zone The game has passed JB by

[iommi]

Did you see a bunch of lobs for dunks? I didn't.

Did you see a bunch of dribble drives that created havoc against the zone? I didn't.

Did you see elite college athletes on Virginia? I certainly didn't.

I saw a slow-footed point guard, a big named Salt who couldn't jump, and two freshmen that looked like good shooters, but physically unable to drive the ball.

Sorry to bust your pre-determined narrative with concrete examples, though.

Kyle Guy can drive. Did you see the baseline drive he ended with that beautiful teardrop? He's also an outstanding dunker and has won numerous dunk completions. He was just scorching hot from 3 in this game and 3 points is better than 2.

 

[Coach Orange]

Wow, Virginia must be awful! Have they won a game yet this season?

Two things:

1) They're 17-5, 7-4 in the ACC. They're pretty good, but they're not great or elite. Rankings don't determine how great a team is.

2) It's okay to say Virginia has some flaws that make them vulnerable AND that we got a nice win at the same time. Doesn't have to be an either/or.

I'll say that we got a good win that we needed. The kids and staff deserve lots of credit for defending their home court, especially being down double-digits at the half.

I will also say that it's clear that Virginia is a lot like many of the top teams this year: they can be beaten because they have clear flaws.

 

[Coach Orange]

Kyle Guy can drive. Did you see the baseline drive he ended with that beautiful teardrop? He's also an outstanding dunker and has one numerous dunk completions. He was just scorching hot from 3 in this game and 3 points is better than 2.

Though I see your point, Iommi, one example isn't a pattern. Likewise, dunking doesn't mean he's an elite athlete against living defenders.

I actually like the kid's game. I think he'll develop into a solid player for them. He isn't a game-changer at this level yet, though. Given the choice, I'd take Battle over him at the moment. I'd also take White over any player they have, including London.

I agree with your math at the end, though.

 

[longislandcuse]

Just get in the tournament. If this is our new MO, with frustrating seasons leading to deep tourney runs, I'll gladly stop complaining about us only ever playing zone when early in the season we're growing into it and getting beat by garbage teams.

 

[realorange]

Offensively, in the presser he did say it was Red and Gmacs idea to switch to iso...;-)

I thought he said Mike and Gerry.

 

[Jack Hall]

I thought he said Mike and Gerry.

I apologize! You are probably right, i dint hear him clearly...

 

[CaptainJ]

To each his own but if you came on the board after the Fla St game with the intent to damper peoples enthusiasm by showing the team faults that you saw in the game, like today, that confuses me. We all know we have weaknesses. We all know what they are. They are discussed every day. I don't think it is out of line to celebrate wins like this.

This is true. All he needed to do was show up during the epic meltdown of a game thread during the most recent loss, and then he could have found the majority of the posters made him look restrained, by comparison.

 

[iommi]

Though I see your point, Iommi, one example isn't a pattern. Likewise, dunking doesn't mean he's an elite athlete against living defenders.

I actually like the kid's game. I think he'll develop into a solid player for them. He isn't a game-changer at this level yet, though. Given the choice, I'd take Battle over him at the moment. I'd also take White over any player they have, including London.

I agree with your math at the end, though.

Well, he weighs a buck-sixty-five or so. I've seen him play live. He's an excellent driver and finisher. He will improve in that and I've seen him do it this year. I've watched UVA play 6 times this year. He takes what the defense gives him but he is very slight of build. Future All-ACC. I bet he makes one of the All-ACC teams next season. He's that good.

 

[Antiprodigy]

Well for 20 minutes or so...

I actually thought the zone looked much better today even though UVA numbers were good. They went about 8 minutes without 1 good look.

The point is, the game hasn't passed the zone by. It isn't now, and never was the reason why the team played so badly for so much of the season. As I said back then and will reiterate now, it has always been, and will always be about whether the players are able to play it well enough. You can argue if the kids ever will be good enough, but that usually hasn't been the argument.

The kids showed today (in the second half, at least) as they have showed in spurts over the past two weeks, that when they work hard enough, stay active, and most importantly play the zone the way JB wants them too, they are capable of competing with and even beating the top teams in the nation.

As we all know, SU isn't capable of competing for the top players in the country, and never have been able to do so consistently. By playing the zone, it has allowed a level of consistency that is unrivaled. And, given the right players, even a chance to compete for the championship at times.

