I haven't read too much of the threads lately as I figure there's been a lot of complaining (and if we lost yesterday even worse).
However, a few things to note as I think it's a lot easier to reasonably go over things after a win than after a loss.
1. We have two tough games to close the season. Nebraska isn't good, but they are like Minnesota - they aren't getting blown out night after night and have kept it close against good teams, even on the road. Obviously Wisconsin has improved a lot since we played them.
2. I think we know our strengths and weaknesses at this point.
Strengths:
-Having significant contributions outside of our big men. Obviously ESPN had the stat about Davis scoring 10 points or more, but it also works with others. Yesterday, Mathias. We've seen Davis be that guy. We've seen PJ have some good days. We've seen Edwards have these days.
-Getting productive minutes from our bigs (including Swanigan). I think their consistency has been better, but I still worry about Hammons/Swanigan being focused. I literally close my eyes when they shoot 3s (more so Swanigan).
-Rebounding. Yesterday was a brilliant example of how rebounding should almost be a sole reason we beat lesser teams. Obviously Maryland wasn't a lesser team, but we should be able to dominate on the boards against weaker teams - and if we have a bad offensive game, this should be our "firewall". And as we know, effort is a big part of rebounding.
Weaknesses:
-Turnovers. I would probably also throw in the press in this - solely because there aren't a lot of teams out there that can press along the lines of Iowa/Maryland. And half of the problem with the press yesterday were just lazy/sloppy passes. Yesterday, we were doing ok with turnovers until the end. But we still saw some pretty lazy/telegraphed passes (Edwards/Davis seem to do this a couple times each game).
-Offensive consistency. I think we're slowly figuring this out, but it's still a slow and inconsistent thing. I think part of the problem is Edwards, who has struggled of late. With Stephens not being around much, we NEED Edwards to get back to at least being his average self consistently (and to his defense, Maryland is a tough match-up for him). Doesn't need to be outta control. He's doing the right things, just not in the groove. It's a plus having a bench and not just 1 guy on the perimeter we count on, but it's also not great when you don't know what you're going to get from your perimeter game each game. And a big part of our consistency is our big men - Maryland is a tough match-up on the inside on both ends of the court, but AJ is a senior and he needs to be playing like every game is his last game. He had a great game yesterday, but when he was out with foul trouble - it really hurt us. Haas is going to be an adequate replacement against most teams, but he just can't defend a guy like Stone quite yet (he was fine offensively).
-Shot selection. This goes along the lines of consistency - Purdue had several times yesterday where they could really do something to not put away Maryland, but they just get unfocused. And on top of that even when we're not looking to put someone away, we go through spurts of just not being focused offensively. And on top of consistency, I'd also put our blown leads in this. We get away from looking inside - when we're up by 16, we don't need a 3. A boring interior shot by Hammons is a-ok. This is where our size advantage should be a MAJOR advantage. Teams will start to to panic going down that much and that's when you get the fouls/overzealous defense. So by throwing up a 3 is a nice dagger if you make it, but if you don't - it gives the opposing team a gift (and often results in transition points). Until Purdue realizes some patience offensively, it's going to get themselves into trouble, even when up by a large margin. Until a team show that they can stop Purdue inside or cause problems (i.e. turnovers ala Butler), that should be a well it never stops going back to.
So the good news is that most of our problems can be overcome - a lot of it is mental. We've seen us do fine with turnovers. We've seen us be ok just with average turnovers. We get into problems when we see us go into the teens.
That being said, I think this is a great game to look at how EVERY team in the country has strengths and weaknesses. At this point in the season, it's about taking advantage of your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses.
Yesterday, we took our strength in rebounding and KILLED Maryland with it. We won the game because of our rebounding/effort. And it's not like Maryland is a small team that should be killed on the boards. They actually have great size on their team. And if you look at our first game against Maryland and then yesterday, our problems in the first game - we did a great job at fixing. One of those was rebounding. Another was to attack the basket more and get some fouls (which we did a much better job of). Another was be more efficient from 3 - while this horrified me with Swanigan/Hammons shooting a combined 5 (thankfully it wasn't a complete horror show, particularly with Hammons making 2/2)
If you look at the Maryland boards, they're amazed they got outrebounded the way they did. They're amazed they have so much talent, yet struggle so much (they view themselves as underachieving big time). They wonder why their star player is struggling so much.
Every team has problems. But Purdue took their strengths and did great with them. Our big guys were efficient and produced at a high rate - Hammons 7/10, Haas 4/7. We shot 50% for the game - and still managed to get 19 offensive rebounds. It's not amazing to get a ton of rebounds when you shoot the ball like crap - but it IS amazing to get those kind of stats and still be shooting the ball 50%. We had contributions from our perimeter - particularly Mathias. Davis got his double digits, but was not efficient in doing so. But I do think Maryland's perimeter players are very good - especially defensively. So it's not terribly surprising.
And I just can't emphasize this enough - the success we have in our last 2 regular season games, the Big Ten tournament and the NCAA Tournament - will be determined by how much we take advantages of our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. We almost screwed up yesterday because we let our weakness get to us at the very end. We practiced it that week, we knew what to do - but they got flustered. It wasn't because of youth (Edwards, even though a sophomore, screwed up - and Davis screwed up too - especially with that jump ball situation). But the fact that we shot better than Maryland (which means lower attempts) and we had 9 more turnovers than Maryland - yet Maryland only had 1 more field goal attempt -that's why we won. The rebounding saved us. Otherwise we would have seen one of those games where the other team had 10 more shot attempts. That's gonna make it tough to win.
Overall, it's ok to have problems. There isn't a team in the country that doesn't have weaknesses. And at this point in the season, it's a matter of a chess game between every opponent you face by maximizing your strengths, minimizing your weaknesses and the approach for each opponent will be different.
