Among Big Ten teams, only Penn State's allowing more points this season than Purdue, a program that's long prided itself on playing stingy defense.
Sunday, at Minnesota, the Golden Gophers scored 82, second-most among league members in a 40-minute game during the conference's first round of contests. Purdue scored 79, third-most, and lost.
People can say all they want that the Boilermakers lost because of a couple bad shots or because they can't play against a zone - which isn't even true - but the reality is, Purdue's porous defense in Minneapolis got it beat. Yes, Minnesota was hot, but any time a team shoots that well, the defense has some hand in it.
And chalking Minnesota's production up simply to torrid shooting would be turning a blind eye to the easy buckets the Boilermakers allowed, whether it was half-court breakdowns, getting beat down the floor or simply good offense by the opponent.
This is nothing new.
For the time it puts into defense, the payoff is just not there, really for the third year in a row.
Here are a couple guesses at contributing factors to the downward turn:
Experience: Call it an excuse all you want - as I'm sure my e-mail in-box will in 3, 2, 1 - but the fact remains Purdue played all sorts of freshmen last season and now is playing six guys who weren't in the program a year ago.
That doesn't help. Defense is a system, and system must be learned.
Perimeter quickness: The Boilermakers have high-level quickness at the point guard spot, but on the wings, not so much. Much of the dribble penetration they've allowed has come from that portion of the floor.
Terone Johnson, Rapheal Davis and Sterling Carter are probably better suited to body people up with their strength than they are to move laterally with quickness, and such quickness will obviously be a point of emphasis for Kendall Stephens moving forward.
But every team in some form or another is going to get beat off the dribble. It's what happens then that separates good defensive teams from average or bad ones.
That's where team defense comes into play, and Purdue's not particularly effective with it, maybe in part because of the topic above.
Rules: Every school in the country is dealing with the same playing field, so it's a moot point, but it's not a coincidence that Purdue (312) has fouled more this season than just about any notable program.
At last check, only Nebraska (313), Seton Hall (313), Xavier (316), Rutgers (316) and DePaul (319), among major conference schools, have been whistled for more fouls than Purdue, which can no longer play the physical defense it always has and apparently can't or won't move its collective feet enough to make up for it. See the previous header for more on said feet.
We've discussed charges, which have been almost non-existent for Purdue this season, a direct reflection of the rules, it would seem. A returning player has yet to take one this season and it can't be for lack of trying altogether. Those were not only important plays for Purdue before, but sometimes momentum changers.
Again, everyone's dealing with the same rules and Purdue had many of the same issues last season before the rule changes, but as we theorized prior to the season, they'd hurt some schools more than others, Purdue being one of them.
But Purdue's foul issues haven't been solely relegated to the perimeter, where rules are most targeted toward.
A.J. Hammons has been saddled with foul trouble so often. At times, that's him. At times, it's officials not knowing what to do with the biggest guy on the floor, IMO, and tagging him with some highly questionable whistles when he tries to be as physical as can be, as Purdue needs him to be. The Butler game comes to mind.
The 5: Matt Painter's best defensive teams had a common denominator: A center that can be active defensively away from the rim.
You've noticed Purdue get away from its hedging off ball screens to a significant extent, something that was a key element when JaJuan Johnson was on the team, with his quick enough feet to regain rim-protecting and rebounding position quickly after coming out to steer the ball-handler off course.
Hammons is quick for a 7-foot, 260-pounder, but at the end of the day, he's still a 7-foot, 260-pounder.
With this group of personnel, Painter's coaching a different prototype that he has before.
The coach's roots come from the mid-major level where small-ball is a way of life, out of necessity. Small-ball teams give up size on the interior, but the tradeoff should be the ability to switch screens with their bigs more than a more traditional 1-2-3-4-5 lineup would.
The transition with Hammons then has come with great value in many senses, but also that tradeoff.
I don't think it's anything bold to suggest Painter's proven to be a more effective coach playing mid-major-type lineups, with quicker 5s and skilled 4 men who can act almost like fourth guards offensively.
Speaking of Hammons: It would also help for the sophomore center to increase his alertness and do a better job communicating with those in front of him. Centers typically have the best field of vision on the floor and need to help out their guards by calling out screens and stuff.