 

[Coach Orange]

The point is, the game hasn't passed the zone by. It isn't now, and never was the reason why the team played so badly for so much of the season. As I said back then and will reiterate now, it has always been, and will always be about whether the players are able to play it well enough. You can argue if the kids ever will be good enough, but that usually hasn't been the argument.

The kids showed today (in the second half, at least) as they have showed in spurts over the past two weeks, that when they work hard enough, stay active, and most importantly play the zone the way JB wants them too, they are capable of competing with and even beating the top teams in the nation.

As we all know, SU isn't capable of competing for the top players in the country, and never have been able to do so consistently. By playing the zone, it has allowed a level of consistency that is unrivaled. And, given the right players, even a chance to compete for the championship at times.

I agree with most of this.

One question I would ask, and I don't mean that you have to answer it, Anti, just rhetorically asking: could the reason that we haven't landed more top players recently be that we play almost exclusively zone, which may slow the development of skills NBA teams look for when choosing players for the man-to-man systems they utilize?

For example, we don't teach help defense, close-outs, or ball-screen rotations the same way man-to-man systems do. Hypothetically, I can imagine that NBA teams know they will have to spend extra time teaching these skills to our players because they don't learn and practice them for 1-4 years in our system. The logic there would be that top players go elsewhere to avoid that stigma. I would offer that some of our players have still been drafted (a couple of them quite highly). None of those players, save perhaps Wesley Johnson, is really known for strong defense in the NBA, though.

I certainly don't know the definitive answer to the question, nor would I profess I know more about our recruiting than Coach Boeheim and his staff. For conversation's sake, though, it does seem that the argument can be made both ways.

The zone lovers can argue that we can't get top talent, so we play zone, and look how successful we are. The zone critics can say, "We play zone; therefore, we can't get top talent. Maybe we could get better talent and be a better team if we played man." The argument is a "chicken or egg" one, then, and probably doesn't really help either side's case.

At any rate, to suggest that the zone can't work at all is to ignore data that says it can work fine, both here and elsewhere. Data does suggest, though, that it works better over a series of years when teams mix it with other defenses.

 

[SWC75]

Offensively, in the presser he did say it was Red and Gmacs idea to switch to iso...;-)

it was interesting that he credited them with the idea. Is he preparing us for when they will be making the decisions. or are they being more assertive than in the past?

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

I agree with most of this.

One question I would ask, and I don't mean that you have to answer it, Anti, just rhetorically asking: could the reason that we haven't landed more top players recently be that we play almost exclusively zone, which may slow the development of skills NBA teams look for when choosing players for the man-to-man systems they utilize?

For example, we don't teach help defense, close-outs, or ball-screen rotations the same way man-to-man systems do. Hypothetically, I can imagine that NBA teams know they will have to spend extra time teaching these skills to our players because they don't learn and practice them for 1-4 years in our system. The logic there would be that top players go elsewhere to avoid that stigma. I would offer that some of our players have still been drafted (a couple of them quite highly). None of those players, save perhaps Wesley Johnson, is really known for strong defense in the NBA, though.

I certainly don't know the definitive answer to the question, nor would I profess I know more about our recruiting than Coach Boeheim and his staff. For conversation's sake, though, it does seem that the argument can be made both ways.

The zone lovers can argue that we can't get top talent, so we play zone, and look how successful we are. The zone critics can say, "We play zone; therefore, we can't get top talent. Maybe we could get better talent and be a better team if we played man." The argument is a "chicken or egg" one, then, and probably doesn't really help either side's case.

At any rate, to suggest that the zone can't work at all is to ignore data that says it can work fine, both here and elsewhere. Data does suggest, though, that it works better over a series of years when teams mix it with other defenses.

We get plenty of talent. We've been putting guys in the NBA every year and the last 6-7 years and have had our share of McDonald's All Americans. We play zone and have had a lot of success doing it.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

Two things:

1) They're 17-5, 7-4 in the ACC. They're pretty good, but they're not great or elite. Rankings don't determine how great a team is.

2) It's okay to say Virginia has some flaws that make them vulnerable AND that we got a nice win at the same time. Doesn't have to be an either/or.

I'll say that we got a good win that we needed. The kids and staff deserve lots of credit for defending their home court, especially being down double-digits at the half.

I will also say that it's clear that Virginia is a lot like many of the top teams this year: they can be beaten because they have clear flaws.

