Vince led us in scoring at the 1/2. I think he had 9
Considering....
- Thread starter *4purdue*
- Start date
Yeah....VE was a big reason the Boilers were fortunate enough to be close at the half, IMO.
I don't think haas is getting enough credit for his first half. if he doesn't hit his first 3 shots that early hole gets much bigger. I don't have stats on this but I feel like penn st had trouble rebounding when haas was playing. Haas was definitely altering their penetration more than Swanigan.
They seemed to really come out focused on neutralizing swanigan and were effective. This quote from chambers is what beat Purdue earlier this year so it's great to get one with the title on the line. I think it should benefit them to face that athleticism too. Psu isn't that skilled yet (thankfully they aren't good from 3) but seemed as athletic as the oregon/florida state type teams to me.
"That was as hard as we've played all year," Penn State coach Patrick Chambers said. "Proud of my team. However, there's no more moral victories here. We've got to get some things done. We've got to close out games."
If Penn State shot anything but abysmal from three-point range....it's a loss for the Boilers. They finally recognized that and stopped shooting them the last eight minutes. 0-7 in the second half, 2-18 for the game.
If Purdue does something other than play man-to-man every single defensive possession, I don't think opponents would/will get into as much of a rhythm beating the Boilers off the dribble for lay-ups, dunks, short-jumpers, assists, or offensive rebound putbacks.
Good things happen when he's aggressive on offense. I would like to see more rebounding.
+1.... post of the year. Last night was a perfect example of when to use the zone. It was clear PSU was abandoning the 3 pt. shot the last 5 minutes & was going to attack the rim. Clog the middle with the zone & force them to make 3's. I'm not saying abandon man to man, that will never happen, but mix it up & PSU would not have got back in that game.
**********************************************
Perhaps it would...ignoring athletes on the boards and pretending the 3 point shot won't beat you along with eliminating any zone traps or presses what zone would be taught?
A) Would you teach a pure zone or a match-up zone?
B)What would be the initial alignment you would teach?
C)Would all three ...Vince, Biggie and Haas play the same time or would just two play? D) If all three didn't play what would be the two players assuming fouls and fatigue are not an issue and you can play who you want...which combinations do you play or are all three okay...but two at a time if all three can't play.
If you play some zone, I assume if it is only a temporary look and you can't practice too many unless you believe that several zone alignments can be taught effectively and so I'm guessing one alignment, but perhaps a couple could be spread in...just to give even more looks. All this excludes junk or combination defenses.
Certainly there are others that want a zone and I'm curious if they have the same outlook as you? I say this as one that doesn't have a problem with a couple of different looks day in and day out, but also one not as disturbed as others as it being the hot button...
Statistical data suggests that over time, teams that play zone full-time hold opponents to lower FG and 3PT percentage averages than teams that play man D full-time. Yes, those teams typically give up more offensive rebounds per game on average, but the lower shooting percentage is the great equalizer when comparing those two stats.
I'm not saying I want Purdue to play various zones full-time, but I would like Painter to practice different ones enough with his teams that they would be comfortable implementing them into games.
I would prefer more of a pure zone than a matchup, but I don't think it hurts to have matchup for a few possessions when it is unexpected.
I would start out with 2-3 but would be open to the other known alignments as well. I also like a 1-3-1 trapping/pressing D (Purdue will have the personnel for it next season moreso than this season, IMO). I believe all three of them could play at the same time, most likely in a 2-3 or 3-2 zone.
***********************
Be careful in lumping stats on teams of various capabilities verus schedule...sometimes things get confounded. that said, I love statistics, but not so much in basketball. Okay if your thought is all three play at once, by default playing without much depth...the minutes and fouls must be watched. If you continue to only play two such as Matt does now to get better O, then your 2-3 is eliminated unless you are going really small on the baseline...which obviously dictates the defending side of the zone rather than the rebounding side. If only playing 2 of the three I think your choice is 1-2-2 or 3-2 which is basically only how far do you extend the point...both with holes "INSIDE". Also, "IF" that alignment is either a 1-2-2 or 3-2 (Haas can't play) that is only Biggie and Vince that can play that alignment. Now Biggie and Vince has to cover the pass to the baseline with usually the other big taking his place down low on that side and the FT opposite of the ball (little guy" many times dropping down to the blocks away from the ball. As you might see, to keep from playing all three at the same time, Haas is too slow to cover the pass to the baseline, a hole is inside and the block opposite the ball has a little guy underneath.
