Villanova

[orangecuse]

A lot of Philly fans, like me, were fans of the Big Five going back a long ways. I'm thrilled for Villanova. Especially since Jay Wright reversed what that weasel Rollie Massamino did--he recommitted 'Nova to the tradition of the Big 5. People who didn't grow up in this area with that history can't relate to it.

This team reminds me of a Big 5 team in that we're talking about players who grew within the system. While people on the board can argue about whether they were 3 or 4 stars, what they weren't were one-and-doners. And they didn't place individual stats above team goals.

I think it's less about 'Nova's style of play and more about building a team around the philosophy of having players grow within the system. It's a viable alternative to the Kentucky and, yes, Duke models of bringing in 5 AA's every year and watching them leave.

One could argue though it's indeed the case, synonymous so to speak. 'Nova building a team around the philosophy of having players grow within the system,' is seemingly a main ingredient to their style of play.

Syracuse, throughout JB's long tenure at the helm, has been a system type program, and what has been probably the most significant reason for SU's /JB's success and longevity of it. We seldom land the elite or Mickey D caliber recruit. Yes there has been several, but over JB's long career it's a very small number, relatively speaking. I don't think JB has wavered too much, or any at all from this philosophy, but rather the current environment that has changed. The vast majority of our recruits fall or have fallen in the top 35-100 range, a range that not too long ago got you at least 3 years and even 4 in many. Nowadays, if these guys blow up or have highly successful years, we can't seem to keep any of them past their sophomore years. Additionally, in the past, many of our guys who were in the system would make a big jump come their junior years, be significant contributors as upperclassmen, etc., though not really quite star level. We have seemed to have lost those types, the core and foundation of our system. That, along with the unforeseen one and two year types have really had an impact on the program and its continuity of high success year after year.

 

[HOFCeluck]

I'm gonna get in on this thread now because I see a lot of potential.

 

[TinyManInside]

The difference between here and the Ivy Inn is how sensitive people are to anyone challenging their opinions.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[samspann1]

Not that this would be news to you, but I think Boeheim is a smart guy with a huge amount of experience who wants to win every game more than anybody, including any poster on this forum. So on matters of strategy or players, he knows what he is doing. The likelihood that someone watching games in the family room actually sees something he is doing that is wrong or has a better idea is almost nonexistent.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that a basketball fan watching a game at home who disagrees with JB on personnel, tactical or strategical matters is virtually certain to be wrong?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I'm gonna get in on this thread now because I see a lot of potential.

Jumping in with you!

 

[CuseFaninVT]

The perpetual drama is what's most tiresome. Would be nice to just have a normal offseason, and be excited about what we're building.

What you are talking about is changing the paradigm of recent SU hoops. Perpetual drama is our "normal offseason" and that's what truly needs to change. I want a complete 180. Guys having amazing summers where they shine in allowable summer leagues/tourneys, great work in the classroom, outstanding gains in the weight room (and dining room), etc...

Is that really too much to ask?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Won’t work.

This is a disgruntled fan who declares SU to be an eyesore and no fun to watch.

Sounds like he’s on the way out the door since he is unfettered by any connection to the school other than being a fan of the way things used to be.

Are you of the opinion that typical SU basketball as has been played in recent memory isn't an eyesore? Have you watched any pundits talk on this issue? It's kind of a common theme.

And I personally think the reason many of us hate it is not related to results. It's that we used to mock the UVA's and the Pitt's for that brand of basketball. And now we are the show piece for limiting possessions and not running a fluid offense. We've become what we despised.

 

[Townie72]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that a basketball fan watching a game at home who disagrees with JB on personnel, tactical or strategical matters is virtually certain to be wrong?

YES!

 

[Townie72]

Are you of the opinion that typical SU basketball as has been played in recent memory isn't an eyesore? Have you watched any pundits talk on this issue? It's kind of a common theme.