Virgina is a top teir team. They went on the road and smoked Louisville, Notre Dame and just crushed VT. They lost on a tip in not the road to Nova. They are legit, whether you consider them to be athletic or not. Kentucky is really athletic and Virginia would pick them apart. This was was GREAT win today, without question.

 

[Jack Hall]

it was interesting that he credited them with the idea. Is he preparing us for when they will be making the decisions. or are they being more assertive than in the past?

It was pointed out to me that JB said Hop and Gmac. I didnt hear him well...... You may be correct because i rarely remember him mentioning assistants in the pressers. I am not the most loyal JB fan but (not a judegement on Hop) i wish he would coach for 5 more years ...at least...

 

[RF2044]

Some of the criticism of JB earlier in the year was over the top, and showed the typical lack of perspective that is common on this board [and most every other fan forum].

Some of it was warranted, especially the stuff around recruiting and the decision to go all in on Green when we had other terrific options we heismaned.

But today clearly showed that JB--despite his recent reputation as a defensive guy--is a fantastic game coach.

 

[We Are Syracuse]

To be fair, Virginia's lack of athleticism had as much to do with the effectiveness of the zone as anything. They clearly lack speed off the dribble, which is what hurts the zone more than anything. They also don't have bigs that athletically play above the rim. There were very few lobs for dunks, which we've seen hurt us in other games.

That said, don't forget that the same Coach Boeheim and his team that won today still lost those games earlier in the season. They're likely to win and lose more games this season. Hyperbole either way is silliness.

Trying to be objective and talk hoops here is borderline impossible. Your spot on for the most part. I thought UVAs zone attack was weak though. They made two key mistakes in their zone attack that made life tough for them offensively. I do not think Bennett is that strong of a coach of offensively. Defensively he is fantastic obviously. Offensively Syracuse-wise, Boeheim literally didn't do anything haha. The players just made fantastic individual plays. If you don't think thats true, well, you're just simply wrong. Props to JB for going ISO ball tho. Because that PnR offense is horrid against decently schooled defensive teams. Utilize Gillon and Battle's foot speed by creating double gaps. Simple and it worked.

 

[Coach Orange]

Virgina is a top teir team. They went on the road and smoked Louisville, Notre Dame and just crushed VT. They lost on a tip in not the road to Nova. They are legit, whether you consider them to be athletic or not. Kentucky is really athletic and Virginia would pick them apart.

The point I made was that they aren't athletic, though. Legitimacy and "top tier" is a different argument. In other words, your point attempts to change the argument I made. I never said Virginia doesn't have solid fundamental skills (I'm a fan of Coach Bennett and his teaching of fundamentals), or that they aren't a team that could make noise in the right situation.

The point I was made is that our zone--the same zone that has repeatedly struggled with athletic teams with players that can do certain things--wasn't threatened as strongly by Virginia because the Cavaliers don't possess the athletes to exploit our weaknesses.

Don't forget that Virginia's pace of play has to be taken into account when looking at how they lost close to certain teams (Nova). They are, by design, going to stay in games on the scoreboard with good teams. Give Virginia credit; they were winning late in that game, but they couldn't hold the lead.

On top of that, Notre Dame is another team that has few superior athletes (Beachem may be their only one), which plays to Virginia's strengths. Notre Dame has a good offense, but Virginia has a strong defense. ND doesn't play great defense, and that hurts them when their offense isn't clicking. Again, Virginia deserves credit for beating a good team on the road.

VT is not a top tier team. Their best win was against Duke at home, and Duke doesn't appear elite this year. That said, VT is a good team, but they play something akin to Virginia's style less effectively than the Cavaliers. Not shockingly, VT lost.

Don't forget to throw in that Virginia lost to Pitt, a team that isn't very good. Of course, adding that "bad loss" weakens their "top tier" status to some extent.

To the Kentucky point: though Kentucky is athletic, let's not act as though they don't have their own flaws. Teams can exploit these weaknesses just like we took advantage of Virginia's. Perhaps Virginia would challenge a young, athletic-but-fundamentally undisciplined Wildcat team by exposing their flaws. I'd love to watch the game to find out.

So, Virginia is a very good team (but not elite this year), and I've said that elsewhere. However:

1) Virginia is not athletically elite, which thankfully helped us today. I would much rather have our top three players than their's from an athletic point of view. Go through their roster and think about which players from their team you'd rather have in terms of pure athleticism as compared to White, Battle, and Lydon. Their lack of athletes helped because they couldn't take advantage of the flaws that several teams previously have to hurt our zone: consistent dribble penetration and lobs over the top to athletic big men that can jump through and over the crashing defenders.

