Purdue vs. Arizona: MASTER DISCUSSION THREAD

[Purdue0023]

They went on their run with some great ball movement and ended up getting the ball inside for layups and dunks. I'm sure that's CMP's point there. It can improve. But we also have to take into account that Arizona is pretty damn good AND a veteran team. We all knew the run would happen. I'm more disappointed in all the 2nd half turnovers than anything else....

...if there's anything to be disappointed in.

In the big scheme of things, it is a great win! I shouldn't complain. I was just getting flashbacks, but glad we found our second wind in time!

 

[purduedavie]

They tried everything to get an AZ win didn't work

Who did? Refs were solid today, they didn’t try to give anyone the game, it was called fairly. These guys aren’t perfect, no doubt, a few were iffy today, that went both ways.

 

[Chi-Boiler]

Who did? Refs were solid today, they didn’t try to give anyone the game, it was called fairly. These guys aren’t perfect, no doubt, a few were iffy today, that went both ways.

They got a few calls down the stretch, like Zach's double handed block, and 2 iffy calls on Jones. But besides that and the weirdness of the goaltending review, it was a well-called game.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Not to be a Debbie Downer but 4 points from the bench. That’s happening too often. We’re going to need some guys to step up some nights. 10 rebounds and 6 assists though.

I thought the bench play was fine. They competed hard and when Purdue scores 92 against one of the best defenses in the country, it’s hard to complain about them not taking a lot of shots.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

They got a few calls down the stretch, like Zach's double handed block, and 2 iffy calls on Jones. But besides that and the weirdness of the goaltending review, it was a well-called game.

Gotta agree....there's always ones that bother some of us, and I will definitely voice it in the heat of the moment....haha. Of course, they could be buttering us up for the conference games. If the entire rest of the conference slate was called this way - I would probably break an arm grabbing for the pen that fast to sign up for it.

 

[purduedavie]

They got a few calls down the stretch, like Zach's double handed block, and 2 iffy calls on Jones. But besides that and the weirdness of the goaltending review, it was a well-called game.

They got a call or two down the stretch, I did think Jones fouled, Zach maybe not, yea, the net call was odd, it should have counted although it clearly wasn’t going in. As fans we look at calls that might have went against our team, there was some that maybe Purdue benefitted from, especially in the first half. It was called pretty well, solid B.

 

[purduedavie]

Gotta agree....there's always ones that bother some of us, and I will definitely voice it in the heat of the moment....haha. Of course, they could be buttering us up for the conference games. If the entire rest of the conference slate was called this way - I would probably break an arm grabbing for the pen that fast to sign up for it.

Good post, I thought the last few games have been called well, waiting for the Big Ten crap to start lol

 

[purduedavie]

I thought the bench play was fine. They competed hard and when Purdue scores 92 against one of the best defenses in the country, it’s hard to complain about them not taking a lot of shots.

Bench didn’t play much, Matt when the game is close plays the starters.

 

[typeviic]

Zona, who rarely plays a zone, has used a zone and run off 8 straight.
Maybe Painter should take notes.

It was the first zone they played all year. Why?, because their coach made an adjustment and it worked for them, as they got back in the game. Why CMP is so stubborn is beyond me.

 

[tjreese]

It was the first zone they played all year. Why?, because their coach made an adjustment and it worked for them, as they got back in the game. Why CMP is so stubborn is beyond me.

Matt doesn't agree with you. It has nothing to do with being stubborn. If Matt agreed with you and then didn't play some defense starting out or just playing a zone then he would be stubborn. This is hard for some to see. It isn't stubborn it is disagreeing with those wanting a different D. You can believe he is wrong and state your case, but to think a coach knows what is best and doesn't do it...well that is stubborn

 

[Boiler Buck]

It was the first zone they played all year. Why?, because their coach made an adjustment and it worked for them, as they got back in the game. Why CMP is so stubborn is beyond me.

Stubborn is having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so.

