I love man to man. Think it's the best D to play most of the time but this team's flaw is clearly depth. Haas played 5 minutes in first half and didn't start second half. Biggie had 4 fouls and had to sit for way too long. Those two are clearly our best offensive options. We need to play a zone just occasionally to protect our guys while keeping them in the game. When those two are in offensively we are really tough for sure. We need to adapt because we are too good not to
Zone
- Thread starter saratogashaw
- Start date
Exactly, but Painter is stubborn to his own detriment. Also, the Boilers needed more out of the rest of the team. If I was an opposing team that's Top 15-20 caliber, I would front & double-down Isaac & Biggie & force their teammates to make as many big plays as possible. It was a great crowd, & a great effort, but making more FT's, making more open 3's, perhaps drawing more fouls to get to the line more, & the coaching playboy & state goes all factor into the outcome of high-level games like this one.
I am starting to believe Painter thinks it is illegal to play a zone defense in college basketball.
Vince was off, Carson seemed nervous which is understandable - I like this team but we need to switch things up when we need to. We play a zone for a few minutes in first half when Haas has two and zone for a few minutes in second half when Biggie has 3 and maybe - just maybe - there is a different outcome
I agree. He never seems to change those types of tactical approaches. Players needed to make more shots but there are also ways to alter the rhythm of a game that can benefit a team.
Not the Zone Defense again!
Did you notice how we ripped the Nova zone? Nova's drivers and shooters would have done the same to an attempted zone on our part. Furthermore, zone defense gives away our primary advantage, rebounding. Rebounding while in a zone is troublesome. Nova would have torn us up with offensive rebounds.
Did you notice how we ripped the Nova zone? Nova's drivers and shooters would have done the same to an attempted zone on our part. Furthermore, zone defense gives away our primary advantage, rebounding. Rebounding while in a zone is troublesome. Nova would have torn us up with offensive rebounds.
'Nova's drivers and shooters had their way with the man-to-man that was being played, so I fail to see how it could/would have been any worse, if even different, and it would have been more likely to have kept Haas and Swanigan on the floor which was far more important.
The rebounding at halftime was dead even at 17...largely because of the foul trouble of Haas and Swanigan, yet I say that, and I believe Haas ended the night with a whopping 3 rebounds.
'Nova did not have the size or athletes to tear Purdue up with offensive rebounds regardless of whether Purdue played zone or not...and while not a huge proponent of zone defense, there was no legitimate excuse or reason to not have tried it, if even for only a couple of possessions, so as to buy time on the floor for Haas and Swanigan...their not being on the floor for as long as they both collectively were not actually may have been the ultimate difference in the end.
there is an infatuation with the zone. I do wish it were a very small part of the D, not tonight though. I think the more people understand man the more they understand why almost all coaches play it
It is not an infatuation with it...it would have potentially kept Haas and Swanigan on the floor rather than on the bench due to the inability to adequately play man-to-man defense on the perimeter.
Here is what I understand about man-to-man and that I think most others do...if you can't stop dribble penetration from the perimeter, and Purdue struggled collectively to do so, but glaringly so individually in a couple of cases, then man-to-man is going to lead to easy baskets and foul trouble for bigs trying to make up for the mistakes of the guys out top...and that is EXACTLY what happened.
and if you are playing zone against a team that can stroke it and that also has good ball handlers that can hit gaps due to players no on men but on areas that now may be overloaded...the other team not only has better rebounding angles, but has you in a helter skelter mode. People can make good points for either...because it is open to either based on what a "ZONE TEAM" might allow.
It was fear of fouls that had the Purdue players allowing the easy drive. That won't happen when the refs get calling it real...but this si the way it is early in the year. Had they not got jumping into Haas early and got him in foul trouble...who knows how much more effective Purdue would be in in containing the dribble. This game could have been won easily...and lost worst...easily. Taylor plays and I think Purdue wins as he has enough size an lateral movement to keep size on the court. Nova understands their roles and Purdue is still trying to figure out who does what. Nova has better athletes than Purdue...can you imagine all the gaps in a zone those athletes that can shoot it might like? Purdue might have contained the dribble better (did do a MUCH better job later in the game) in a zone....but might have allowed a better 3 pt shooting percent?
Here is the thing...what was being done was not working, so why not try it? What is there to be lost in trying it, again, if even just for a possession or two? Maybe it fails miserably as you suggest...maybe it doesn't and it leads to Haas and Swanigan getting more minutes which might have been the difference in the ultimate outcome.
Every time i consider checking out the free board am reminded why I pay for my subscription.
Good jightZ
Good jightZ
There is so little room for error that experimenting many times does not take place. Carsen takes a bad shot and Nova goes for three points and the spread widens. A game between really good teams can be decided in a minute or two...the game flys so fast. I often wondered what coaches could do if the had a defensive team and an offensive team with a few seconds in between plays...how different the game would be...
