This Tournament Really is an Indictment of our Strategy

[General20]

I don’t necessarily agree with your takes in this thread, but I understand your arguments.

But your above statement I don’t agree with. Plenty of teams can crack the code on being able to have multiple defenses. If we can’t do that, it’s an indictment on our coaches.

Btw, I can’t imagine us not playing 97% zone and some press while JB is still here. I don’t think he’s changing no matter what.

Has any team in basketball history played any defense as consistently excellently as Syracuse has in the zone?

 

[FrancoPizza]

First of all, Syracuse played 2 defenses in that game.

You’re calling the desperation press a defense? When that’s rolled out, I can hear Bones getting ready to say “games over jimmy”.

General - just so we get this on the record, do you find it acceptable that we play a 2-3 zone that doesn’t challenge deep shooters beyond the line 100% of the time with no plan B?

 

[SaltLakeOrange]

No that's not the point at all. My point is that our players played badly. Zone in and of itself is neither good nor bad. You can play a zone that stops people from hitting 3's (we do it a lot). You can play a bad zone (which we did last night). The only thing I am opposing is the idea that the zone is obsolete and you have to adjust it to a man to man D instead of adjusting how you play the zone.

So you are saying that the zone is the only defense you need to play to be successful. You just need to play it well. Just a question though...What happens if you don’t?

JB’s approach is to double down...Recent history shows that without the exact right set of personnel we are going to lose.

Hell, nothing we could of tried on Thursday would of been worse than seeing Buddy and Tyus and OB getting schooled.

 

[MikeSU02]

Has any team in basketball history played any defense as consistently excellently as Syracuse has in the zone?

I reject that we play the zone consistently excellent.

We’re using stats that are season-long averages or compilations. So is it consistent in terms of averages over the course of five years or so? Sure.

But to answer your question, Virginia. And they actually have been excellent over the time of last five years or so.

 

[General20]

So you are saying that the zone is the only defense you need to play to be successful. You just need to play it well. Just a question though...What happens if you don’t?

JB’s approach is to double down...Recent history shows that without the exact right set of personnel we are going to lose.

Hell, nothing we could of tried on Thursday would of been worse than seeing Buddy and Tyus and OB getting schooled.

That is the first some criticism I agree with.

No defense is perfect, and basketball is an offensive game meaning good O beats good D.

But the biggest weakness with the zone is that you can't hide a weak defender in zone as easilybas you can in man. When one guy is bad defensively it can hurt your whole system.

 

[General20]

I reject that we play the zone consistently excellent.

We’re using stats that are season-long averages or compilations. So is it consistent in terms of averages over the course of five years or so? Sure.

But to answer your question, Virginia. And they actually have been excellent over the time of last five years or so.

You're not wrong about Virginia but you are also taking the worst 5 year sample of Boeheim's 40+ year career, and even during that bad stretch only one team out of 350+ stands out as being consistently better than us defensively.

 

[CardiacCuse]

No that's not the point at all. My point is that our players played badly. Zone in and of itself is neither good nor bad. You can play a zone that stops people from hitting 3's (we do it a lot). You can play a bad zone (which we did last night). The only thing I am opposing is the idea that the zone is obsolete and you have to adjust it to a man to man D instead of adjusting how you play the zone.

unfortunately i think its a generational thing that these players are less-coachable and that mitigates the idea of the master string-puller coach making micro-adjustments. some of the buckets su gives up are keystone cops level bad...they dont know how to rotate until 2 or 3 years in (if that! - 6 wasnt enough for chukwu) but no one stays that long anymore...and the really good players wanna shine from day 1...(and the y'd better if you wanna keep getting em) so you are trading the zone for mid-major type players who don't wanna stay as long as mid major players do...might as just stop going after top 100 recruits...and find the gems...the actual basketball players who arent nba sized...but then...you gotta ask is the scheme THAT GOOD that it is worth not going after top 100 recruits for?????????

in my opinion talent trumps everything...that's why coach K gets titles and even calipari could get 1.

thats why SU finally won a title once they got a carmelo level star...and never before or since.

there just arent the super long pteradactyl players out there WITH high basketball iq that ALSO know how to play this style of zone that are ALSO great on offense...that arent 1 and dones going to kentucky or duke.