In reference to the definition, while I agree he has not changed his attitude toward changing D and seems determined to play M2M.....but what are the good arguments for a zone? Not sure the team's personnel are suited to zone.

I would say he is stubborn on playing Morton situationally on D as a stopper in ALL cases. Yesterday, thinking he could stop AZs Love. I laughed at that attempt. While that works sometimes with slower players, it doesn't work all the time, and wasn't going to vs. Love. But seems to be CMPs default. Perhaps at least worth a try, given a fresh Morton on a player who has gone hard all game.

 

[mathboy]

Do any of the experts who are calling for zone defense know if AZ has faced it before? Perhaps they simply destroyed it. My expectation is that throwing a zone against any good team is a death wish, especially if they shoot well and are good rebounders. For example: Arizona.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

*** Perhaps at least worth a try, given a fresh Morton on a player who has gone hard all game.

There's a lot to that.....if it at least wears him down possibly for the end.....'Zona missed a couple of looks down toward the end.....one of them from Love. My biggest criticism with Morty yesterday was he did a nice job with a press break.....but then had the loathsome miss of a front end FT attempt. Experienced senior has to knock those down. He rarely goes to the line, but there's a good chance that when he does, it will be a key trip.......only 2-5 so far this year.

All in all, he's made some timely plays in his limited minutes lately.....also got a big offensive board down the stretch. Painter is doing a fair job with his utilization, IMO.

 

[pubill]

Bench didn’t play much, Matt when the game is close plays the starters.

Bench played 53 mins yesterday or 26.5% of the minutes, do you want more than that?

 

[typeviic]

Matt doesn't agree with you. It has nothing to do with being stubborn. If Matt agreed with you and then didn't play some defense starting out or just playing a zone then he would be stubborn. This is hard for some to see. It isn't stubborn it is disagreeing with those wanting a different D. You can believe he is wrong and state your case, but to think a coach knows what is best and doesn't do it...well that is stubborn

"It isn't stubborn it is disagreeing with those wanting a different D"
No, dont get me wrong. And sorry for the confusion. I dont want "a different D". Here is what I mean. Use a zone as a last-ditch effort to get back in the game IF nothing else is working. AZ never played any zone all year, until their backs were against the wall vs us, seen the loss coming, and threw a zone at Purdue to see if it would shake things up. Thats all. Plain and simple. Kind of like an expert archer with a quiver full of arrows. Not all arrows are the same, a few different ones for a rare scenario. Make sense?

 

[pubill]

Stubborn is having or showing dogged determination not to change one's attitude or position on something, especially in spite of good arguments or reasons to do so.

In reference to the definition, while I agree he has not changed his attitude toward changing D and seems determined to play M2M.....but what are the good arguments for a zone? Not sure the team's personnel are suited to zone.

I would say he is stubborn on playing Morton situationally on D as a stopper in ALL cases. Yesterday, thinking he could stop AZs Love. I laughed at that attempt. While that works sometimes with slower players, it doesn't work all the time, and wasn't going to vs. Love. But seems to be CMPs default. Perhaps at least worth a try, given a fresh Morton on a player who has gone hard all game.

Well we saw quickly Colvin could not guard Love yesterday and don't think Jones could do it for 40 minutes, so who do u suggest he put on Love when Jones was out?

 

[pubill]

"It isn't stubborn it is disagreeing with those wanting a different D"
No, dont get me wrong. And sorry for the confusion. I dont want "a different D". Here is what I mean. Use a zone as a last-ditch effort to get back in the game IF nothing else is working. AZ never played any zone all year, until their backs were against the wall vs us, seen the loss coming, and threw a zone at Purdue to see if it would shake things up. Thats all. Plain and simple. Kind of like an expert archer with a quiver full of arrows. Not all arrows are the same, a few different ones for a rare scenario. Make sense?

Maybe Ariz coach is the one who should be criticized, he should have went to zone much sooner?