Awareness and communication would seem to remain areas where Hammons can continue to improve, as could all of Purdue's centers.
That said, Hammons' shot-blocking is of tremendous value to the Boilermakers and his presence alone impacts games on defense.
Offense: Almost everything in basketball is connected and Purdue's off-and-on struggles with playing smart on offense have sometimes compromised it defensively, allowing buckets or second-chance scores in transition or semi-transition. Scramble mode on defense has not been kind to Purdue, not that it's kind to anyone.
Early in the season, also, it seemed apparent that Purdue had some players who were too intent to score and may not have put the necessary emphasis on preventing people from doing the same.
Intensity: Before, Purdue always had guys like Chris Kramer, David Teague, Keaton Grant or whoever who were tone-setter types on defense, catalysts of sorts. Recent teams haven't, though players like Davis, Bryson Scott and Basil Smotherman may ultimately prove to have that in them.
Understand, too, that Painter lost three head coaches off his staff in a matter of a few years and some of those guys were real fire-breathers on the practice floor. Didn't help either. Painter has a solid staff now, but not sure there are any hell-raisers there during practice.
Summation: Matt Painter's committed to what he does from a defensive standpoint.
He's going to play man defense and is fully committed to it, same way Tom Izzo, Bo Ryan and Thad Matta are, the coaches of the very programs Purdue aspires to compete with atop the Big Ten.
Purdue's model has long been to play man, which fits better into the context of being solid on the boards and forcing turnovers to A) generate transition opportunities and B) win the possessions game.
That's not going to change any time soon, certainly not in-season. It's a matter of this group of personnel simply fitting that style better and it's certainly not beyond comprehension that it can.
After the season, things will be evaluated I'm sure, and portrayals of Painter being this inflexible, rigid person when it comes to style of play aren't entirely accurate. He is committed to playing man, yes, but he's tweaked that style plenty over the years.
We'll see what happens. If personnel can't adjust to a system, a system has to adjust to personnel.
In the short term, Purdue just has to get better, just enough to win games. It's not going to be a great defensive team. That much is obvious. But it is only Jan. 8.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2014. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
Sunday, at Minnesota, the Golden Gophers scored 82, second-most among league members in a 40-minute game during the conference's first round of contests. Purdue scored 79, third-most, and lost.
People can say all they want that the Boilermakers lost because of a couple bad shots or because they can't play against a zone - which isn't even true - but the reality is, Purdue's porous defense in Minneapolis got it beat. Yes, Minnesota was hot, but any time a team shoots that well, the defense has some hand in it.
And chalking Minnesota's production up simply to torrid shooting would be turning a blind eye to the easy buckets the Boilermakers allowed, whether it was half-court breakdowns, getting beat down the floor or simply good offense by the opponent.
This is nothing new.
For the time it puts into defense, the payoff is just not there, really for the third year in a row.
Here are a couple guesses at contributing factors to the downward turn:
Experience: Call it an excuse all you want - as I'm sure my e-mail in-box will in 3, 2, 1 - but the fact remains Purdue played all sorts of freshmen last season and now is playing six guys who weren't in the program a year ago.
That doesn't help. Defense is a system, and system must be learned.
Perimeter quickness: The Boilermakers have high-level quickness at the point guard spot, but on the wings, not so much. Much of the dribble penetration they've allowed has come from that portion of the floor.
Terone Johnson, Rapheal Davis and Sterling Carter are probably better suited to body people up with their strength than they are to move laterally with quickness, and such quickness will obviously be a point of emphasis for Kendall Stephens moving forward.
But every team in some form or another is going to get beat off the dribble. It's what happens then that separates good defensive teams from average or bad ones.
That's where team defense comes into play, and Purdue's not particularly effective with it, maybe in part because of the topic above.
Rules: Every school in the country is dealing with the same playing field, so it's a moot point, but it's not a coincidence that Purdue (312) has fouled more this season than just about any notable program.
At last check, only Nebraska (313), Seton Hall (313), Xavier (316), Rutgers (316) and DePaul (319), among major conference schools, have been whistled for more fouls than Purdue, which can no longer play the physical defense it always has and apparently can't or won't move its collective feet enough to make up for it. See the previous header for more on said feet.