Yes...it CAN work...with the exact right players.

without those perfect players it is a sieve...in the age of steph curry it will only get worse...there are gads of elementary kids out there right now who want to be him and harden with the step back 3s...shhheee there are gads of no-name mid major players out there ready to light it up RIGHT NOW. trae young came outta nowehere...steph curry clone. i think setting up to let these guys launch 3 after 3 will get you 19-22 wins and maybe a 8-12 seed on the reg.

 

[Ghost]

I agree with you that the game has changed and there are way more 3s taken from way further behind the line than we saw a generation ago. I'm very much looking forward to having a guy on our team next year (JG3) who bombs away and stretches the opponents' D. Pairing him with Buddy might be awesome.

But having said that, I believe your contention that the zone was great up until 2010, but is not so great at defending today's game to be inaccurate. Here are SU's AdjD rankings from 2010-11 through 2018-19:
2010-11: 17th
2011-12: 16th
2012-13: 6th
2013-14: 13th
2014-15: 20th
2015-16: 18th
2016-17: 119th
2017-18: 5th
2018-19: 30th

The Zone has been and continues to be very effective - year after year. There has been no real measurable downturn since 2010.

Out of curiosity, and for the sake of comparison, because I'm no stat guru:

Where do we rank in the ACC???

Where do Virginia (great defensive team) and Duke (typically bad defensive team) typically rank in that category as it gets thrown around a lot as validation?

 

[General20]

unfortunately i think its a generational thing that these players are less-coachable and that mitigates the idea of the master string-puller coach making micro-adjustments. some of the buckets su gives up are keystone cops level bad...they dont know how to rotate until 2 or 3 years in (if that! - 6 wasnt enough for chukwu) but no one stays that long anymore...and the really good players wanna shine from day 1...(and the y'd better if you wanna keep getting em) so you are trading the zone for mid-major type players who don't wanna stay as long as mid major players do...might as just stop going after top 100 recruits...and find the gems...the actual basketball players who arent nba sized...but then...you gotta ask is the scheme THAT GOOD that it is worth not going after 100 recruits for?????????

there just arent the super long pteradactyl players out there WITH high basketball iq that also know how to play this style of zone...that aret 1 and dones goi ng to kentucky or duke.

Yes...it CAN work...with the exact right players.

without those perfect players it is a sieve...in the age of steph curry it will only get worse...there are gads of elementary kids out there right now who want to be him and harden with the step back 3s.

I think that's a bit extreme. Syracuse had one of the best defenses I've ever seen just last year. And this year they were above average despite playing what the 8th or 9th most difficult schedule in the country.

 

[Jasoncuse]

I am more concerned about the offense than the defense.

We struggle shooting.
Our bigs can’t do anything offensively.
Our passing is not good.
We don’t finish at the rim well.

Most of our problems are related to offense and not defense.

Well we’ve also focused on recruiting long guards over pure PG’s and shooters for the zone, which has impacted our offense. We’ve also focused on height and wingspan at C over basketball skill in order to have that in the middle of the zone. That’s made us more one-dimensional on O as we normally play 4 on 5.

The defensive system had its “fingerprints” all over our offensive issues. A guy like Girard is different so hopefully he can successfully make the leap to the D1 level. It may be tough for him to see the court though if his D isn’t what JB wants.

 

[samspann1]

Good teams score lots of points. We held Duke below their season average twice, and held Buffalo 15 points under their season average.

Duke scored over 90 against us when Zion played. What was their season average?

 

[Jzsshuttles]

I think that's a bit extreme. Syracuse had one of the best defenses I've ever seen just last year. And this year they were above average despite playing what the 8th or 9th most difficult schedule in the country.

Prisoners of the moment

 

[CardiacCuse]

I think that's a bit extreme. Syracuse had one of the best defenses I've ever seen just last year. And this year they were above average despite playing what the 8th or 9th most difficult schedule in the country.

the bad offense is a product of these long players that cant pass or dribble...so the "good defense" that gave up maaad points and a lot of career highs and 16 3s to baylor (whihc is really what matters most)...also is limiting the offense too so it shouldnt be only counted as a great defense...b/c it is also the reason that the squad cannot play good offensive basketball too.

 

[General20]

Duke scored over 90 against us when Zion played. What was their season average?

I think I remember 85. Obviously that was the one game of the three where they scored over their average.

 

[CardiacCuse]

I think that's a bit extreme. Syracuse had one of the best defenses I've ever seen just last year. And this year they were above average despite playing what the 8th or 9th most difficult schedule in the country.

go back and watch some of the fumbling and bumbling marek and oshae did vs baylor...becuase they were CONFUSED about where to be/who to cover...let alone the gaurds buddy/carey...there's a lot of things you could call that but "good" wouldnt be one of them, imo.