 

[mathboy]

Maybe Ariz coach is the one who should be criticized, he should have went to zone much sooner?

LOL! You do have a point. However, I think it would be suicide to try to stop Purdue with a zone. Zone defenses are infamous for poor rebounding (Purdue is already one of the top rebounding teams) and an be cooked by good3-point shooting (Purdue is reasonably good at shooting from the arch). Throw a zone at us and we’d cook it with 3-pts and offensive rebounding. It would take a minute or two to recognize, but once identified, good-bye!

 

[Boiler Buck]

Well we saw quickly Colvin could not guard Love yesterday and don't think Jones could do it for 40 minutes, so who do u suggest he put on Love when Jones was out?

I don't think anyone was. But when Morty tried it I just though it was kinda funny.

 

[tjreese]

Do any of the experts who are calling for zone defense know if AZ has faced it before? Perhaps they simply destroyed it. My expectation is that throwing a zone against any good team is a death wish, especially if they shoot well and are good rebounders. For example: Arizona.

I'll make this real simple, but not directed to you or anyone in particular. What is the purpose of a zone? It is to create a "zone" of an "area" to make it harder to penetrate with ball or player with ball. Now, take your man and sag them towards the lane and play loose or a sinking Hank Iba defense...stop the penetration. What did you give up? Was it the same with a zone?

This whole notation on anything anyone wants to believe Matt is stubborn is foolish. Matt and the coaches and players invest a lot more than any casual fan and they want to win. Matt Painter and Matt Waddell lived together for a while. Do you think either Matt is happy that Brian sits the bench? He is sitting the bench because Matt Painter believes "at this time" there are better options and less time available in the past games to win. Just because someone believes something in their mind doesn't make it so. The only debate has nothing to do with stubbornness and everything to do with opinions.

About 2 years ago I wrote enough on a zone with Nag (RIP good Boiler) to have published a tome dealing with Purdue and zones in general. A game can go from a W to an L in 2-3 minutes and although outside of the clock it is hard to explain "if" and "why that would be" that a zone might affect the game...in either direction.

 

[tjreese]

"It isn't stubborn it is disagreeing with those wanting a different D"
No, dont get me wrong. And sorry for the confusion. I dont want "a different D". Here is what I mean. Use a zone as a last-ditch effort to get back in the game IF nothing else is working. AZ never played any zone all year, until their backs were against the wall vs us, seen the loss coming, and threw a zone at Purdue to see if it would shake things up. Thats all. Plain and simple. Kind of like an expert archer with a quiver full of arrows. Not all arrows are the same, a few different ones for a rare scenario. Make sense?

but you said stubborn and that is what I was addressing. Having a different opinion is fine. many fans in the forum have different opinions not only from Matt, but from each other as well. Only if in a pure zone would Purdue's offensive approach be different. You attack a match-up zone as if they are in man, because essentially that is what they are doing. I did think it was a pure 2-3 that Purdue quickly scored against, but since Purdue didn't move much it was hard to see if they were in zone/matchup or man, but it seemed like they defended who they wanted fairly tight. I believe at this time we had Ethan and Cam in the game and neither was going to shoot or create for another during that stage of the game. I may try to watch the game again and see more of what is going on, but it has been very rare for a zone to be an issue for Matt's teams in the past. What works in high school may not work in college to the same degree due to better players overall and much more athletic players on the whole. In high school most play is in the X & Y direction. It is quite common in college to see the Z direction added since lobbing around the rim is quite common today.

Lee Rose played some zone as did Fred Shaus and George King. The 3pt line was not in play back then.

 

[Dryfly88]

LOL! You do have a point. However, I think it would be suicide to try to stop Purdue with a zone. Zone defenses are infamous for poor rebounding (Purdue is already one of the top rebounding teams) and an be cooked by good3-point shooting (Purdue is reasonably good at shooting from the arch). Throw a zone at us and we’d cook it with 3-pts and offensive rebounding. It would take a minute or two to recognize, but once identified, good-bye!