Purdue has spent much of the time thinkng Taylor could play and there would be sufficient players at all spots...a lot of really nice pieces adn when Taylor goes down...Purdue's makeup is different and there must again be more adjustments. My whole focus in the scrimmages and such was to watch Carsen and Taylor because I thought they could be crucial. Carsen hits his layup and Purdue might have won. Purdue played significantly better than any game previous tonight and nto becasue they played Nova tight, but becasue they played hard and were just a better team than what we saw jsut a few night ago...
I felt like Carson was more in control and showed a better game when in with Spike. Maybe more of a mature stabilizing effect.
We tried zone I believe last year and it didn't work. The way Nova can shoot the three I suspect it wouldn't of worked much last night either.
Haas got fouls because Vince got burned a bit for whatever reason.
Haas got fouls because Vince got burned a bit for whatever reason.
There's no infatuation. Tons of programs have used it effectively at one point or another in games FOR DECADES. You anti-zone guys are just afraid of it being a regular thing because it would be different for Purdue and you. You fear the unknown and the possibility of change.
We aren't talking about becoming Syracuse - just use it when needed to protect our bigs when in foul trouble or to show a new look. Some of you are just so afraid to play any alternative to man. I get it straight man to man all game is bad ass. Just use it when necessary is all we are saying
I suppose there is some merit in trying a zone defense, but lets not do it against the National Champions. What we doing was working. Hit some more FT and we win the game.
By the way, there are tons and tons of schools/coaches that understand the personnel requirements of running a successful zone, and they won't touch it. Just because some coaches run a zone doesn't mean we should. (play the old mom saying: "If Johnny ran off a cliff would you?")
I don't fear change and I don't fear the "unknown"... wait, why is zone defense "unknown"? That's kind of weird, don't you think. Nova tried it for a couple series and we jammed them. I really don't think it is unknown to anyone. They just don't think it will work either.
Quit playing psychologist.
Painter tried quite a bit of 2-3 zone a couple of years ago and it was awful. Not just bad, but awful. He ditched the zone and the season turned around with Purdue playing excellent man defense throughout the Big Ten season.
I had advocated for Purdue to play zone that season because of Purdue's size. It was tried. It didn't work and I don't miss it. I also don't think it would protect Isaac and I don't think that Purdue has the personel to be a good zone team this season: not enough length and close out ability.
I know you'll disagree with me and that's fine. Just drop the psycho-analysis.
He didn't even give it a chance! You have to play it more than that to get better at it, just like Purdue has done with man-to-man for decades and decades. I'm not going to drop it because I believe it's the truth. Fans (particularly long-time fans) are scared of what would happen if Purdue incorporated zones into their games on a regular basis. A lot of you guys seem overly conservative and stuck in only sticking with "tradition".
It makes sense to use zones with a frontcourt of two lumbering giants instead of having them guard out to the three-point line! That's just plain dumb! They'll get beat on pick-and-pops, pick-and-rolls, and drives regularly because Haas and Swanigan aren't meant to be quick enough to guard players like (examples) Jalen Brunson and Josh Hart.
Last edited:
These are college students. There are not unlimited practice hours in a week. Is it better to be very good at one D or spread your time around and be average at a couple? There is a reason Syracuse plays only zone. They recruit the personnel to run it and they work at it. No D is "easy" to excel at. We're better off leaving the surprise "gimmicks and tricks" alone and doing what we do best.
I get what you are saying, but when you use phrases like, "that's just plain dumb", it makes me think that you aren't acknowledging that there are two sides of the argument.
When you say that Painter didn't give the zone enough of a chance, I wonder how much of a chance you think he should have given it. Remember North Florida, Gardner Webb, Notre Dame, and Vanderbilt from two years ago? That was probably the worst stretch of defense that I have ever seen at Purdue. If Painter had stuck with the zone any longer, Purdue would have certainly missed the NCAA tournament. Maybe Purdue would have eventually become competent at it, but at what cost?
Purdue runs a very sophisticated man D that incorporates a lot of help concepts to address many of the concerns raised in this thread. It's not that I am tied to tradition, but I accept Painter's explanation of why he sticks with it.
Regarding Hart, I don't think that a zone would completely keep him out of the lane unless you concede the three, which you could also do with man. Any zone has gaps that can be attacked and if Hart is going to get the call for driving straight into Haas's chest, I just don't think switching to zone is going to fix that problem.
I wondered what you negatwatts would latch on to next and you didn't leave us waiting long. This post of your's there whiney mcwhineface just further proves your agenda against Painter and how little you know about basketball.
I mean seriously, just when I didn't think you could get any dumber you go and prove us all wrong. Painter gave zone quite a bit of a chance and it was a disaster. You whine on and on about other schools being successful with zone and sure it's true. But guess what? Purdue and other schools have been successful with man-to-man. Has nothing to do with us lingering on tradition more that we are good at man-to-man so what sort of moron changes from that to a completely new defense based off of one game? Oh that's right, you negatools that are clueless.
