Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Consigliere, post: 2396658, member: 559"]
First of all, what follows is simply a logic discussion and NOT something I would have preferred to see, but...

I was all in on the rationale that the defense collapse was a factor of a lack of depth and front line players having to play hurt and at less than 100%. Then I wondered why is this not a function of a failure on the part of the coaching staff to develop that depth. Talent + Development + Opportunity should = Results. I can somewhat accept the problems at safety. Talent really wasn't there, but I'm not as willing to give them a pass at LB. The percent of snap counts that PB and Zaire played as quoted in Bailey's column this morning seemed staggering. The staff HAD to know this would take a toll late in the season. Did bringing in Valdez limit the opportunity for younger players to develop?  Could Henderson, Cullen and (to a lesser degree) Armstrong have been better prepared to take on a greater role if they were given more snaps early in the season?

Then I looked at the schedule and tried to envision where this might have been a good strategy. From halftime against CMU through halftime against Wake every snap was critical. Every game was a close and competitive contest. I remember the old Boeheim quote "I'd rather play John Wallace at 75% than anyone else at 100%" and can understand the perception that Franklin and Bennett had to take virtually every snap. Maybe a blowout loss or two in a game that we dropped by one score might have provided an opportunity that would have produced benefits in the long run.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?