And I personally think the reason many of us hate it is not related to results. It's that we used to mock the UVA's and the Pitt's for that brand of basketball. And now we are the show piece for limiting possessions and not running a fluid offense. We've become what we despised.

First of all the idea is to win games not to please that part of the audience with the shortest attention spans. Wanna watch teams running up and down the floor scoring at will? ... that's what the NBA does.

I like defensive basketball. I always have. Bill Russell, one of the greatest players ever had almost no offensive skills nor did his teammate, "Duck" Cheney.

I love to see these opposing teams start to panic as the 30 second clock wears down passing the ball around the perimeter looking for a shot. In the Georgetown game, on one of the first plays the GU guard dribbled into the corner and was trapped and stripped. Nothing better than that.

And that passing around the perimeter trying to getthe zone to fail on the part of our opponent are a principle reason for the limited number of possessions in a game.

The offensive is a different story. We run the offense we run because of the players we have and their strengths and limitations. Are you suggesting we reverse that and run the offense the fans like in spite of the players we have?

It's laughable to call for more assists. Until Dolezaj recently, we have had no one Battle and Frank could throw the ball to that could reliably catch the ball and do anything with it (except get stripped). Our offensive options are pretty much limited to driving the lane and jacking up three's.

Mocking Pitt? You were mocking Pitt? They kicked our azzes for years. If anyone was mocking Pitt, it was sour grapes.

And finally pundits and the opinions of pundits? Which of these guys are you talking about from this collection of failed coaches and used-to-be-stars?

 

[Fly Rodder]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that a basketball fan watching a game at home who disagrees with JB on personnel, tactical or strategical matters is virtually certain to be wrong?

You're not new here ... how are you unfamiliar with Townie?

 

[HOFCeluck]

Mocking Pitt? You were mocking Pitt? They kicked our azzes for years. If anyone was mocking Pitt, it was sour grapes.

I am not entirely sure you know what the expression "sour grapes" means.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

First of all the idea is to win games not to please that part of the audience with the shortest attention spans. Wanna watch teams running up and down the floor scoring at will? ... that's what the NBA does.

I like defensive basketball. I always have. Bill Russell, one of the greatest players ever had almost no offensive skills nor did his teammate, "Duck" Cheney.

I love to see these opposing teams start to panic as the 30 second clock wears down passing the ball around the perimeter looking for a shot. In the Georgetown game, on one of the first plays the GU guard dribbled into the corner and was trapped and stripped. Nothing better than that.

And that passing around the perimeter trying to getthe zone to fail on the part of our opponent are a principle reason for the limited number of possessions in a game.

The offensive is a different story. We run the offense we run because of the players we have and their strengths and limitations. Are you suggesting we reverse that and run the offense the fans like in spite of the players we have?

It's laughable to call for more assists. Until Dolezaj recently, we have had no one Battle and Frank could throw the ball to that could reliably catch the ball and do anything with it (except get stripped). Our offensive options are pretty much limited to driving the lane and jacking up three's.

Mocking Pitt? You were mocking Pitt? They kicked our azzes for years. If anyone was mocking Pitt, it was sour grapes.

And finally pundits and the opinions of pundits? Which of these guys are you talking about from this collection of failed coaches and used-to-be-stars?

I'm with you on defense. Our defense, when working at it's best, is a joy to watch for me as well.

I differ with you on offense. We have had talented players here in recent years and our offense isn't used to best match their talents. This year, I can't really argue with you. But I saw a lot of G and Cooney passing back and forth and not getting others involved. And really, there is never a need for Chukwu to set a pick 30 feet from the basket. If you want him to just get out of the lane, fine, have him set an off-ball screen. But he just gums up the works when he's setting the pick for the ball handler. Our offense becomes stagnant intentionally, and that's what's tough for people to watch. Not pushing the ball unless we are going for an uncontested layup/dunk... That's what makes everyone call it a rock fight.

Who do you need to hear from as a pundit that you would respect?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

First of all the idea is to win games not to please that part of the audience with the shortest attention spans. Wanna watch teams running up and down the floor scoring at will? ... that's what the NBA does.

