Change up - Go for Broke!

[FirstDownB]

I have commented in other threads that the wins and losses have become quite easy to peg. Purdue's record is 8-3 since the Illinois game. Favored in the 8 wins, the Dog in the 3 losses. Winning the games we are "supposed" to but nothing more. I believe the lack of volatility is due to both a consistent approach (a good thing) and the book being out on this team and how to attack/defend that consistent approach (a bad thing). Given the current trajectory I see a likely ceiling of semis in the BTT and Sweet 16 in NCAAT. But, what if there was some strategic tweak (within the things this team has already done, nothing new) that could change the trajectory? At this point in the season I do not expect players to all of a sudden catch fire, make better decisions, or improve execution on defense. Focus and intensity.. perhaps, but still not holding my breath.

So here is my "go for broke" proposal. I know its not worth anything, but still fun to talk about.

Go into games starting your normal 5 in the first half and make mostly the same substitutions. Primary focus on feeding the post and taking open perimeter shots (status quo).
5: AJ/Isaac
4: Biggie/VE
3: VE/Mathias
2: Davis/Cline
1: PJ/Hill

Now, 2nd half come out with a smaller lineup. Pick up the tempo, drive the lane more, and maybe surprise the opponent by applying some back court pressure. Sub accordingly and ride the hottest players in each grouping.
5: AJ/Biggie
4-3-2: VE/Mathias/Davis/Cline/Stephens
1: Hill/PJ

One area I was more optimistic about heading into the season was the depth and versatility of the roster. I don't think that has come to fruition, in part due to the early season success of the 'big and bigger' lineups and the desire to develop players in certain positions.
Now let's unleash the off speed pitch and see if the element of surprise can steal us a game or two!

 

[TC4THREE]

Doesn't change your point much, but I thought we ended up as favorites at Michigan.

 

[FirstDownB]

Doesn't change your point much, but I thought we ended up as favorites at Michigan.

Either a pick 'em or 1 point either way depending on the book. The site I researched had us a 1 point dog.. convenient for my point Still, we aren't going to advance very far without pulling an upset or two.

 

[depthcharge623]

I like it. We did much better when we went small at the end of the IU game.

My question is, should we automatically switch it up at the beginning of the second half, or should we wait until (of) we start to falter some? Because against some teams, especially out of conference in NCAA, the size and post-oriented focus of our game might be too much no matter what. So I'm not sure we should switch to small ball until we start to show signs of faltering (which may not happen in certain games).

 

[Inspector100]

I like it. We did much better when we went small at the end of the IU game.

My question is, should we automatically switch it up at the beginning of the second half, or should we wait until (of) we start to falter some? Because against some teams, especially out of conference in NCAA, the size and post-oriented focus of our game might be too much no matter what. So I'm not sure we should switch to small ball until we start to show signs of faltering (which may not happen in certain games).

I like the full approach offered by the OP, too. I don't want to wait till things go bad.

 

[CRBoiler]

I agree with the meta point that we should look at developing one or two additional offensive looks and use them proactively to throw our opponents off balance rather than use them reactively after allowing the other team a big run. I agree because we have witnessed enough breakdowns with what we've done so far, especially the second half funks we get ourselves into. We have a fairly open remaining schedule - 3 games in 2 weeks - and we need some (don't hate me) extra sauce for the post-season.

 

[FirstDownB]

I like it. We did much better when we went small at the end of the IU game.

My question is, should we automatically switch it up at the beginning of the second half, or should we wait until (of) we start to falter some? Because against some teams, especially out of conference in NCAA, the size and post-oriented focus of our game might be too much no matter what. So I'm not sure we should switch to small ball until we start to show signs of faltering (which may not happen in certain games).

Really good point. I think there is certainly a level of opponent that can be crushed more times than not with the big lineups exclusively. So it could be a fluid situation depending on the opponent, and for this to truly be a change up, you probably wouldn't want to show it too much too soon. But honestly, how awesome would it be to make it to the sweet 16 as a 4/5 seed and then ambush the 1 seed playing with house money!

