Bigs and Post Play

[depthcharge623]

Seeing a lot of comments about how we need to move away from playing through the post with a 7 footer for several reasons (ie. Clogs the lane, defensive liability, bad FT shooting). I’m open to this being true, but I think we need to compare it to the actual alternative.

Some think the actual alternative is a mobile center that can spread the floor and shoot. Or more/better guards to slash and go small ball with. But I don’t think that is likely and here’s why.

Purdue gets these huge players from all over the world literally (Alabama, Sweden, Canada) because we are one of the few programs who develops traditional bigs this well and basically plays exclusively through the post. So we are able to recruit these big guys from everywhere.

But as soon as we switch to a more modern big who can shoot and spread the floor, we are now competing with every good division 1 team. Same if we were to try and recruit better guards instead.

Simply stopping our current recruiting plan which plays to our strength will not suddenly make us better at recruiting the guys we think we want. So it seems to me like we would be giving up a strength, and getting nothing in return.

I don’t know what the correct way forward is. Maybe we continue to recruit trees but just slowly start moving away from them being the centerpiece of our offense. Maybe with some success from Ivey and Carsen we will start to draw attention from better guards to fill that gap. Who knows.

Last thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work. Maybe that was just him as a player, maybe it was our system, I don’t know.

 

[Wolegib]

Big guys win regular season games. Guards win tourney games!

 

[BoilerMaker P]

ast thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work. Maybe that was just him as a player, maybe it was our system, I don’t know.

Yet Haarms was the center on the Elite 8 team.

 

[PurdueDave]

Yet Haarms was the center on the Elite 8 team.

Yeah, but he primarily played in the post.

 

[depthcharge623]

Yet Haarms was the center on the Elite 8 team.

Yes I saw a comment in another thread and realized that.

So would a lights out guard and an average mobile big be good enough? We aren’t going to have a player like Carsen every year, and it seems to me Haarms isn’t good enough without someone like Carsen. Could even argue that Carsen leaving is what made Haarms less effective and motivated him to transfer.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Last thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work.

Huh? That was our best NCAA tourney team. Not a coincidence.

 

[depthcharge623]

Huh? That was our best NCAA tourney team. Not a coincidence.

OK maybe I’m wrong to an extent. It worked— with Carsen— and then fizzled. I meant more in a long term sense since Haarms became less effective and ultimately transferred because he was unhappy.

 

[FirstDownB]

Seeing a lot of comments about how we need to move away from playing through the post with a 7 footer for several reasons (ie. Clogs the lane, defensive liability, bad FT shooting). I’m open to this being true, but I think we need to compare it to the actual alternative.

Some think the actual alternative is a mobile center that can spread the floor and shoot. Or more/better guards to slash and go small ball with. But I don’t think that is likely and here’s why.

Purdue gets these huge players from all over the world literally (Alabama, Sweden, Canada) because we are one of the few programs who develops traditional bigs this well and basically plays exclusively through the post. So we are able to recruit these big guys from everywhere.

But as soon as we switch to a more modern big who can shoot and spread the floor, we are now competing with every good division 1 team. Same if we were to try and recruit better guards instead.

Simply stopping our current recruiting plan which plays to our strength will not suddenly make us better at recruiting the guys we think we want. So it seems to me like we would be giving up a strength, and getting nothing in return.

I don’t know what the correct way forward is. Maybe we continue to recruit trees but just slowly start moving away from them being the centerpiece of our offense. Maybe with some success from Ivey and Carsen we will start to draw attention from better guards to fill that gap. Who knows.

Last thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work. Maybe that was just him as a player, maybe it was our system, I don’t know.

I don’t agree that Purdue can’t flex to successfully recruiting different types of big men. Swanigan, Haarms, and Furst are very different from AJ, Haas, and Edey.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

OK maybe I’m wrong to an extent. It worked— with Carsen— and then fizzled. I meant more in a long term sense since Haarms became less effective and ultimately transferred because he was unhappy.

Well yeah, you need some playmakers too. We didn’t have any in 2019-20.

 

[ehuffma1]

Seeing a lot of comments about how we need to move away from playing through the post with a 7 footer for several reasons (ie. Clogs the lane, defensive liability, bad FT shooting). I’m open to this being true, but I think we need to compare it to the actual alternative.

Some think the actual alternative is a mobile center that can spread the floor and shoot. Or more/better guards to slash and go small ball with. But I don’t think that is likely and here’s why.