So no vagemj02, we aren't scared to switch, there just is no evidence to support a need to change when the overwhelming evidence shows we are effective in man-to-man. I mean you really have zero idea as to what you are talking about. None.
Bravo. wells aid and quite right. Unfortunately, you used logic so the negatwitts won't understand your post.
Let me get this straight... out of your 5 defenders, you're going to put 4 of them on 2 players? So that leaves 1 player to guard 3?
Hopefully someone does this to us!
That said, Painter is well aware teams are going to do exactly that, more-so when they are in the low post. EVERY team has done it to our bigs since Hammons sophomore year. Painter has adjusted very well, instilled in our bigs understand the double is coming and look for the pass immediately by holding the ball high, typically the 2nd defender flees back to his assignment, and it's a 1 on 1 again until he dribbles, at which time the defender comes back, leaving someone wide open for a 3. Like I said in another thread, our gameplan worked great. We just didn't knock down about 7 wide open 3s. We hit half of them, we win by nearly 10 points, not to mention FTs.
You don't play any defense as a "oh let's just try this, we have nothing to lose"! If you want to be multiple it has to be worked all fall to be ready to do it. This is not rec league ball.
Big does not mean good at rebounding so Haas getting 3 boards in 20 minutes is not horrible, it's not great but not horrible. Haas keeps opponents away but is an area rebounder. If it falls on his area he gets it. Great rebounders move to the ball. Think Dennis Rodman.
The advantage of the zone which you desire is that it is easier to control the driving lanes thus reducing the chances of interior defenders fouling drivers. The problem is zones give up more offensive rebounds because you are focused on defending an area not a man and it is harder to locate and block out the correct man to rebound effectively as a team. The result being offensive rebounds and fouls by your interior zone guys on the putbacks.
There is a reason that almost no college teams or NBA for that matter, use zone defense. Most never use it. To do both man and zone uses up tons of practice time which is the most valuable commodity for any coach.
Did you notice how long Swanigan and Haas played in the second half without fouling. What defense were we in?
It's not about man or zone. It's about executing whichever you use really well.
We beat this horse every year. We toyed with it the last two years. We got torched every time. It doesn't work with this team. Players still have to get to their man and defend.
All fair points, if not good ones...but I have long been an advocate of doing whatever is necessary as a coach to give your team the best chance to win games, and not being able to play a zone is more than just not having practiced it enough (although it does require putting time in to work on it obviouisly...that said, ALL of those guys have played zone defense during their long careers at some level and to some extent most likely, as it is prevalent in AAU).
I don't buy the notion that being able to play man and zone is a drain on practice time...or that practice time is the precious commodity suggested...I know that it is early on and with newcomers, but, there is more than sufficient time to be able to have worked on man and zone defense, among a multitude of other things.
Purdue has had games where playing a zone would have provided them a better opportunity, if not the best opportunity, to win...Monday night may have been one of them...if Purdue does not improve at preventing dribble drive penetration (that leads to fouls on their bigs), it will have other games where playing a zone will provide them a better opportunity to win as well...and it should be something that is available as such.
As for Haas' rebounding...I don't disagree with what you had asserted, yet, with the size advantage that he had (and most often has), three rebounds is not efficient in any sense...a guy that big and around the basket is likely to have three balls simply fall in his lap over the course of a game (and that may be what actually happened given your suggestion that he is an "area rebounder)...if Hammons is in that game, I am certain that he comes away with more than three rebounds...so, while it does have to do with being an area rebounder in a sense as you had alluded to, there is more to it as well in that it has to do with the individual also (no finer example of that than Swanigan for that matter).
Toyed with it is an accurate assessment, as Painter never made a genuine commitment to it...from a preparation standpoint, and certainly from an application one.
Zone can work to some extent for virtually any team...most importantly, Purdue simply has some guys that just are not capable of getting to their man and defending, and that is what the real issue has been at times (and has been an issue for some time).
All this sounds good on a blog except when you play poor zone you perform poorly. We have never had personnel that can play zone. Zone is a great high school defense as a lot of the players are mediocre at best talent. You get a big time talent such ass Hart is and that zone of man to man goes out the window. Hart would have exploited our guards easier than he did Vince and Mathias. He just looks for the weakest link in a zone.
Yes. You lose by
Regarding: "I often wondered what coaches could do if the had a defensive team and an offensive team with a few seconds in between plays...how different the game would be..." that would stop Izzos early offense game! I would press, press, and press some more as turnovers would be the only easy baskets! Practice would change immensely and the teams would require many more (at least twice as many) players, coaches too.
And you know this how? Were you part of the practices? No? Then STFU.
You negatwatts just can't be happy can you? We get it. You hate Painter and there is nothing he can do to change it. But every single one of the arguments you made for zone have been proven to be inaccurate and an over exaggeration on your part. Zone wouldn't of been tried if it hadn't of been prepared for and it wouldn't of worked against Nova. Period.
You really need to just stop talking about things you are clearly pretty clueless about.
Similar threads
