the game completely changed when Ollie went small

[BostonOrange]

Donovan put bench players in as he has all year. You would have thought that the playing time would have prepared them for this occurrence. Amazingly those 8, 9 and 10 players led to the downfall of the game for Florida. They got taken to the cleaners immediately and gave UConn the first steps in recovering from their bad start. Florida was never the same after UConn got their confidence back. This was a direct result of playing more than 5.5, 6, 6.5 or 7 bench players or whatever.

Bottom line, the game turned as soon as the subs for Florida got playing time. Thats exactly when the tide changed. The going small happened after their bigs got into deep foul trouble.

It didn't help that the Florida team couldn't hit the side of a barn door after the hot start. Guess the bench rests didn't help them much.

well, they played 9 guys not 10 so I don't think the 10th guy really hurt them, aside from maybe some subpar cheering. and the 9th guy only played 2 minutes so not sure how much damage he really did, though you are right as I recall #'s 8 and 9 were on the court when uconn made that run. also uconn also played 9 and their bench seemed to really help them

ps - in 2003 JB played 8 guys double figure minutes in both final four games in, so it's not like he won't do it if the personnel dictates

 

[Cheriehoop]

On the contrary I think 'people like you' are the ones I enjoy conversing with on the board. The board is just like american politics...there are 20% on one side (JB is genius and can do no wrong, Cooney is Ray Allen, etcetc), there are 20% on the other side (JB is an idiot, Cooney is D3), and there are 60% in the middle. And, like in politics, the fringes are the loudest.

Re your point - I think an argument can be made that the zone actually does affect our offense because it limits your lineup flexibility and allows your opponent to dictate tempo.

I guess I don't understand how zone is a crucial factor in dictating tempo unless we were losing the rebounding margin but we didn't. I wish there was a stat for our offensive rebound % converted to a score - bet that stat wouldn't have been pretty.

I also don't see how it would limit lineup flexibility because regardless of the type of defense man or zone, any coach's job would always be to judge if a players' offensive ability would overcome their defensive liability or visa-versa.

We played zone in 2009-2010 and averaged 80 points a game, we averaged a low of 68 points this year. Teams have decided to play deliberate ball against us because our zone is so good that they don't want to challenge us in a running game. The only constant below is that we played zone exclusively yet look at the average scoring variations. If we have scorers we score in the zone. We have lacked balanced scoring options the past 2 years and depended on defense. This year we ranked 199 in D1 scoring offense(uggh) but #55 in scoring defense. Makes me wonder how we would have done this year if we had just had an more average D1 offense fg% around 44.5%. I feel like a poor excuse for SWC with these stats

YEAR SU SCORE OPP SCORE MARGIN SU FG% OPP FG%

2013-2014 68.0 59.2 8.8 .437 .410

2012-2013 70.4 58.7 11.7 .439 .369

2011-2012 74.1 61.0 13.1 .467 .385

2010-2011 73.4 63.3 10.1 .472 .394

2009-2010 80.9 66.4 14.5 .516 .398

2008-2009 80.2 71.7 8.5 .487 .411

We were 8th in TO margin, 19th in team steals, 54th in rebounding margin. Our defense was fine( 3 point fg% defense needs improvement) but our offense this year was putrid(199th in D1). If we had shot our normally poor .439 shooting % instead of our ridiculously horrid .389 against Dayton we would have won - but regardless for how long being such a poor offensive team?

If you look at the NCAA's stats on fg% they have been on a downward trend since the 3 point shot has been introduced.(58.7% n 1987 down to 43.6% in 2011) In fact 3 point% has been decreasing too. 1987-38.4%: 1997-34%: 2007-35%: 2011- 34.5%(moved a foot back in 2008). Bet that has played greatly in JB's belief in the zone.

 

[BostonOrange]

I guess I don't understand how zone is a crucial factor in dictating tempo unless we were losing the rebounding margin but we didn't. What I wish there was a stat for would be offensive rebound % converted to a score - bet that stat wouldn't have been pretty.

I also don't see how it would limit lineup flexibility because regardless of the type of defense man or zone, any coach's job would always be to judge if a players' offensive ability would overcome their defensive liability or visa-versa.