Now, if you are willing to sacrifice the O (most think that only two bigs playing at a time is the best offense) and play all three for a short duration believing that a zone is the answer...then I think a 2-3 or a 3-2 that morphs into a 2-3 along the baseline as the ball is below FT line extended when the middle of the 3 "drops" down to the middle of the 3 low...trying to get the best of both worlds...wider initial coverage on the wings and then more support by using a big to drop from the middle of the 3 on top to the middle of the 3 on the bottom ...if athletic and quick enough to do that. I just don't think any alignment works with Haas as slow as he is.
None of this is to discuss the weaknesses of a zone as most teams do NOT play a pure zone, but a match-up. That said a 2-3 and "maybe a 3-2 dropping into a 2-3 would probably be the only consideration "I" would think...and does this affect the O even if the D was okay...or even better?
You want Purdue to play a zone?!!! This is incredible!!! Why have you never mentioned this before?!!!
TJ, CMP has been recruiting this kid since he was in grade school..................
4 -1 zone, with him guarding the paint
Only ranked 3 star at this point..........go figure
Matt has an eye for talent. When most people have an eye on the ball and the person they are guarding, this recruit who has a great "feel" for the game, actually has a feel for the whole opposing team.TJ, CMP has been recruiting this kid since he was in grade school..................
4 -1 zone, with him guarding the paint
Only ranked 3 star at this point..........go figure
Matt has an eye for talent. When most people have an eye on the ball and the person they are guarding, this recruit who has a great "feel" for the game, actually has a feel for the whole opposing team.
..........and just likable as hell, too
Okay, let's make this more brief: you are obviously not an advocate for using zones at times (using several hypotheticals and concluding by naysaying its potential effectiveness) and I am. We can agree to disagree.
Boiler Up
Last edited:
Man to man, just like Raftery starting the game. No other way. Onions. Who likes Raftery? Better than Calhoun? I think he is a great commentator (Raftery that is..) One of my favorites along with Dan Dakich.
I thought of that as well, which is why it was great that Purdue was able to pull it out. With Purdue winning three close ones against Maryland, IU, and PSU, I think that this team is gaining confidence in those tough situations.
Perhaps, but I thought that Purdue managed to get PSU out of rhythm in overtime without abandoning man D. Purdue has been very solid on D since the Nebraska game, which is impressive given Purdue's lack of elite athleticism.
I think the Lions were gassed and didn't have much left for OT. Carr must have been exhausted after all those drives to the hoop.
Seriously? I asked you questions...and anyone that wants to chime in can, but I asked you your preference. I stated the problems with certain zones in my opinion. I stated which zone I would prefer if picking a pure zone and not a match-up. I told you why I wouldn't use a certain zone and what that could do to the O and I told you what zone I would use with the current players and why...and what problems that could cause. I told you I have coached zones...presses, traps and even used junk defenses...and your resonse has NOTHING to do with what I said...only to agree to disagree and I can't even figure out what you agree to disagree with since I listed a few items.
I just figured someone that wanted a zone, knew what they wanted, why they wanted it, who would play it, have an understanding of what it might do and what it might not do not only on the D side, but the O side...and your response is nothing more than a distraction? Do you not know? If you don't that is fine, but Matt has to know. Now if anyone has a better idea of what Nag never said adn can explain my questions go ahead. I said what I would play if pushed down the zone lane and why...
I answered you in my first reply and then you replied with more hypotheticals that added to your stance against it. You don't want a zone or zones, that's fine. You want me to write out long, detailed reponses like yours but the bottom line is this: I don't have to be an expert on zone defenses to justify my opinion of being for it.
That's Nag for you. You give a response he can't understand, and rather than admit he doesn't know, he re-words what you said to something completely different. Then he resorts to hyperbole and runs away.