WIDE OPEN3 after WIDE OPEN 3 - not good. not close.

man to man defense is not confusing you have a man you cover him. period. would wonders for low bball iq players.

 

[Ghost]

Well we’ve also focused on recruiting long guards over pure PG’s and shooters for the zone, which has impacted our offense. We’ve also focused on height and wingspan at C over basketball skill in order to have that in the middle of the zone. That’s made us more one-dimensional on O as we normally play 4 on 5.

The defensive system had its “fingerprints” all over our offensive issues. A guy like Girard is different so hopefully he can successfully make the leap to the D1 level. It may be tough for him to see the court though if his D isn’t what JB wants.

I think this is the most legitimate gripe, but it manifests itself in the Zone vs. M2M debate. We've ignored some things a bit too much, offensively adept point guards in particular, with some Center problems thrown in, in a strange seemingly endless quest to create the ultimate zone.

It's fine if you have an MCW, or Silent G, but it's playing with fire otherwise.

Ultimately, if you play this style you're asking to be involved in A TON OF CLOSE GAMES.....and it's a pretty explosive situation if you don't have a serviceable point guard. Frank Howard was about as pedestrian as it comes in that regard, and Carey may be better suited for shooting guard as well. We shall see!

 

[malpearl31]

Out of curiosity, and for the sake of comparison, because I'm no stat guru:

Where do we rank in the ACC???

Where do Virginia (great defensive team) and Duke (typically bad defensive team) typically rank in that category as it gets thrown around a lot as validation?

Since we joined the ACC, here are our conference-only rankings in AdjO & AdjD:
2013-14: 6th in AdjO / 2nd in AdjD (Virginia ranked 2nd & 1st; Duke ranked 1st & 7th)
2014-15: 11th in AdjO / 6th in AdjD (Virginia ranked 6th & 1st; Duke again ranked 1st & 7th)
2015-16: 11th in AdjO / 4th in AdjD (Virginia ranked 4th & 2nd; Duke ranked 2nd & 9th)
2016-17: 5th in AdjO / 9th in AdjD (Virginia ranked 11th & 1st; Duke ranked 2nd & 8th)
2017-18: 12th in AdjO / 5th in AdjD (Virginia ranked 6th & 1st; Duke ranked 2nd & 2nd)
2018-19: 9th in AdjO / 7th in AdjD (Virginia ranked 1st & 1st; Duke ranked 4th & 4th)

 

[SWC75]

That’s exactly my point. The zone requires precision execution to be effective. We had little precision all year. Maybe JB should consider walking back his post LeMoyne edict and at least try to play m2m. Hell, these players were in grade school when that happened. And they grow up playing m2m. I must be missing something because all I keep seeing are teams scorching us and us having no answer defensively.

And man for man doesn't? Zones are used to hide defensive deficiencies . Are those deficiencies going to disappear if we suddenly start playing man? If we aren't active enough to make a zone work, are we suddenly going to be running around covering people in a man for man?

Reviewing the rest of the thread, I think the point about not evaluating the zone based on a game in which we had an out-of position point guard with a bad back and freshman in the back court is s good one.

Dismissing year long statistics and statistics taken over a series of years is nonsense. That establishes the norm. The point about being able to adjust to individual opponents is a good one but the statements that JB never adjusts the zone are wrong. We can collapse it in for poor shooting teams. We can extend it for others and this stats suggest we've done this over the years. We can also get aggressive with traps and we usual win the turnover battle in the zone. A poorly played zone is not a bad strategical concept.

You can't dismiss the good defensive performances we've had in the zone, such as last year's tournament and then say that the times the opponent has gone off from three point range like Virginia and Baylor should take precedence over the over all stats. if individual bad games matter, so do individual good games.

And, by the way, Baylor didn't suck. the gave Gonzaga a good battle and i still think we would have beaten Baylor with Frank.

 

[malpearl31]

these stats are meaningless when you play 1 team that decimates you.

no one cares or should care about season-long stat rankings - it is the big games that count - and if you are praying hoping that GOOD teams are going to miss a bunch of 3s you're going to be shaking the baylor's of the worlds hands and thinking about vacation on the reg.

PS Baylor sux

I don't think you're going to get a lot of support for your statement "no one cares or should care about season-long stat rankings". That's one of the silliest comments I've seen over the last few days, which is quite an accomplishment given what's been posted recently.