Purdue gets these huge players from all over the world literally (Alabama, Sweden, Canada) because we are one of the few programs who develops traditional bigs this well and basically plays exclusively through the post. So we are able to recruit these big guys from everywhere.

But as soon as we switch to a more modern big who can shoot and spread the floor, we are now competing with every good division 1 team. Same if we were to try and recruit better guards instead.

Simply stopping our current recruiting plan which plays to our strength will not suddenly make us better at recruiting the guys we think we want. So it seems to me like we would be giving up a strength, and getting nothing in return.

I don’t know what the correct way forward is. Maybe we continue to recruit trees but just slowly start moving away from them being the centerpiece of our offense. Maybe with some success from Ivey and Carsen we will start to draw attention from better guards to fill that gap. Who knows.

Last thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work. Maybe that was just him as a player, maybe it was our system, I don’t know.

Everything you are saying is true. We have advantages with our bigs. Edey and Furst will be very good next year. Furst brings some versatility. Edey is a mountain. It’s well established. Why would we change it?

We need to improve our defense. That should be priority #1. We need to be a top 5 defense in the Big10 every year. We weren’t very good this year on D.

Gonzaga has played through the post quite often and it has given them plenty of success. They haven’t gotten it done either. Neither coach has any notion of scrapping their post plans. It gives a team consistency.

Elite post play along with guard play is what we are going for. We will need to keep working at the guard situation. I like where we are with the post.

 

[FirstDownB]

I would add that we aren’t alone here. Talk to any Illini fan. They just wasted another season with one of the most dominant low post players in recent college basketball history.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Edey is a mountain. It’s well established. Why would we change it?

We need to improve our defense. That should be priority #1. We need to be a top 5 defense in the Big10 every year. We weren’t very good this year on D.

Elite post play along with guard play is what we are going for. We will need to keep working at the guard situation. I like where we are with the post.

Edey is indeed a mountain. And that’s a major problem with our defense.

 

[ehuffma1]

I don’t agree that Purdue can’t flex to successfully recruiting different types of big men. Swanigan, Haarms, and Furst are very different from AJ, Haas, and Edey.

Bingo. I think Painter has tried to get a C who stretches the defense a little playing along with a mountain. Williams and Edey were more similar than some of the other combos.

Furst is a tall PF IMO, more of a stretch guy. it allows you to play differently on both offense and defense. Shooting is also important. If you can pull your defender from the basket, it allows the guards to get all the way to the rim.

 

[depthcharge623]

I don’t agree that Purdue can’t flex to successfully recruiting different types of big men. Swanigan, Haarms, and Furst are very different from AJ, Haas, and Edey.

I agree it isn’t impossible. I’m just saying when we make that move we aren’t going to get the best of that type of player because we will be competing for recruits against everyone at that point. So we will be forced to get it done with good but not great mobile bigs rather than great traditional post players.

 

[mathboy]

I might add that IIRC one of the most dominant basketball players ever to play the game, Micheal Jordan, did not win a championship in college.

Correction: MJ won an NC his freshman year 1982. He did not for the two years after that, 1983 & 1984. That may say something about having the best player and your chance of winning an NC.

 

[ehuffma1]

Edey is indeed a mountain. And that’s a major problem with our defense.

Agreed. I think we should play some zone with him. Keep him around the basket. If your offensive advantage is so great having him near the basket, wouldn’t it be smart to keep his large ass near the basket on defense? He is totally exposed on defense playing at the 3 point line.

 

[FirstDownB]

Bingo. I think Painter has tried to get a C who stretches the defense a little playing along with a mountain. Williams and Edey were more similar than some of the other combos.

Furst is a tall PF IMO, more of a stretch guy. it allows you to play differently on both offense and defense. Shooting is also important. If you can pull your defender from the basket, it allows the guards to get all the way to the rim.

Furst can definitely work at the 5. But I think he needs somebody big and athletic next to him to really shine in that role. I really like the Manek-Bacot combo that UNC has.

 

[ehuffma1]

Furst can definitely work at the 5. But I think he needs somebody big and athletic next to him to really shine in that role. I really like the Manek-Bacot combo that UNC has.

TKR. I hear the dude is damn scoring machine. I think he’s at least as athletic as Manek.

 

[FirstDownB]

I agree it isn’t impossible. I’m just saying when we make that move we aren’t going to get the best of that type of player because we will be competing for recruits against everyone at that point. So we will be forced to get it done with good but not great mobile bigs rather than great traditional post players.

