Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="TheCusian, post: 2628907, member: 2585"]
This is the gap in your logic. With Shafer, there was no room for error. The efficiency had to be great to even get close. We lost more close games under Shafer because we had declining talent levels, bad HC decisions, too much trust in the D and not enough in the O, and no room to be inefficient. And with slow, methodical drives we’d not have enough time. We’d be down 10 in the 4th and most here would say with confidence that it was over.

Under Babers - it takes more to be truly out of it. Does tempo allow the opposing team more chances too? Sure. But in games with a lot of plays and possession  you have more cushion. Down 10 with 4 min left, I’m thinking we’ll do it. That’s why you play this way with the talent pool historically available to us.

The best way to think of it is that it’s like boxing. Jabbing and dancing against a superior fighter gives you more chances to outlast a tired opponent, more chances means more moments where you can get the opponent where you can take advantage, and if you find yourself down on the scorecard you have time and energy to take advantage (you train exclusively for this kind of fight). Dino’s system provides this. Shafer was slow and methodical- you get 3-4 chances for a knockout and you miss? Lights out. Better opponents could see it coming and punched harder.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?