By your logic, Virginia should abandon their "pack line defense" strategy (Top 25 defense in the country for 8 years running!), because "in the big games" they've come up short. They were "praying and hoping" that Malachi would go cold in the 2016 Elite 8 game, and their strategy failed. And then it failed again last year when they lost to UMBC! By your logic, Tony Bennett should completely revamp his defensive strategy based on the fact that his teams regularly get decimated in the tourney.

Good grief.

 

[syrBossHogg]

Our recruiting philosophy for picking players that fit the zone first at the expense of offensive talent is the main reason for our decline the past few years (see: Frank Howard over Jalen Brunson.) Nobody ever complained about our zone during our glory years even though they weren't our best defenses. Why? Because we actually had good offenses to overcome the hot shooting nights by the other team.

 

[malpearl31]

Dismissing year long statistics and statistics taken over a series of years is nonsense. That establishes the norm. The point about being able to adjust to individual opponents is a good one but the statements that JB never adjusts the zone are wrong. We can collapse it in for poor shooting teams. We can extend it for others and this stats suggest we've done this over the years. We can also get aggressive with traps and we usual win the turnover battle in the zone. A poorly played zone is not a bad strategical concept.

I agree with your entire post - but especially this paragraph. It's idiotic to dismiss year-long and historical season statistics, I can't believe people are making that argument.

 

[General20]

Our recruiting philosophy for picking players that fit the zone first at the expense of offensive talent is the main reason for our decline the past few years (see: Frank Howard over Jalen Brunson.) Nobody ever complained about our zone during our glory years even though they weren't our best defenses. Why? Because we actually had good offenses to overcome the hot shooting nights by the other team.

Our first choice point guards have almost never been prototypical zone players.

McNamara wasn't a prototypical zone player.
Flynn wasn't.
Jardine wan't.
MCW was.
Joseph wasn't (Gbinije was a plan B).
Gillon wasn't.
Quade Green wasn't (Howard was a plan B).

 

[General20]

You’re calling the desperation press a defense? When that’s rolled out, I can hear Bones getting ready to say “games over jimmy”.

General - just so we get this on the record, do you find it acceptable that we play a 2-3 zone that doesn’t challenge deep shooters beyond the line 100% of the time with no plan B?

Press is a defense. Am I crazy? Why wouldn't the press be a defense?

You can play a zone that challenges any player at any spot on the court. A zone can be adjusted in unlimited ways. Syracuse had one of the best defenses I've ever seen anybody play last year, playing zone with zero NBA talent and only one blue chip recruit. Its a solid option.

 

[syrBossHogg]

Our first choice point guards have almost never been prototypical zone players.

McNamara wasn't a prototypical zone player.
Flynn wasn't.
Jardine wan't.
MCW was.
Joseph wasn't (Gbinije was a plan B).
Gillon wasn't.
Quade Green wasn't (Howard was a plan B).

The first four guards you mentioned were during our glory days, I'm talking since we started playing in the ACC. I have no problem with the staff prioritizing Kaleb Joseph because he was highly rated and the expectation was that Ennis was going to return for his Sophomore year and help groom him. But Frank Howard committed to SU in April 2014 if I recall which was way before Quade Green was even being recruited. We took Frank over Jalen Brunson, who was a 3 year starter at Nova and an immediate contributor his freshman year, whereas Frank didn't really bring meaningful contributions until his junior year.

 

[General20]

The first four guards you mentioned were during our glory days, I'm talking since we started playing in the ACC. I have no problem with the staff prioritizing Kaleb Joseph because he was highly rated and the expectation was that Ennis was going to return for his Sophomore year and help groom him. But Frank Howard committed to SU in April 2014 if I recall which was way before Quade Green was even being recruited. We took Frank over Jalen Brunson, who was a 3 year starter at Nova and an immediate contributor his freshman year, whereas Frank didn't really bring meaningful contributions until his junior year.

Yeah I heard Boeheim admit that passing on Jalen was a mistake. Nobody is 100% on these things.

But he tried to recruit over Howard with Quade Green, got the verbal commitment, and then it obviously just didn't happen. My overall point is, I think a bust or two and some missed recruits is the reason we have been weak at point guard, and not because Boeheim is trying to play a 6-5 player at point guard just for the zone. Gbinije was quite clearly a plan B, and I'm 99% positive Howard was never our first choice guy either.

Also I forgot Ennis on my list, how could I have done that??