I like defensive basketball. I always have. Bill Russell, one of the greatest players ever had almost no offensive skills nor did his teammate, "Duck" Cheney.

I love to see these opposing teams start to panic as the 30 second clock wears down passing the ball around the perimeter looking for a shot. In the Georgetown game, on one of the first plays the GU guard dribbled into the corner and was trapped and stripped. Nothing better than that.

And that passing around the perimeter trying to getthe zone to fail on the part of our opponent are a principle reason for the limited number of possessions in a game.

The offensive is a different story. We run the offense we run because of the players we have and their strengths and limitations. Are you suggesting we reverse that and run the offense the fans like in spite of the players we have?

It's laughable to call for more assists. Until Dolezaj recently, we have had no one Battle and Frank could throw the ball to that could reliably catch the ball and do anything with it (except get stripped). Our offensive options are pretty much limited to driving the lane and jacking up three's.

Mocking Pitt? You were mocking Pitt? They kicked our azzes for years. If anyone was mocking Pitt, it was sour grapes.

And finally pundits and the opinions of pundits? Which of these guys are you talking about from this collection of failed coaches and used-to-be-stars?

Here is one 'pundit's' opinion you may respect.

"When you don't make shots and you gotta drive, it becomes a hard game. We don't run set plays to get shots because we can't make 'em. So we're trying to create some movement, create some driving situations. And the one thing is with their two big guys down there it's a little harder to get there. That's the way we have to try to score for the most part."

"Our offense is terrible," he said. "It's been terrible all year. How many teams are in this league? 14? 15? We're lucky that there's one team worse than us offensively. We've had an occasional game or two in there. But not many. It's a struggle for us to score."

 

[HOFCeluck]

Here is one 'pundit's' opinion you may respect.

"When you don't make shots and you gotta drive, it becomes a hard game. We don't run set plays to get shots because we can't make 'em. So we're trying to create some movement, create some driving situations. And the one thing is with their two big guys down there it's a little harder to get there. That's the way we have to try to score for the most part."

"Our offense is terrible," he said. "It's been terrible all year. How many teams are in this league? 14? 15? We're lucky that there's one team worse than us offensively. We've had an occasional game or two in there. But not many. It's a struggle for us to score."

Sounds like that guy should go root for Siena.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Another guy who indicates our offense is tough to watch...

“We just aren’t good on that end (offense) of the court,” he added. “Where we struggle is on that end. On defense, if you like defense, it’s good to watch. But our offense has struggled and that gets difficult sometimes. I don’t like to watch it sometimes.”

 

[Townie72]

Here is one 'pundit's' opinion you may respect.

"When you don't make shots and you gotta drive, it becomes a hard game. We don't run set plays to get shots because we can't make 'em. So we're trying to create some movement, create some driving situations. And the one thing is with their two big guys down there it's a little harder to get there. That's the way we have to try to score for the most part."

"Our offense is terrible," he said. "It's been terrible all year. How many teams are in this league? 14? 15? We're lucky that there's one team worse than us offensively. We've had an occasional game or two in there. But not many. It's a struggle for us to score."

What is the point that you are trying to make with these Boeheim quotes?

And more importantly what's the solution?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

What is the point that you are trying to make with these Boeheim quotes?

And more importantly what's the solution?

My point is that many people agree that our offense is challenged at best. We need to make some changes. Hopefully the new talent will help with that, but it's also a scheme issue.

I'm with Alsacs. Bring in a new offensive coordinator.

 

[Townie72]

I am not entirely sure you know what the expression "sour grapes" means.

Actually, I do and it fits almost perfectly.

Pitt beat us continually. The response of some was "well Pitt's offense is ugly"? The demean what they cannot beat as not being artful enough for their tastes.

The fox demeaned the grapes as being sour because he was angry he couldn't get them.

Class over.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Actually, I do and it fits almost perfectly.