We played zone in 2009-2010 and averaged 80 points a game, we averaged a low of 68 points this year. Teams have decided to play deliberate ball against us because our zone is so good that they don't want to challenge us in a running game. The only constant below is that we played zone exclusively yet look at the average scoring variations. If we have scorers we score in the zone. We have lacked balanced scoring options the past 2 years and depended on defense. This year we ranked 199 in D1 scoring offense(uggh) but #55 in scoring defense. Makes me wonder how we would have done this year if we had just had an more average D1 offense fg% around 44.5%. I feel like a poor excuse for SWC with these stats

YEAR SU SCORE OPP SCORE MARGIN SU FG% OPP FG%

2013-2014 68.0 59.2 8.8 .437 .410

2012-2013 70.4 58.7 11.7 .439 .369

2011-2012 74.1 61.0 13.1 .467 .385

2010-2011 73.4 63.3 10.1 .472 .394

2009-2010 80.9 66.4 14.5 .516 .398

2008-2009 80.2 71.7 8.5 .487 .411

We were 8th in TO margin, 19th in team steals, 54th in rebounding margin. Our defense was fine( 3 point fg% defense needs improvement) but our offense this year was putrid. If we had shot our normally poor .439 shooting % instead of our ridiculously horrid .389 we would have won - but regardless for how long being such a poor offensive team?

If you look at the NCAA's stats on fg% they have been on a downward trend since the 3 point shot has been introduced.(58.7% n 1987 down to 43.6% in 2011) In fact 3 point% has been decreasing too. 1987-38.4%: 1997-34%: 2007-35%: 2011- 34.5%(moved a foot back in 2008). Bet that has played greatly in JB's belief in the zone.

So my opinions...1. On tempo -playing zone doesnt necessarily mean that your opponents dictate tempo - i agree. You can press out of it, halfcourt trap, all kinds of stuff to speed them up. But we dont really do that very much. Generally speaking we play it pretty straight up, which does allow opponents to dictate tempo. One thing our zone does not do is pressure the ball - and ball pressure tends to speed you up. When louisville playszone, which they do quite a bit, they typically pressure out of it. On lineup flexibility the zone absolutely limits what you can do. When is the last time we played 3 guards? When is the last time we playedtwo little guards at the same time? Answer is 2009 (flynn, devo, harris, rautins) and we were horrid on d (but very good on o). So why is man different? Two reasons: ball pressure is one. Little quick guys stink in a zone but their lack of size is mitigated when they can really get into the ball handler (ala napier, siva, etc) The second reason is in a zone they know where you are. If you have a 6'3 guy at the bottom of the zone it is pretty easy to target him with your 6'8 guy. In man you are the one dictating who they guard. I thought it was telling two years ago when we never played scoop-dion-triche at the same time, even though i thnk that would have been a tough lineup to guard As you mentioned it is an offense/defense tradoff and jb in my opinion has just decided that putting 3 little guys on the court is almost never worth it. It is also telling that we never recruit undersized pf's because they cant guard the wing of the zone. Dejaun blair couldnt play here. So after all that im not really a zone hater. If you have the right guys it is really hard to score on. And i also agree that the last two years were about o not d. But...there are tradeoffs with the zone and i do wonder if they are worth it.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I find the critique quite accurate. If it hits home its even better. I didn't know that one side or the other had a time limit on the exchanges. So what is a "rip" if it isn't something along the lines of the opinion that someone had perceived "flaws and frailties". You seem to think this is fact and not opinion. Its a rip, plain and simple. It surely isn't a pat on the back for a job well done. Anyway why does it bother you to know its a rip? Nothing wrong with a rip, if its what you truly believe. I respect that more than wording or PC correctness. Just be honest. Works for me.

The only exposure is the ridiculous start we had and then the reality. Then it was suddenly JB's fault from the Monday morning QB's. Any response to this seems to be dismissed arbitrarily. Seems the questioners don't want any retorts to their opinions. It doesn't work that way.

The "readily exposed" is your opinion and not a fact. Don't get the two confused unless you think you are the God here and not JB. "JB is not a God" seems more dramatic than those refuting the in the know "questioners". So "Sheesh" back at you says the pot to the kettle. You get to chose which of us is which. You're welcome.

Anyway, I hope you take this in stride and we can rally around supporting the program. That part I loved. Way to go.