But my point is we have already recruited those players and the teams they played on were just as good, probably better in the tourney, as the teams with the more traditional bigs we recruited. Who cares if we get the best slow footed 7’2 or 7’4 player if that recipe isn’t working?

 

[BoilerMaker P]

I might add that IIRC one of the most dominant basketball players ever to play the game, Micheal Jordan, did not win a championship in college.

1982 Tarheels disagree.

 

[FirstDownB]

TKR. I hear the dude is damn scoring machine. I think he’s at least as athletic as Manek.

In my mind Furst is Manek and needs a Bacot type with him. Maybe athletic wasn’t exactly the right word. The dude grabs 12 rebounds a game, scores in the post, and can move his feet on defense. I’m not sure that is TKR.. maybe in a couple years. But I think maybe he and Furst are a bit too similar.

 

[mathboy]

1982 Tarheels disagree.

You are correct. They won the NC his freshman year, but did not win it the next two years he was there. I think he was a three year college player.

 

[ehuffma1]

In my mind Furst is Manek and needs a Bacot type with him. Maybe athletic wasn’t exactly the right word. The dude grabs 12 rebounds a game, scores in the post, and can move his feet on defense. I’m not sure that is TKR.. maybe in a couple years. But I think maybe he and Furst are a bit too similar.

Furst best position is probably 5 and then 4. TKR best position is probably 4 and then 3. I think TKR is probably like the mullet guy from Baylor. He’s got range and length. Probably more of a forward than a guard. It will be interesting how good they become moving forward.

 

[krazychicagod]

Yet Haarms was the center on the Elite 8 team.

It didnt work??? IT WAS THE ONLY YEAR WE GOT TO AN ELITE 8 AND WERE A CLOCK OPERATOR ERROR AWAY FROM FINAL 4!!! BECAUSE ELITE GUARD PLAY WITH PNR CENTER WHO CAN ALSO GUARD THE HIGH PNR ON DEFENSE DOES WORK!!!!


MY GOD THE IGNORANCE LEVEL HERE

 

[krazychicagod]

Naw lets keep getting slow boring 7 footers that are turnover prone and keep losing to mid majors

I way prefer that than to recruit guards that win in the tournament, are more fun to watch, amd are way more plentiful.

But thats only because Im a real fan and all the people that actually want to win in the tourney and criticize the backwardness if painter are fake fans and really just IU fans

Am i doing it right? Asking those that soend half their day on their knees defending purdue and painter

 

[DAG10]

Seeing a lot of comments about how we need to move away from playing through the post with a 7 footer for several reasons (ie. Clogs the lane, defensive liability, bad FT shooting). I’m open to this being true, but I think we need to compare it to the actual alternative.

Some think the actual alternative is a mobile center that can spread the floor and shoot. Or more/better guards to slash and go small ball with. But I don’t think that is likely and here’s why.

Purdue gets these huge players from all over the world literally (Alabama, Sweden, Canada) because we are one of the few programs who develops traditional bigs this well and basically plays exclusively through the post. So we are able to recruit these big guys from everywhere.

But as soon as we switch to a more modern big who can shoot and spread the floor, we are now competing with every good division 1 team. Same if we were to try and recruit better guards instead.

Simply stopping our current recruiting plan which plays to our strength will not suddenly make us better at recruiting the guys we think we want. So it seems to me like we would be giving up a strength, and getting nothing in return.

I don’t know what the correct way forward is. Maybe we continue to recruit trees but just slowly start moving away from them being the centerpiece of our offense. Maybe with some success from Ivey and Carsen we will start to draw attention from better guards to fill that gap. Who knows.

Last thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work. Maybe that was just him as a player, maybe it was our system, I don’t know.

The alleged advantage that you suggest is irrelevant if/when you don't win because of it...what is the benefit of being able to recruit guys that are antiquated by today's standards and the way that the game is now played? Even with it, Purdue still can't land the best of the best of said guys even.

"Our strength" is not an actual strength...and, last night is the greatest affirmation of that...when that advantage is the greatest of advantages and you can't capitalize on it, it is literally irrelevant.

It is a model that does not work...which is why nobody else uses it...it was novel to try it and commit to it as Purdue/Painter had/has, but, it is time to recognize that it does not/will not work.