2) Lots of "top tier teams" lose each week. That doesn't mean Virginia stinks (17-5, 7-4 is pretty good) or that they aren't well coached. It means that the gap between "top ten" and "unrated conference foe" isn't a large gulf in several of the P6 conferences, maybe most notably in the ACC. That becomes even clearer when the "better team" is on the road. Hence, the rankings are a silly way to evaluate the quality of a win because they literally don't show a real difference in the quality of teams. Look at how many "top tier" teams lost just today. If all of these teams are so "top tier," why do they keep losing? They're all good, but flawed, teams. Wins and losses are more about matchups and game location than rankings, especially when the talent gap is minimal.

In evaluating why a team won a specific game, it seems perfectly appropriate to examine how a defense that has struggled all year suddenly looked amazing. For this game, part of the answer lies in the pace of play (less possessions equals less chances to exploit the defense), and part lies in the opponent's lack of athleticism to stress our defense as other teams have. That doesn't mean our kids didn't play hard or execute well.

It's a nice win to have. I've said that repeatedly. The committee will add it to our resume. That doesn't change the fact that beating a top-ten team is something lots of teams are doing, which seems to lessen the value to some extent in the current era. Nevertheless, SU has to win the games on its schedule, and win today it did. That's good enough for me.

 

[iommi]

Coach Orange You put a lot of work into your post and I'm not trying to get involved in your discussion/ argument right now, but I want to take issue with one thing above: White is not a great athlete. You refer to the "pure athleticism of White, Battle and Lydon." Battle is a great athlete, White is not.

 

[Coach Orange]

Coach Orange You put a lot of work into your post and I'm not trying to get involved in your discussion/ argument right now, nit I want to take issue with one thing above: White is not a great athlete. You refer to the "pure athleticism of White, Battle and Lydon." Battle is a great album, White is not.

That shows how little I think of Virginia's players in terms of pure athleticism.

 

[iommi]

That shows how little I think of Virginia's players in terms of pure athleticism.

Ha. Got ya. Well, I do know one thing: Salt is a stiff. Salt has some decent international experience but he's pretty terrible right now. They improved a lot with Wilkins down there (he is Dominique's step son). Wilkins helped us on the FT line though. They have a couple good athletes but are much more of a system team.

I will say one thing: we talk about JB being inflexible with his defense but I thought Bennett was today. He never adjusted to us spreading the floor. He should've put someone else on Battle too.

 

[OttoMets]

Trying to be objective and talk hoops here is borderline impossible. Your spot on for the most part. I thought UVAs zone attack was weak though. They made two key mistakes in their zone attack that made life tough for them offensively. I do not think Bennett is that strong of a coach of offensively. Defensively he is fantastic obviously. Offensively Syracuse-wise, Boeheim literally didn't do anything haha. The players just made fantastic individual plays. If you don't think thats true, well, you're just simply wrong. Props to JB for going ISO ball tho. Because that PnR offense is horrid against decently schooled defensive teams. Utilize Gillon and Battle's foot speed by creating double gaps. Simple and it worked.

It's possible to hold the two beliefs/observations in one's head at one time:

1) This was an awesome win for SU, a lot of fun, maybe the most I've personally enjoyed a game this year and also a great historic SU/Boeheim moment.

2) This isn't the same talent level Bennett has had at UVa in the last four or five years. #11 in particular was useless against our defense, tentative and unwilling to even look toward the hoop (even on that late possession when Lydon inexplicably closed out on him). That deficiency helped us a lot.

 

[AlpharettaCuse]

The point I was made is that our zone--the same zone that has repeatedly struggled with athletic teams with players that can do certain things--wasn't threatened as strongly by Virginia because the Cavaliers don't possess the athletes to exploit our weaknesses.

Virginia exploited it plenty in the first half. Why do you need athletes to exploit the zone? Florida State is athletic. Why didn't they exploit it?

Don't forget that Virginia's pace of play has to be taken into account when looking at how they lost close to certain teams (Nova). They are, by design, going to stay in games on the scoreboard with good teams. Give Virginia credit; they were winning late in that game, but they couldn't hold the lead.

Virginia wasn't just staying in games with good teams. They were blowing out good teams. If Nova is top tier, clearly, Nova is.