Did you even watch the game?

Their zone was extremely effective against us. I can only guess you don't have Peacock and didn't watch the game.

The only question I have is why did their coach come out of the zone? Jones finally hit a 3 with about 5 minutes to go. It was the first shot we had hit in a long stretch. He went MTM the next time down and Smith hit a 3 and then the next possession Edey got an easy bucket, again against their MTM. I'm glad he pulled the zone, we were scoring much easier against their MTM.

 

[Dryfly88]

but you said stubborn and that is what I was addressing. Having a different opinion is fine. many fans in the forum have different opinions not only from Matt, but from each other as well. Only if in a pure zone would Purdue's offensive approach be different. You attack a match-up zone as if they are in man, because essentially that is what they are doing. I did think it was a pure 2-3 that Purdue quickly scored against, but since Purdue didn't move much it was hard to see if they were in zone/matchup or man, but it seemed like they defended who they wanted fairly tight. I believe at this time we had Ethan and Cam in the game and neither was going to shoot or create for another during that stage of the game. I may try to watch the game again and see more of what is going on, but it has been very rare for a zone to be an issue for Matt's teams in the past. What works in high school may not work in college to the same degree due to better players overall and much more athletic players on the whole. In high school most play is in the X & Y direction. It is quite common in college to see the Z direction added since lobbing around the rim is quite common today.

Lee Rose played some zone as did Fred Shaus and George King. The 3pt line was not in play back then.

I was at the game and have just had a chance to re-watch it.

We scored easily against their first possession in zone. It was a pretty straight forward 2-3. They then played MTM for a couple possessions and then they went to what I would call a 1-4 or 3-2 look. Their top guy was slightly above the next 2 defenders so it looked a little like 1-4, but I think most would call it a 3-2. This is the zone that gave us issues for the next 6 minutes or so of the game and when they made their run.

As I said above, the only question any of us had at the game was "why did he come out if it"? I'm sure glad he did, but no idea why he did.

What happened last night in our game happens quite often throughout the year. Team switches defense and changes momentum of the game. We just very, very rarely see it in the B1G.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

I was at the game and have just had a chance to re-watch it.

We scored easily against their first possession in zone. It was a pretty straight forward 2-3. They then played MTM for a couple possessions and then they went to what I would call a 1-4 or 3-2 look. Their top guy was slightly above the next 2 defenders so it looked a little like 1-4, but I think most would call it a 3-2. This is the zone that gave us issues for the next 6 minutes or so of the game and when they made their run.

As I said above, the only question any of us had at the game was "why did he come out if it"? I'm sure glad he did, but no idea why he did.

What happened last night in our game happens quite often throughout the year. Team switches defense and changes momentum of the game. We just very, very rarely see it in the B1G.

Probably because we got super easy entries to Zach. Now he happened to miss them all but that wasn't going to keep occurring. Plus we could shoot over it.

 

[Dryfly88]

Probably because we got super easy entries to Zach. Now he happened to miss them all but that wasn't going to keep occurring. Plus we could shoot over it.

We didn't score for 6 minutes against their zone. Yes, we missed some shots, but isn't that kind of the goal of any defense?

 

[tjreese]

I was at the game and have just had a chance to re-watch it.

We scored easily against their first possession in zone. It was a pretty straight forward 2-3. They then played MTM for a couple possessions and then they went to what I would call a 1-4 or 3-2 look. Their top guy was slightly above the next 2 defenders so it looked a little like 1-4, but I think most would call it a 3-2. This is the zone that gave us issues for the next 6 minutes or so of the game and when they made their run.

As I said above, the only question any of us had at the game was "why did he come out if it"? I'm sure glad he did, but no idea why he did.

What happened last night in our game happens quite often throughout the year. Team switches defense and changes momentum of the game. We just very, very rarely see it in the B1G.