However, a few things to note as I think it's a lot easier to reasonably go over things after a win than after a loss.
1. We have two tough games to close the season. Nebraska isn't good, but they are like Minnesota - they aren't getting blown out night after night and have kept it close against good teams, even on the road. Obviously Wisconsin has improved a lot since we played them.
2. I think we know our strengths and weaknesses at this point.
Strengths:
-Having significant contributions outside of our big men. Obviously ESPN had the stat about Davis scoring 10 points or more, but it also works with others. Yesterday, Mathias. We've seen Davis be that guy. We've seen PJ have some good days. We've seen Edwards have these days.
-Getting productive minutes from our bigs (including Swanigan). I think their consistency has been better, but I still worry about Hammons/Swanigan being focused. I literally close my eyes when they shoot 3s (more so Swanigan).
-Rebounding. Yesterday was a brilliant example of how rebounding should almost be a sole reason we beat lesser teams. Obviously Maryland wasn't a lesser team, but we should be able to dominate on the boards against weaker teams - and if we have a bad offensive game, this should be our "firewall". And as we know, effort is a big part of rebounding.
Weaknesses:
-Turnovers. I would probably also throw in the press in this - solely because there aren't a lot of teams out there that can press along the lines of Iowa/Maryland. And half of the problem with the press yesterday were just lazy/sloppy passes. Yesterday, we were doing ok with turnovers until the end. But we still saw some pretty lazy/telegraphed passes (Edwards/Davis seem to do this a couple times each game).
-Offensive consistency. I think we're slowly figuring this out, but it's still a slow and inconsistent thing. I think part of the problem is Edwards, who has struggled of late. With Stephens not being around much, we NEED Edwards to get back to at least being his average self consistently (and to his defense, Maryland is a tough match-up for him). Doesn't need to be outta control. He's doing the right things, just not in the groove. It's a plus having a bench and not just 1 guy on the perimeter we count on, but it's also not great when you don't know what you're going to get from your perimeter game each game. And a big part of our consistency is our big men - Maryland is a tough match-up on the inside on both ends of the court, but AJ is a senior and he needs to be playing like every game is his last game. He had a great game yesterday, but when he was out with foul trouble - it really hurt us. Haas is going to be an adequate replacement against most teams, but he just can't defend a guy like Stone quite yet (he was fine offensively).
-Shot selection. This goes along the lines of consistency - Purdue had several times yesterday where they could really do something to not put away Maryland, but they just get unfocused. And on top of that even when we're not looking to put someone away, we go through spurts of just not being focused offensively. And on top of consistency, I'd also put our blown leads in this. We get away from looking inside - when we're up by 16, we don't need a 3. A boring interior shot by Hammons is a-ok. This is where our size advantage should be a MAJOR advantage. Teams will start to to panic going down that much and that's when you get the fouls/overzealous defense. So by throwing up a 3 is a nice dagger if you make it, but if you don't - it gives the opposing team a gift (and often results in transition points). Until Purdue realizes some patience offensively, it's going to get themselves into trouble, even when up by a large margin. Until a team show that they can stop Purdue inside or cause problems (i.e. turnovers ala Butler), that should be a well it never stops going back to.
So the good news is that most of our problems can be overcome - a lot of it is mental. We've seen us do fine with turnovers. We've seen us be ok just with average turnovers. We get into problems when we see us go into the teens.
That being said, I think this is a great game to look at how EVERY team in the country has strengths and weaknesses. At this point in the season, it's about taking advantage of your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses.
Yesterday, we took our strength in rebounding and KILLED Maryland with it. We won the game because of our rebounding/effort. And it's not like Maryland is a small team that should be killed on the boards. They actually have great size on their team. And if you look at our first game against Maryland and then yesterday, our problems in the first game - we did a great job at fixing. One of those was rebounding. Another was to attack the basket more and get some fouls (which we did a much better job of). Another was be more efficient from 3 - while this horrified me with Swanigan/Hammons shooting a combined 5 (thankfully it wasn't a complete horror show, particularly with Hammons making 2/2)
If you look at the Maryland boards, they're amazed they got outrebounded the way they did. They're amazed they have so much talent, yet struggle so much (they view themselves as underachieving big time). They wonder why their star player is struggling so much.
Every team has problems. But Purdue took their strengths and did great with them. Our big guys were efficient and produced at a high rate - Hammons 7/10, Haas 4/7. We shot 50% for the game - and still managed to get 19 offensive rebounds. It's not amazing to get a ton of rebounds when you shoot the ball like crap - but it IS amazing to get those kind of stats and still be shooting the ball 50%. We had contributions from our perimeter - particularly Mathias. Davis got his double digits, but was not efficient in doing so. But I do think Maryland's perimeter players are very good - especially defensively. So it's not terribly surprising.
And I just can't emphasize this enough - the success we have in our last 2 regular season games, the Big Ten tournament and the NCAA Tournament - will be determined by how much we take advantages of our strengths and minimize our weaknesses. We almost screwed up yesterday because we let our weakness get to us at the very end. We practiced it that week, we knew what to do - but they got flustered. It wasn't because of youth (Edwards, even though a sophomore, screwed up - and Davis screwed up too - especially with that jump ball situation). But the fact that we shot better than Maryland (which means lower attempts) and we had 9 more turnovers than Maryland - yet Maryland only had 1 more field goal attempt -that's why we won. The rebounding saved us. Otherwise we would have seen one of those games where the other team had 10 more shot attempts. That's gonna make it tough to win.
Overall, it's ok to have problems. There isn't a team in the country that doesn't have weaknesses. And at this point in the season, it's a matter of a chess game between every opponent you face by maximizing your strengths, minimizing your weaknesses and the approach for each opponent will be different.