Thanks, I'm happy that my "critique" met with your approval. Btw- you might wanna look up the word sarcasm in relation to the "God" comment- I'd like to think most everyone understood the context with which I used that remark- but you seemed to enjoy yourself, so...have at it.
JB's "flaws & frailties" are a matter of opinion, and have been stated here ad infinitum by those who hold that opinion, so I won't restate them all. However, IMHO, his biggest flaw is not developing a deep bench. If you disagree with that, how does that then constitute a "rip" on my part? I also disagree with his usual adherence to playing seniors over freshmen, and IMO, not allowing younger players to get comfortable by giving them minutes throughout the season, sometimes even in blowouts. Or how about that he tends to milk the clock, no matter what, when we reach the 5-minute mark with a lead? Yeah...what a "rip" to point that out...
Those are my opinions...if you disagree, fine. But to call that a "rip" seems to suggest a hypersensitivity to all things Boeheim... on the accuser's part. The insinuation seems to be that ANY criticism is negative, any questioning of JB's tactics and philosophies is out-of-place because "he's won a bazillion games and you haven't"... blahblahblah. I also hesitate to add that the man keeps digging his fingers into his nose and I find that distasteful...but I'd better be careful lest that's perceived to be a "rip", by those who might have no problem with that habit. The fact that he DOES in fact love to pick his nose is surely not a subject for debate is it? Or am I being a "Monday morning quarterback" by pointing that out? Just checking...
Bottomline, it seems to me that one man's constructive criticism, is another man's "rip". And, as I can't speak for every critic, my opinion about JB's "failings and flaws" are long-held and not the simple by-product of this year's end-of-season collapse. Also, I agree that blasting players should be off-limits, but I won't play "God"...see what I did there?...and claim that I've NEVER done it. However, I do try to toe the line between legit criticism versus outright bashing. More importantly I have no problem with someone pointing out where they feel I might've crossed a line. So, in that regard- I say thanks for the constructive criticism...or is it a "rip"? It gets so confusing...

 

[SarasotaPaul]

Thanks, I'm happy that my "critique" met with your approval. Btw- you might wanna look up the word sarcasm in relation to the "God" comment- I'd like to think most everyone understood the context with which I used that remark- but you seemed to enjoy yourself, so...have at it.
JB's "flaws & frailties" are a matter of opinion, and have been stated here ad infinitum by those who hold that opinion, so I won't restate them all. However, IMHO, his biggest flaw is not developing a deep bench. If you disagree with that, how does that then constitute a "rip" on my part? I also disagree with his usual adherence to playing seniors over freshmen, and IMO, not allowing younger players to get comfortable by giving them minutes throughout the season, sometimes even in blowouts. Or how about that he tends to milk the clock, no matter what, when we reach the 5-minute mark with a lead? Yeah...what a "rip" to point that out...
Those are my opinions...if you disagree, fine. But to call that a "rip" seems to suggest a hypersensitivity to all things Boeheim... on the accuser's part. The insinuation seems to be that ANY criticism is negative, any questioning of JB's tactics and philosophies is out-of-place because "he's won a bazillion games and you haven't"... blahblahblah. I also hesitate to add that the man keeps digging his fingers into his nose and I find that distasteful...but I'd better be careful lest that's perceived to be a "rip", by those who might have no problem with that habit. The fact that he DOES in fact love to pick his nose is surely not a subject for debate is it? Or am I being a "Monday morning quarterback" by pointing that out? Just checking...
Bottomline, it seems to me that one man's constructive criticism, is another man's "rip". And, as I can't speak for every critic, my opinion about JB's "failings and flaws" are long-held and not the simple by-product of this year's end-of-season collapse. Also, I agree that blasting players should be off-limits, but I won't play "God"...see what I did there?...and claim that I've NEVER done it. However, I do try to toe the line between legit criticism versus outright bashing. More importantly I have no problem with someone pointing out where they feel I might've crossed a line. So, in that regard- I say thanks for the constructive criticism...or is it a "rip"? It gets so confusing...

As for the digging finger being distasteful, I suggest you stop tasting it. Why you would have done that in the first place is bewildering.

And you do seem easily confused. Your side uses the insinuation tactic to its fullest also and that should be noted. Any statement of facts as to how well his tactics work is glossed over by some trite remark such as "wearing orange colored glasses', or JB isn't God, or "stop drinking the Kool ade", or "your just a homer". Maybe not by you but by your cohorts on the other side of the aisle. These are the things that stand out from your side. Criticism is fine, but when facts are presented it would be nice if some would read them, think for hours if need be, and then come back with some other facts to defend their opinion. Otherwise its just a long drawn out thread that some can't bear to follow because those with the facts won't capitulate to those with opinions. Just my opinion.

I looked up the word sarcasm.
It states, and I quote:
1) it is a dumb thing to do in writing as it loses it affect (I have to keep learning this myself all the time)
2) its a way to slither out of an accusation while doing the same thing as the accused.