 

[purdueplayer]

If Smith and Loywr are good out of the gate and if Newman stays and gets better, we might be better than expected since we should be able to spread people out with Furst and TKR. A lot of ifs though and I would be very surprised if Painter doesn’t get a guard from the portal. If he doesn’t we will probably be in real trouble next year

 

[Gman544]

Yet Haarms was the center on the Elite 8 team.

And It to one of the best tourney performances EVER by a guard to get there.

 

[Gman544]

You are correct. They won the NC his freshman year, but did not win it the next two years he was there. I think he was a three year college player.

Old saying. The only guy who could hold MJ under 20 was Dean Smith.

 

[Gman544]

It didnt work??? IT WAS THE ONLY YEAR WE GOT TO AN ELITE 8 AND WERE A CLOCK OPERATOR ERROR AWAY FROM FINAL 4!!! BECAUSE ELITE GUARD PLAY WITH PNR CENTER WHO CAN ALSO GUARD THE HIGH PNR ON DEFENSE DOES WORK!!!!


MY GOD THE IGNORANCE LEVEL HERE

It worked because a Guard had one of the best tourneys EVER!!!!!

 

[depthcharge623]

Bingo. I think Painter has tried to get a C who stretches the defense a little playing along with a mountain. Williams and Edey were more similar than some of the other combos.

Furst is a tall PF IMO, more of a stretch guy. it allows you to play differently on both offense and defense. Shooting is also important. If you can pull your defender from the basket, it allows the guards to get all the way to the rim.

Naw lets keep getting slow boring 7 footers that are turnover prone and keep losing to mid majors

I way prefer that than to recruit guards that win in the tournament, are more fun to watch, amd are way more plentiful.

But thats only because Im a real fan and all the people that actually want to win in the tourney and criticize the backwardness if painter are fake fans and really just IU fans

Am i doing it right? Asking those that soend half their day on their knees defending purdue and painter

Added to Ignore list because you’re being an asshole and not engaging in the conversation.

 

[depthcharge623]

The alleged advantage that you suggest is irrelevant if/when you don't win because of it...what is the benefit of being able to recruit guys that are antiquated by today's standards and the way that the game is now played? Even with it, Purdue still can't land the best of the best of said guys even.

"Our strength" is not an actual strength...and, last night is the greatest affirmation of that...when that advantage is the greatest of advantages and you can't capitalize on it, it is literally irrelevant.

It is a model that does not work...which is why nobody else uses it...it was novel to try it and commit to it as Purdue/Painter had/has, but, it is time to recognize that it does not/will not work.

It is a strength and does help us win games… in the Big Ten.

My point isn’t that we don’t need to shift. My point is that I think people have unrealistic expectations for how easy it will be, and the level of talent we are likely to get when we start recruiting different style players.

 

[Hardg]

Seeing a lot of comments about how we need to move away from playing through the post with a 7 footer for several reasons (ie. Clogs the lane, defensive liability, bad FT shooting). I’m open to this being true, but I think we need to compare it to the actual alternative.

Some think the actual alternative is a mobile center that can spread the floor and shoot. Or more/better guards to slash and go small ball with. But I don’t think that is likely and here’s why.

Purdue gets these huge players from all over the world literally (Alabama, Sweden, Canada) because we are one of the few programs who develops traditional bigs this well and basically plays exclusively through the post. So we are able to recruit these big guys from everywhere.

But as soon as we switch to a more modern big who can shoot and spread the floor, we are now competing with every good division 1 team. Same if we were to try and recruit better guards instead.

Simply stopping our current recruiting plan which plays to our strength will not suddenly make us better at recruiting the guys we think we want. So it seems to me like we would be giving up a strength, and getting nothing in return.

I don’t know what the correct way forward is. Maybe we continue to recruit trees but just slowly start moving away from them being the centerpiece of our offense. Maybe with some success from Ivey and Carsen we will start to draw attention from better guards to fill that gap. Who knows.

Last thing I will say this— we did kind of try the mobile/spread the floor type big with Haarms and it didn’t really work. Maybe that was just him as a player, maybe it was our system, I don’t know.

Last night was more proof to what we saw all season, you cannot play man to man defense with a player like Zach. Not Zach’s fault. He is 7’4” and 295 and a valuable player. It borders on insanity putting him in the defensive positions he was put in all season.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I agree it isn’t impossible. I’m just saying when we make that move we aren’t going to get the best of that type of player because we will be competing for recruits against everyone at that point. So we will be forced to get it done with good but not great mobile bigs rather than great traditional post players.

We will get PNRd to death forever and ever…