I'll make it as easy as I can for you. What zone do you want and who will play what spots in the zone. There is no f'ing hypotheticals. You going to play all three or two..which two and where. If you want Haas chasing the baseline pass who am I to tell you it wont; work. Now THAT uis really easy...what do YOU want?
I told you, I'm for any of them. It doesn't have to be one specific zone all of the time or at any time. It depends on the situations within the games. If you can't understand that, I'm done discussing it with you/a brick wall.
It doesn't matter what I say about where I want Haas, Swanigan, or VE in any zone formation: you will be quick to find fault with it no matter what I say so there is no point in answering it.
I agree to some zone if the 3 pt. % is below average. I think we need to on those type of teams for sure. Keep them off balance like they try to do us using the full court press over and over again.
Mixing it up is good, especially this time of year. You know the calculators are watching our tape and think they know what our intentions are. They get paid to do that. Throw them a ringer and let Biggie and co. put them away.
Mixing it up is good, especially this time of year. You know the calculators are watching our tape and think they know what our intentions are. They get paid to do that. Throw them a ringer and let Biggie and co. put them away.
I honestly have tried to be respectful to people I may disagree with and have typed a LOT of words as to WHY I believe what I do in all things I write. Now, I may not be correct, but surely those that disagree have reasons. THE only zone I think Haas could be effective in is the 2-3 because I don't think he can cover some of the other areas...and if you don't play that, then you don't play Haas at the same time and your options are cut down. Instead, becasue I point out obvious issues...rather than discuss those issues...disagree if so...and list why the disagreement....we just say cause I told you so...
Do I gain anything by typing what I do? If Nag were to agree with me...so what? I get nothing out of this other than to share thoughts that I "thought" might give another view of things to consider. I have nobody I need to convince and my ego is big enough I don't need it stroked...I was just going to actually talk basketball...real basketball...
No talk...just a wahhhhh. Nothing of substance...ever...someone help him with "substance"...
Yes, but it still simply boils down to you don't think the zones are worth the risk and I think they are. We are not going to agree. Good on you for being able to explain your side in more detail, but I still disagree. If I think Swanigan is capable of consistently covering a pass to or an area on the baseline as a back-end defender and any other such scenario, you are just going to say that you don't think it's possible or that he won't be effective enough of the time. So, why should I bother when I already know your stances on zones?
Last edited:
Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one. I can tell you "why" I have my opinion and you say it is your opinion. Perhaps you are correct...but it won't be because you have more "detail" that others might confuse with more informed... You label me as a brick wall...or whatever and really can't even tell me who would play what spot in all the zones you like. I listed which ones I could see Purdue doing and which I couldn't and the reason behind them and you refuse to acknowledge just personnel in your zones. I'm a fool, because I actually thought if I spent the time giving you things to consider you could put the pieces together and draw your conclusions. Instead you divert and in all honestly Nag...it was to help you. I get NOTHING out of this. It is not as though I really get much substance to consider in this discussion. I know you love Purdue basketball...we all do....but apparently it does neither of us any good with any depth of discussion.
another f'ing diversion. Vince, Haas Swanigan...whatcha gonna do? Haas is the real issue. I'm still trying to make it easy for you. Just tell me if you play Haas or not and if you do...where? I'm not worried about Swanigan or Vince. One f'ing player...Haas. This isn't football...he has to go both ways most the time and could get stuck doing so even "if" you tried to sub him out on D. Forget the whole team and just tell me if Haas is worth playing and if so...what zone (distance and time) can he play...out of all of them...out of all the looks. ONE player...Haas...is he worth playing and if so...where.
I already told you what I would do if pushed towards a zone and so I'm out in the open. You want him to cover the baseline pass...just state it. Who an I to tell you he isn't fast enough? I sometimes see things in slow motion...perhaps that is how I see him move as well?
Well, I hope. BTW, I see some advantages in a match-up in when the moon is in the Seventh House And Jupiter aligns with Mars Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars This is the dawning of the age of a new defense
I don't think that TJ has a track record of being anti-zone defense, nor do I think that he has been disrespectful to you.
