Wun&Dun -- Orange Version (semi-long)

[VaBeachOrFan]

Hmmm. This sudden parade of future Orange talent is causing me to hallucinate: I think I'm seeing JB troll for the same Wun&Dun fish that Coach Cal usually nets. UK loads up its five-shooter with 5 blue-chip bullets each year, starts them all, and then watches them leave for the pros only to reload with the next year's group. His philosophy: Talent trumps experience, and most of the time he pulls it off. Some of us SU fans have been chiding Cal for ruining college BB and making a travesty of its student-athlete foundation.

But there's nothing like someone else's success to motivate change, and UK's success -- coupled with Syracuse's own growing prestige and its having to compete head-on with the Duke/UNC Blue Chip Recruiting Pipeline -- has moved JB and staff to raise their sights and start taking reservations for 2014, 2015 and, soon, 2016 graduates. And what a splendid harvest of talent they're recruiting!

However, I sense an Orange twist to Cal's Wun&Dun theme. JB usually finds only 5-7 players who can master The Zone to his satisfaction in any given year (the super-deep 2009-10 team with its "Starting Seven" was a wonderful exception), so the rest of the bench watches and learns. Then, miraculously, some of the frosh "get it" in year two or three and become contributors. But while past SU teams were populated with "sleepers" (Warrick, Shump, AO and CJ to name but a few), redshirts and 5th year seniors (Andy, Scoop, etc.) who took years to develop, now we have frosh with "unlimited talent" (Waiters, MCW, Roberson) who can barely get playing time one year but may bolt for the NBA the next.

SU's emerging theme, IMHO, is that front-court recruits will continue to ferment on the bench as frosh unless they come in with Melo-like skills. In contrast, it appears that carefully selected high-level PGs can run a Syracuse offense their first year out, move on to the pros and be replaced the following year without significant damage to either offense or defense. Mix in the few remaining redshirts and "developmental" players as seasoned backups, and it's a formula that could take SU to a new and continuously contending level.

What it means for us fans is that, rather than seeing consistent SU-style basketball reproduced each year with a gradually shifting cast of veterans, an "all new" SU team will emerge each year with its unique personality TBD. JB will throw everyone into a pot and see which 5-7 players reach his level of confidence in playing together, and they'll determine the style for that year. Fab gave us a monster shot-blocker and charge-taker in the middle; Ennis brought his value-the-ball style into play (with its plusses and minuses), and I can't wait to see Kaleb Joseph's ankle-breaking moves next fall along with an anticipated return to the run-and-gun.

If every year is going to bring a different personality to SUBB, we'll have to start giving each team its own name.-VBOF

 

[Full_Rebar]

Nice post. I think last year's slow-down style had more to do with JB's lack of trust in his bench more than Ennis' style. If Ennis wasn't playing fast enough, we all would have been aware of JB's displeasure.

The other thing that 1 and dones help with is the APR. Easier to keep a kid eligible for 1-2 years before they turn pro (taking electives, etc). The NCAA rules are a joke -24 credits and a 1.8 is all a kid needs to be eligible at the start of their 2nd year.

 

[stuckinbig11]

You seem to suggest that this is some sort of a new "plan." My guess is that it is adaptation to reality--get the best players you can and recognize that you will lose some of them after the first year or two. Big men take longer to develop, so they may stick around a bit longer than guards.

 

[Waltdods]

SU's emerging theme, IMHO, is that front-court recruits will continue to ferment on the bench as frosh unless they come in with Melo-like skills. In contrast, it appears that carefully selected high-level PGs can run a Syracuse offense their first year out, move on to the pros and be replaced the following year without significant damage to either offense or defense.

This was an interesting post, but I think this part of the argument suffers mightily from a small sample size (basically just last year's freshman, right?). It was just three years ago that MCW sat and fermented on the bench as a freshman. If Ennis had been a little less good last year - which I think it's clear even JB expected - Joseph would be doing a lot of bench-fermenting next year. Isn't Roberson basically the only front-court recruit who fits your story? (And we don't even know if he does yet.) Grant played a lot as a freshmen. All the centers (Fab, Xmas, Coleman) have started and had every opportunity to produce as freshmen. Fair and Joseph contributed from Day 1. Waiters, in contrast, mostly sat his freshman year.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

You seem to suggest that this is some sort of a new "plan." My guess is that it is adaptation to reality--get the best players you can and recognize that you will lose some of them after the first year or two. Big men take longer to develop, so they may stick around a bit longer than guards.