We've discussed charges, which have been almost non-existent for Purdue this season, a direct reflection of the rules, it would seem. A returning player has yet to take one this season and it can't be for lack of trying altogether. Those were not only important plays for Purdue before, but sometimes momentum changers.
Again, everyone's dealing with the same rules and Purdue had many of the same issues last season before the rule changes, but as we theorized prior to the season, they'd hurt some schools more than others, Purdue being one of them.
But Purdue's foul issues haven't been solely relegated to the perimeter, where rules are most targeted toward.
A.J. Hammons has been saddled with foul trouble so often. At times, that's him. At times, it's officials not knowing what to do with the biggest guy on the floor, IMO, and tagging him with some highly questionable whistles when he tries to be as physical as can be, as Purdue needs him to be. The Butler game comes to mind.
The 5: Matt Painter's best defensive teams had a common denominator: A center that can be active defensively away from the rim.
You've noticed Purdue get away from its hedging off ball screens to a significant extent, something that was a key element when JaJuan Johnson was on the team, with his quick enough feet to regain rim-protecting and rebounding position quickly after coming out to steer the ball-handler off course.
Hammons is quick for a 7-foot, 260-pounder, but at the end of the day, he's still a 7-foot, 260-pounder.
With this group of personnel, Painter's coaching a different prototype that he has before.
The coach's roots come from the mid-major level where small-ball is a way of life, out of necessity. Small-ball teams give up size on the interior, but the tradeoff should be the ability to switch screens with their bigs more than a more traditional 1-2-3-4-5 lineup would.
The transition with Hammons then has come with great value in many senses, but also that tradeoff.
I don't think it's anything bold to suggest Painter's proven to be a more effective coach playing mid-major-type lineups, with quicker 5s and skilled 4 men who can act almost like fourth guards offensively.
Speaking of Hammons: It would also help for the sophomore center to increase his alertness and do a better job communicating with those in front of him. Centers typically have the best field of vision on the floor and need to help out their guards by calling out screens and stuff.
Awareness and communication would seem to remain areas where Hammons can continue to improve, as could all of Purdue's centers.
That said, Hammons' shot-blocking is of tremendous value to the Boilermakers and his presence alone impacts games on defense.
Offense: Almost everything in basketball is connected and Purdue's off-and-on struggles with playing smart on offense have sometimes compromised it defensively, allowing buckets or second-chance scores in transition or semi-transition. Scramble mode on defense has not been kind to Purdue, not that it's kind to anyone.
Early in the season, also, it seemed apparent that Purdue had some players who were too intent to score and may not have put the necessary emphasis on preventing people from doing the same.
Intensity: Before, Purdue always had guys like Chris Kramer, David Teague, Keaton Grant or whoever who were tone-setter types on defense, catalysts of sorts. Recent teams haven't, though players like Davis, Bryson Scott and Basil Smotherman may ultimately prove to have that in them.
Understand, too, that Painter lost three head coaches off his staff in a matter of a few years and some of those guys were real fire-breathers on the practice floor. Didn't help either. Painter has a solid staff now, but not sure there are any hell-raisers there during practice.
Summation: Matt Painter's committed to what he does from a defensive standpoint.
He's going to play man defense and is fully committed to it, same way Tom Izzo, Bo Ryan and Thad Matta are, the coaches of the very programs Purdue aspires to compete with atop the Big Ten.
Purdue's model has long been to play man, which fits better into the context of being solid on the boards and forcing turnovers to A) generate transition opportunities and B) win the possessions game.
That's not going to change any time soon, certainly not in-season. It's a matter of this group of personnel simply fitting that style better and it's certainly not beyond comprehension that it can.
After the season, things will be evaluated I'm sure, and portrayals of Painter being this inflexible, rigid person when it comes to style of play aren't entirely accurate. He is committed to playing man, yes, but he's tweaked that style plenty over the years.
We'll see what happens. If personnel can't adjust to a system, a system has to adjust to personnel.
In the short term, Purdue just has to get better, just enough to win games. It's not going to be a great defensive team. That much is obvious. But it is only Jan. 8.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2014. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