On top of that, Notre Dame is another team that has few superior athletes (Beachem may be their only one), which plays to Virginia's strengths. Notre Dame has a good offense, but Virginia has a strong defense. ND doesn't play great defense, and that hurts them when their offense isn't clicking. Again, Virginia deserves credit for beating a good team on the road.

Blew them out on the road.

VT is not a top tier team. Their best win was against Duke at home, and Duke doesn't appear elite this year. That said, VT is a good team, but they play something akin to Virginia's style less effectively than the Cavaliers. Not shockingly, VT lost.

VT is a good team and UVA crushed them.

Don't forget to throw in that Virginia lost to Pitt, a team that isn't very good. Of course, adding that "bad loss" weakens their "top tier" status to some extent.

UNC was routed by Georgia Tech. So UNC is not top teir? Who is then? Kansas? Just lost at home to a team that may not make the tournament.

To the Kentucky point: though Kentucky is athletic, let's not act as though they don't have their own flaws. Teams can exploit these weaknesses just like we took advantage of Virginia's. Perhaps Virginia would challenge a young, athletic-but-fundamentally undisciplined Wildcat team by exposing their flaws. I'd love to watch the game to find out.

Kentucky just got beat by 23. I guess being athletic doesn't matter too much. UVA would crush UK.

So, Virginia is a very good team (but not elite this year), and I've said that elsewhere.

Who is elite?

1) Virginia is not athletically elite, which thankfully helped us today. I would much rather have our top three players than their's from an athletic point of view. Go through their roster and think about which players from their team you'd rather have in terms of pure athleticism as compared to White, Battle, and Lydon. Their lack of athletes helped because they couldn't take advantage of the flaws that several teams previously have to hurt our zone: consistent dribble penetration and lobs over the top to athletic big men that can jump through and over the crashing defenders.

I'm not getting the athletically elite thing. Who cares?

2) Lots of "top tier teams" lose each week. That doesn't mean Virginia stinks (17-5, 7-4 is pretty good) or that they aren't well coached. It means that the gap between "top ten" and "unrated conference foe" isn't a large gulf in several of the P6 conferences, maybe most notably in the ACC. That becomes even clearer when the "better team" is on the road. Hence, the rankings are a silly way to evaluate the quality of a win because they literally don't show a real difference in the quality of teams. Look at how many "top tier" teams lost just today. If all of these teams are so "top tier," why do they keep losing? They're all good, but flawed, teams. Wins and losses are more about matchups and game location than rankings, especially when the talent gap is minimal.

I wasn't talking about rankings. Watch the games. When Virginia goes into Louisville and blows them out, and blows out other good teams, it's fairly obvious they are a very good team, especially on defense.

In evaluating why a team won a specific game, it seems perfectly appropriate to examine how a defense that has struggled all year suddenly looked amazing. For this game, part of the answer lies in the pace of play (less possessions equals less chances to exploit the defense), and part lies in the opponent's lack of athleticism to stress our defense as other teams have. That doesn't mean our kids didn't play hard or execute well.

Lack of athleticism was the reason they lost? How about crediting the other team for making plays? Battle was clutch down the stretch. So was White. Our defense was really good today.

It's a nice win to have. I've said that repeatedly. The committee will add it to our resume. That doesn't change the fact that beating a top-ten team is something lots of teams are doing, which seems to lessen the value to some extent in the current era.

How? Top ten teams lose every year to non-top ten teams. How does that lessen the value? Absurd. You seem to be trying to lessen the value of the win today, which is what others have pointed out as well.

It's always a great win to beat a Top 10 team, especially over a team with a very efficient offense, and the best defense in the nation, regardless of athletic ability. This was a GREAT win today. You can admit it.

 

[MarketCuse]

PC sounded like a guy wrapping up a career.

It scares me to admit it, but I agree with you. Not because of you but I'm scared to let him go and I don't understand why people have recently insinuated he may quit this year. Now I've at least considered the possibility and I don't like it.

 

[Coach Orange]

I wrote about that last week. They did. Once their best athlete returned to the court after sitting out the last eight minutes of the first half with breathing problems, they erased 16 points off an 18-point lead. We just made enough free throws down the stretch to hold on. Give the players credit for doing so.

 

[Coach Orange]

I wrote about that last week. They did. Once their best athlete returned to the court after sitting out the last eight minutes of the first half with breathing problems, they erased 16 points off an 18-point lead. We just made enough free throws down the stretch to hold on. Give the players credit for doing so.