Ah, no, I agree completely. It is precisely an adaptation to reality, just a slightly different approach than Cal takes. UK recruits new Blue Chips at every position, assumes they'll start, and dares the remaining players to put one of them on the bench. If I'm right, JB will pick whichever 5-7 mesh the best that season, regardless of what class they're in. The following year, he'll do it again with whomever he has left that hasn't graduated or been drafted.

 

[stuckinbig11]

Ah, no, I agree completely. It is precisely an adaptation to reality, just a slightly different approach than Cal takes. UK recruits new Blue Chips at every position, assumes they'll start, and dares the remaining players to put one of them on the bench. If I'm right, JB will pick whichever 5-7 mesh the best that season, regardless of what class they're in. The following year, he'll do it again with whomever he has left that hasn't graduated or been drafted.

The difference is that Cal plans to lose his players and probably tells them that when recruiting; JB deals with it if it happens and thinks ahead in case it does.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

This was an interesting post, but I think this part of the argument suffers mightily from a small sample size (basically just last year's freshman, right?). It was just three years ago that MCW sat and fermented on the bench as a freshman. If Ennis had been a little less good last year - which I think it's clear even JB expected - Joseph would be doing a lot of bench-fermenting next year. Isn't Roberson basically the only front-court recruit who fits your story? (And we don't even know if he does yet.) Grant played a lot as a freshmen. All the centers (Fab, Xmas, Coleman) have started and had every opportunity to produce as freshmen. Fair and Joseph contributed from Day 1. Waiters, in contrast, mostly sat his freshman year.

True, Ennis is a sample of one, but can you see Kaleb staying more than one year if he starts and plays well? How badly would he have to play for G and/or Buss to be given bulk minutes at the point? As for Roberson being a sample of one, Fab, Xmas and Coleman were mostly foul-sponges their first year. (The word "starting player" took on new meaning under JB with those three, but I really did like his tactic of getting them playing time when it least hurt the team.) Coach will have to rely on the young big men more than usual next year because Grant and CJ left a void, but G could get minutes at the 3 if McCullough or Roberson or BJ don't step up.

Thanks for your feedback. We'll see what sifts out.--VBOF

 

[newmexicuse]

No, I think the strategy of the staff has been to get two productive years from our better players, and that MCW, Ennis, and Grant have all thrown flies into the ointment.

We are not a true one & done type of school, simply because Kentucky can populate it's rosters with legit Top Ten Players & we have to "settle" for the Top 50 types.

I like the incoming class because I don't see any one & done types there, though Richardson may well be borderline. The question is whether or not we will get more than one productive years out of most of those kids.

Looking at the class in more detail:

Richardson - no question he will be a rotation guy as a frosh, but with Cooney still around (if Trevor can improve) he may well be a two year guy in the program before he gets a chance to star.

Diagne - I see most of his minutes at the five spot & in NBA terms he is under-sized for that position, so he may well be a three or four year player.

Lydon - needs bodywork, probably will take him two to three seasons to really blossom

Howard - the wildcard - so hard to factor in his age and injury. Really hard to gauge, but if I had to guess I see his upside as an Adrian Autry lite - probably a three year kid - maybe a four year since we have to remember that Autry wasn't successful at the next level & if we are able to bring in Battle and/or Murray he might get relegated to a rotation player as a junior and if we get two years from Kaleb then he may never even start for us.

 

[HoustonCuse]

I disagree. Our recruiting, while good to very good is nowhere near what UK is doing. Out 2015 class has four players in the top 70 of the rankings. UK will wind up with 4 or 5 in the top 10. That usually represents an order of magnitude leap in talent. I don't think JB has changed his philosphy at all. He looks for the size and athleticism to excel in the zone and he looks for intelligent players who will be good in the locker room.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

You seem to suggest that this is some sort of a new "plan." My guess is that it is adaptation to reality--get the best players you can and recognize that you will lose some of them after the first year or two. Big men take longer to develop, so they may stick around a bit longer than guards.

Nailed it.

 

[VaBeachOrFan]

Nailed it.

See Post #5.-VBOF