second 10-2 run. In the 18-35 stretch, the problem was mostly on the defensive end. Our zone became a sieve, even when we were able to set it up. Threes were wide open. Drives into the paint turned us into matadors. We actually wound up with enough points to win most games, 76. But not this one.
- Pitt had 4 points in the first 8:15, a rate of 19 points over 40 minutes. They scored 92 points over the last 31:45, a rate of 116 points over 40 minutes.
- We again got hammered on the boards, 35-47 and again couldn’t make up for it in turnovers, 5-6.
- A very good question was asked during JB’s press conference, although the questioner was a little off in his numbers. He asked if after hitting 32% of our threes last year and 30% this year, (it’s actually 33% and 32%), should we still consider this to be a good shooting team? It’s a good question. You could say that the lack of an inside game enables to the opposition to focus on our shooters but I think we’ve gotten plenty of good looks. As JB says, we’ve got to make shots. The BC game showed what can happen when we do. The guys who are supposed to be our shooters are Buddy Boeheim, Joe Girard and Alan Griffin. Quincy Guerrier has added himself to that list, with Robert Braswell and even Woody Newton able to hit coming off the bench. Griffin is hitting a solid 36.8% of his shots. Guerrier has surprised with 35.5%. Joe Girard was never really a dead-eye in high school. He was more a ‘volume shooter’. He can hit the three and ahs good range. He’s averaging an “I’m not the problem” 33.8%. Braswell, after a terrible start, is hitting only 21.7% but had that run in the first Pitt game. Newton is 40.0%. The real problem is the coach’s son, who is hitting 26.7% after hitting 37.0% last year. In Buddy’s defense, he gets the most attention form the defense and that takes defenders away from his teammates. But if we are going to use the three as a major weapon, especially our major weapon, Buddy’s got to do better than 26.7%. we were 3 for 22 overall in this game. Pitt, supposedly the inferior shooting team, hit 34.8%.
- Bourama Sidibe was injured November 27th and was supposed to be out for 4 weeks. Justin Champagnie was injured December 20th and was supposed to be out 6-8 weeks. So, in a game played on January 16th, Champagnie scores 24 points and pulls down 16 rebounds. Bourama Sidibe: DNP.
- I was hopeful of this team breaking us our of our rut of mediocrity of recent seasons, (and giving us something to cheer about after the collapse of the football side). In retrospect, any hopes of that ended four minutes into the season when Bourama Sidibe went down. That and the lack of progress of his back-ups has robbed us on the boards, on inside scoring and on defense. We are trying to beat ACC teams with nothing but forwards and guards. Yeah, maybe Bryant and northeastern are better than people realize but if we are scraping by them, we aren’t going to do much in the ACC. I am now fearful for our 50 year streak of winning seasons.