It is in my dictionary. I'll let you borrow it if you want. Its handy. You can change things as you go along to suit your own needs. Sort of like a living constitution. The last revision will be left up to GOD or me if I'm still around.

Seriously, thanks for your response as it was actually well thought out and fun to read.

Go SU!

 

[DoctorBombay]

As for the digging finger being distasteful, I suggest you stop tasting it. Why you would have done that in the first place is bewildering.

And you do seem easily confused. Your side uses the insinuation tactic to its fullest also and that should be noted. Any statement of facts as to how well his tactics work is glossed over by some trite remark such as "wearing orange colored glasses', or JB isn't God, or "stop drinking the Kool ade", or "your just a homer". Maybe not by you but by your cohorts on the other side of the aisle. These are the things that stand out from your side. Criticism is fine, but when facts are presented it would be nice if some would read them, think for hours if need be, and then come back with some other facts to defend their opinion. Otherwise its just a long drawn out thread that some can't bear to follow because those with the facts won't capitulate to those with opinions. Just my opinion.

I looked up the word sarcasm.
It states, and I quote:
1) it is a dumb thing to do in writing as it loses it affect (I have to keep learning this myself all the time)
2) its a way to slither out of an accusation while doing the same thing as the accused.

It is in my dictionary. I'll let you borrow it if you want. Its handy. You can change things as you go along to suit your own needs. Sort of like a living constitution. The last revision will be left up to GOD or me if I'm still around.

Seriously, thanks for your response as it was actually well thought out and fun to read.

Go SU!

Paranoid much? My "side"..."tactics"..."cohorts"... Really?
I have no "side" and I certainly don't speak for one all-encompassing POV over another. Hence the liberal use of JMHO and IMHO, in all of my postings. Speaking of liberal, that's also why I choose to maintain flexibility and make up my own mind when it comes to things like politics. I hate someone trying to define for me what a "fill-in-the-blank" is supposed to think about an issue. Anyone who is "all" liberal or "all" conservative is, IMHO, basically an idiot. No one "side" has all the answers...be it in sports, politics, or anything else. But I digress.
As for SU bball, I wholeheartedly disagree with the implication which your "side" (I keed, I keed) tends to perpetuate, that as an SU fan, questioning or criticizing JB is seen as some sort of treachery. I read the "grenade-throwers" who post in these threads, and choose to dismiss those that I consider over-the-top. That doesn't mean I"ll always dismiss the entire argument however. But, to each his own.
Finally, sarcasm is often an indication that one doesn't take themselves too seriously. Its a subtle way of getting one's point across, without using a sledgehammer to make the point. I've found it to be an effective way to express a POV or advance an argument, and also maintain a certain level of jocularity. You might wanna try it some time...but that's JMHO.

 

[SarasotaPaul]

Paranoid much? My "side"..."tactics"..."cohorts"... Really?
I have no "side" and I certainly don't speak for one all-encompassing POV over another. Hence the liberal use of JMHO and IMHO, in all of my postings. Speaking of liberal, that's also why I choose to maintain flexibility and make up my own mind when it comes to things like politics. I hate someone trying to define for me what a "fill-in-the-blank" is supposed to think about an issue. Anyone who is "all" liberal or "all" conservative is, IMHO, basically an idiot. No one "side" has all the answers...be it in sports, politics, or anything else. But I digress.
As for SU bball, I wholeheartedly disagree with the implication which your "side" (I keed, I keed) tends to perpetuate, that as an SU fan, questioning or criticizing JB is seen as some sort of treachery. I read the "grenade-throwers" who post in these threads, and choose to dismiss those that I consider over-the-top. That doesn't mean I"ll always dismiss the entire argument however. But, to each his own.
Finally, sarcasm is often an indication that one doesn't take themselves too seriously. Its a subtle way of getting one's point across, without using a sledgehammer to make the point. I've found it to be an effective way to express a POV or advance an argument, and also maintain a certain level of jocularity. You might wanna try it some time...but that's JMHO.

I did try it and you seemed to have missed all of it. Please read all of it again, loosen up, look at the light side. I believe we are agreeing on much more than you think.

 

[DoctorBombay]

I did try it and you seemed to have missed all of it. Please read all of it again, loosen up, look at the light side. I believe we are agreeing on much more than you think.

Oh, I got it, Paul. Just bustin' your balls...no worries!