 

[depthcharge623]

But honestly, how awesome would it be to make it to the sweet 16 as a 4/5 seed and then ambush the 1 seed playing with house money!

It would be most awesome.

 

[*4purdue*]

I have commented in other threads that the wins and losses have become quite easy to peg. Purdue's record is 8-3 since the Illinois game. Favored in the 8 wins, the Dog in the 3 losses. Winning the games we are "supposed" to but nothing more. I believe the lack of volatility is due to both a consistent approach (a good thing) and the book being out on this team and how to attack/defend that consistent approach (a bad thing). Given the current trajectory I see a likely ceiling of semis in the BTT and Sweet 16 in NCAAT. But, what if there was some strategic tweak (within the things this team has already done, nothing new) that could change the trajectory? At this point in the season I do not expect players to all of a sudden catch fire, make better decisions, or improve execution on defense. Focus and intensity.. perhaps, but still not holding my breath.

So here is my "go for broke" proposal. I know its not worth anything, but still fun to talk about.

Go into games starting your normal 5 in the first half and make mostly the same substitutions. Primary focus on feeding the post and taking open perimeter shots (status quo).
5: AJ/Isaac
4: Biggie/VE
3: VE/Mathias
2: Davis/Cline
1: PJ/Hill

Now, 2nd half come out with a smaller lineup. Pick up the tempo, drive the lane more, and maybe surprise the opponent by applying some back court pressure. Sub accordingly and ride the hottest players in each grouping.
5: AJ/Biggie
4-3-2: VE/Mathias/Davis/Cline/Stephens
1: Hill/PJ

One area I was more optimistic about heading into the season was the depth and versatility of the roster. I don't think that has come to fruition, in part due to the early season success of the 'big and bigger' lineups and the desire to develop players in certain positions.
Now let's unleash the off speed pitch and see if the element of surprise can steal us a game or two!

I suggested this a few weeks ago when discussing the Iowa loss. CMP will never do it. He only goes small when we are down 15 with about 6 or 7 min. To go.

 

[Boileratthebeach]

I like it. We did much better when we went small at the end of the IU game.

My question is, should we automatically switch it up at the beginning of the second half, or should we wait until (of) we start to falter some? Because against some teams, especially out of conference in NCAA, the size and post-oriented focus of our game might be too much no matter what. So I'm not sure we should switch to small ball until we start to show signs of faltering (which may not happen in certain games).

True but we still went down low to Biggie on 3-4 possessions for easy 2's. He had a clear size advantage. Then again, perhaps not having two big men down low made it easier to isolate him. Then again, why can't we do that with AJ (no Biggie).

 

[Badboyboiler]

Maryland game would be good time to put Ray at the 1 and start KS.

 

[Treyit31]

KS isn't starting...I like is D but he can't shoot this year. Something with his shot is different and I have noticed that he doesn't jump forward when he releases the shot...it's always to the side or backwards.

 

[Purduethruandthru]

I sure like the idea of starting a different group in the second half. It seems that no matter who is hot in the first half we always go back to the starters for the second half. So far no opposing coach has had to worry about how we start the second. It seems like an opportunity to make an opponent have to make an early second half adjustment that they didn't expect.

 

[FirstDownB]

I sure like the idea of starting a different group in the second half. It seems that no matter who is hot in the first half we always go back to the starters for the second half. So far no opposing coach has had to worry about how we start the second. It seems like an opportunity to make an opponent have to make an early second half adjustment that they didn't expect.

Teams often struggle adjusting on the fly that far into a game. By the 2nd half, players have established in their mind what is working and what isn't. They also just got a halftime talk based on what happened in the 1st half. Now you come out and hit them with something different and college kids are going to struggle to adjust on the fly. Time outs are fleeting. I often think back on that 2010 game against OSU where Robbie was absolutely on fire the first half. OSU threw an mid game curve ball by switching up their defense and we were unable to adjust.