The only questions I have and I don't know was who was in the game at that time for Purdue and to discern if in a pure zone or match-up which is hard to discern unless Purdue players cut through the lane. Against a 2-3 "pure" zone which as you stated and I initially saw "most" common formations are a 1-3-1 or a 3-2, 1-2-2 against a pure 2-3 zone. Some will run a 1-4 FT line extended or baseline against a pure 2-3 , but that is not that common.

So what you saw and what I remembered was that there were 3 AZ defenders out on the 3 Purdue perimeter players and so the first question in my mind was did AZ go to a match-up zone where they matched up with the Purdue players...remember the only played 2 on top the possession before and now I think I recall them matching up with Purdue. That said unless Purdue players cut through the lane to see hand off in a matchup or whether a player just follows a cutter all the way you may not be in a position to determine what they are playing since you didn't force their hand

 

[PurdueDave]

We didn't score for 6 minutes against their zone. Yes, we missed some shots, but isn't that kind of the goal of any defense?

You're remembering it the same as I do. I think Zona's coach screwed up big time. It just goes to show how quickly games can change for good or bad when teams change things up on D.

 

[Dryfly88]

Regardless of what zone they were playing, it is impossible to say it wasn't effective. If anyone doesn't think it mattered, just go back and watch the game from the 15:00 mark on. It obviously caught us off guard and why CMP made the comment it was the first time AZ had played it all year.

I'm thrilled we won and we had a blast at the game. I just hope that the posters on here that have this strange idea that a zone can't be effective in today's game got a first hand chance to see that isn't true. I would say we would see more teams try it, but not in the B1G.

 

[BoilerAndy]

We didn't score for 6 minutes against their zone. Yes, we missed some shots, but isn't that kind of the goal of any defense?

Purdue figured out how to beat their zone. Shots that weren't falling started to fall again. It took 6 minutes, but Purdue got back on track, so Arizona abandoned it.

 

[Dryfly88]

Purdue figured out how to beat their zone. Shots that weren't falling started to fall again. It took 6 minutes, but Purdue got back on track, so Arizona abandoned it.

Jones hit a 3 with about 5 minutes to go. AZ stopped playing zone after that 1 basket. I think it was premature, but I'm glad they did stop playing it. They then went to MTM and Smith hit a 3 and Edey got an easy 2. Both against their MTM. We closed it out from there.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Jones hit a 3 with about 5 minutes to go. AZ stopped playing zone after that 1 basket. I think it was premature, but I'm glad they did stop playing it. They then went to MTM and Smith hit a 3 and Edey got an easy 2. Both against their MTM. We closed it out from there.

Purdue was getting shots. They were simply missing -- hit a cold spell, which happens in the ebb and flow of a game. If the Arizona coach was convinced it was working, he would be an idiot to abandon it. I don't think he's an idiot.

I don't go to other teams' boards, but I wonder what the Arizona fan base is saying about this topic.

 

[Dryfly88]

Purdue was getting shots. They were simply missing -- hit a cold spell, which happens in the ebb and flow of a game. If the Arizona coach was convinced it was working, he would be an idiot to abandon it. I don't think he's an idiot.

I don't go to other teams' boards, but I wonder what the Arizona fan base is saying about this topic.

I don't go to other boards either, so no idea.

We actually turned the ball over several times against that defense also. Yes, we were getting shots. Unless you turn the ball over, you're going to get shots against any defense, right?

So are you saying you don't think the defensive change had any impact on the game? That's what this really comes down to. If you think it was just coincidence that they switched defense and at that same time we happened to go cold for 6:00, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[BoilerAndy]

I don't go to other boards either, so no idea.

We actually turned the ball over several times against that defense also. Yes, we were getting shots. Unless you turn the ball over, you're going to get shots against any defense, right?

So are you saying you don't think the defensive change had any impact on the game? That's what this really comes down to. If you think it was just coincidence that they switched defense and at that same time we happened to go cold for 6:00, then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

No, I obviously did not say that. I'm saying the impact was temporary. It obviously took them out of their rhythm. I'll repeat that Purdue figured it out and got back on track.