Pitt beat us continually. The response of some was "well Pitt's offense is ugly"? The demean what they cannot beat as not being artful enough for their tastes.

The fox demeaned the grapes as being sour because he was angry he couldn't get them.

Class over.

I mean, we'd be saying that regardless because they were, in fact, ugly to watch.

Just because I thought they played ugly on offense didn't diminish my desire to beat them.

 

[Townie72]

My point is that many people agree that our offense is challenged at best. We need to make some changes. Hopefully the new talent will help with that, but it's also a scheme issue.

I'm with Alsacs. Bring in a new offensive coordinator.

Whooa!

Everybody in the basketball world knew the offense was challenged.

Now to your observation "We need to make some changes".

Ahh yes, I think I'm beginning to see the logic here. If we improve the offense without degrading the defense we will win more games.

But now the tricky part .. how to do this.

Bring in an offensive coordinator? I assume that's a basketball genius who could see how to take the players we have and create a better more effective scheme. (Sounds like a page right out of the college football or pro football section of the newspaper.) Now it may have escaped your notice, but football teams have different players on defense than are on offense and the transition between offense and defense typically takes some time to shuffle these different squads on to and off the field.

A "new" offensive coordinator" I was unaware we had an "old" offensive coordinator to replace with a new one. What this really is is a coach that replaces Boeheim as the offensive strategist and relegates Jim to coaching the defensive end of the floor.

Is there any schools you might point to that have used this "hire a new offensive coordinator" approach that have done this successfully (or at all)?

Do you have any suggestions on who SU might be able to get to do this?

Or is it your and Alsac's job to point out whats needed and someone else's to work out the details?

 

[Townie72]

I mean, we'd be saying that regardless because they were, in fact, ugly to watch.

Just because I thought they played ugly on offense didn't diminish my desire to beat them.

I don't remember them being particularly ugly.

What is this fascination with style points anyway?

They were always physical and tough. The refs seemed to somehow give them a pass on that rough stuff.

And they always seemed to have one or two guys that they could put at the foul line who could reliably make that 15 foot shot or pass into the basket where one of their bigs would actually catch the ball and make the layup. It was like kyptonite to the SU zone.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The refs seemed to somehow give them a pass on that rough stuff.

Kind of feel like you answered your own question here.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Whooa!

Everybody in the basketball world knew the offense was challenged.

Now to your observation "We need to make some changes".

Ahh yes, I think I'm beginning to see the logic here. If we improve the offense without degrading the defense we will win more games.

But now the tricky part .. how to do this.

Bring in an offensive coordinator? I assume that's a basketball genius who could see how to take the players we have and create a better more effective scheme. (Sounds like a page right out of the college football or pro football section of the newspaper.) Now it may have escaped your notice, but football teams have different players on defense than are on offense and the transition between offense and defense typically takes some time to shuffle these different squads on to and off the field.

A "new" offensive coordinator" I was unaware we had an "old" offensive coordinator to replace with a new one. What this really is is a coach that replaces Boeheim as the offensive strategist and relegates Jim to coaching the defensive end of the floor.

Is there any schools you might point to that have used this "hire a new offensive coordinator" approach that have done this successfully (or at all)?

Do you have any suggestions on who SU might be able to get to do this?

Or is it your and Alsac's job to point out whats needed and someone else's to work out the details?

I'm more of a big picture guy.

 

[Townie72]

Kind of feel like you answered your own question here.

What question was that?

I think your point was that Pitt played ugly (for your tastes) and that you were disappointed with SU's current style because it reminded you of Pitt (and did not remind you of the good old days of SU run and gun when Stevie Thompson was getting four or five breakaway dunks a night)

 

[Townie72]

I'm more of a big picture guy.

Man, that's rich.

Hey, this is fun.

The offense is ugly. Fix it.

The players can't shoot. Recruit new ones.

You have probably heard the saying, "The Devil is in the details".

(From one of my Jesuit buddies, the actual quote is "God is in the details")