Past Purdue teams may have panicked and lost the game. This team is different. They kept their cool and kept playing to their strengths.

 

[Schmedly_Whiplash]

Bench didn’t play much, Matt when the game is close plays the starters.

TKR didn't play down the stretch after being pretty effective early. I was surprised but as always Mason and Caleb were working their butts off so I'm guessing it was something they were doing right more than TKR was doing poorly.

 

[Boiler Buck]

TKR didn't play down the stretch after being pretty effective early. I was surprised but as always Mason and Caleb were working their butts off so I'm guessing it was something they were doing right more than TKR was doing poorly.

TKR was great the first couple minutes of H2 also.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Jones hit a 3 with about 5 minutes to go. AZ stopped playing zone after that 1 basket. I think it was premature, but I'm glad they did stop playing it. They then went to MTM and Smith hit a 3 and Edey got an easy 2. Both against their MTM. We closed it out from there.

I think it was pretty clear on that Jones shot that Purdue had figured out the zone.

 

[Jbigler1986]

"It isn't stubborn it is disagreeing with those wanting a different D"
No, dont get me wrong. And sorry for the confusion. I dont want "a different D". Here is what I mean. Use a zone as a last-ditch effort to get back in the game IF nothing else is working. AZ never played any zone all year, until their backs were against the wall vs us, seen the loss coming, and threw a zone at Purdue to see if it would shake things up. Thats all. Plain and simple. Kind of like an expert archer with a quiver full of arrows. Not all arrows are the same, a few different ones for a rare scenario. Make sense?

Yep. They weren't stopping us at all so he said well "what do we have to lose. Might as well try this." it definitely worked because it got them back in the game and we had some turnovers because of it.

 

[mathboy]

Just because the AZ zone slowed us down for several possessions doesn’t mean we could throw a zone at an opponent and have it work. in fact, I’m not sure the AZ zone was the reason we missed open shots. It just might have been a lull in our shooting. Just not convinced zone would work for us.

 

[Dryfly88]

Just because the AZ zone slowed us down for several possessions doesn’t mean we could throw a zone at an opponent and have it work. in fact, I’m not sure the AZ zone was the reason we missed open shots. It just might have been a lull in our shooting. Just not convinced zone would work for us.

We not only missed shots (which is the primary goal of any defense) we also turned the ball over several times during that stretch. That defense was VERY effective during that 6:00 run.

I can only speak for myself. But in this discussion I haven't, nor am I intending to, suggest that PU should have done anything different on defense in this game. I'm simply pointing out that this was the perfect example of a team switching to a zone defense and it having a positive impact for that team. There are many on this board that say a zone defense doesn't have a place in today's game. They will say there isn't practice time available to work on multiple defenses. They will say that shooters are too good now and it won't work. They will say it's ok for HS, but it won't be effective in college and on and on and on. Simply not true.

Most of those people watch the B1G exclusively or the vast majority of the time. They don't see what happened Saturday, happening quite frequently in other games. This was an opportunity to see what can happen if a team switches up. No, it doesn't mean it will work every time. No defense works every time. The score would be 0-0 if that were the case. But it can do what it did Saturday. Give a team something else to look at. Make them make adjustments and that can sometimes be all it takes to change the momentum of the game. Against their MTM we were getting everything we wanted. Good Lord, we had 49 points at half time!

For those that say "we figured it out" I would just say that yes Jones hit a 3 and AZ came out of the zone. On the next 2 possessions against their MTM we got a Smith 3 and an Edey 2. It could be argued they should have stuck with it a little longer, but that isn't really the point of the discussion.

 

[Dryfly88]

I think it was pretty clear on that Jones shot that Purdue had figured out the zone.

Reasonable minds can disagree. I would argue he should have stayed with it for a few more possessions but I'm glad he didn't. He went back to MTM and we scored easily the next 2 possessions and started to finish the game out.