I think TJ does raise legitimate concerns about the limits of Purdue's personnel at almost every position to cover the ground needed to play a pure zone well and especially an alignment like the 1-3-1, which demands great length and mobility. I'll repeat what I have said in the past, that I think that pack-line style D is a better change up option for Purdue's current personnel.
********************
Thank you. What we have at Purdue is three bigs...three. Matt almost always only plays two at a time. Knowing the offense that Matt is playing and only have two bigs...with speed to cover the distance for a shooter receiving a pass at the baseline is not best suited for Swanigan...let alone Haas in space. "IF" a zone was used with this personnel and only two bigs were playing, then a 2-3 could be even more problematic on the boards...and if not a 2-3...do we think Haas can be out in space "totally" guarding a perimeter player? Even if somehow we tried to keep Haas in the middle of the 1-3-1 "IF" that was an approach...who does Haas cover in scoring position when the ball is at the elbow. Even junior high players should be taught to cover 15 feet with one dribble! Haas needs to guard someone his size as much as possible...someone either slower or someone that has less area to cover that makes teh distance over time less of a factor.
Just because a guy got hot and went over PJ doesn't mean that man couldn't have worked on that guy as he was putting his teammates asleep with his one on one play. There were other adjustments that could be made. As I said, I would have liked just a couple of possessions to see all three bigs on the court together.
I have spent numerous writings sharing the blurred lines between pure zone, match-up zone and man. All defense is bluring these in some fashion. All D involves player position, ball position and court location relative to those two (player and ball)...all defenses and yet it is like there is some magical defense of the players are like high school players and all the limitations with other players that make some defenses work at one level more than another...or that one D in 100% of the time is always best and that switching D sometimes is best...all thinking the players are too dumb to understand what they are seeing and having nothing to do with players abilities...and that thinking the best way to get good a defense is to practice several.
Every time "one" area appears to be deficient...it is assumed that getting something and giving up something never happens ..that stopping one thing does not hurt you or ONLY hurts you in one area...kinda like thinking D stats has no bearing on the O stats.
Do we really think that Matt couldn't have played man and devoted more players to help PJ? Had Matt wanted to take a player and play him more to help PJ...you know...like a zone...then that player would now be more open to get a put back or easy shot...2 or 3, but Matt didn't want to do that.
The real discussion is NOT zone, but was it the best choice to not devote more of the team to help in this area that was struggling? When a team doubles on Biggie or Haas inside...has that team made the exact same decision? Do they only play one person on Biggie or Haas and defend the perimeter or do they devote more than one body inside...whether man or zone?
We go down this insane path of implying a zone is teh magic elixir and yet is is exactly a man defense that has stood the test of time and used by almost all coaches almost all the time. Now in fairness I stated a couple of years ago that I thought a zone would get more use with the shot cloclk being reduced, but even that hasn't happened. We also see the same red herring about Matt's time at Purdue spanning all those years that the finances were as much of a battle as the opposing team and Matt hasn't produced. Guys and/or gals, call it anything you want...make up a name...Nags confusing D if you wish, but you are going to guard people with and without the ball different...with or without the ball in differnt locations different and at sometimes all that will vary again according to clock and situations.
There is no magic elixir..what is your strategy to win and how much tweaking do you have to do with the team you have against the team you don't wiht the situation today...that should be the topic. These are all great players...some greater than others, but ALL stars not held back in high school by confusion of defenses.
TJ 500, Nag 0
TJ, keep doing your thing, you provide value to this board.
Nag, i appreciate your passion, but man, you need to pay attention to this feedback
TJ, keep doing your thing, you provide value to this board.
Nag, i appreciate your passion, but man, you need to pay attention to this feedback
Thank you...that was kind. I'm just a person that holds some opinions, but try to give the reasons I do for the opinions I hold...whether right or wrong. Nag does have passion and I appreciate that...and no doubt would enjoy his and others company if the time allowed. We both love Purdue as do others. I just don't think things get fairly evaluated. THAT said, I am a believer in Man, but also not against some other form of defense in a "general" sense. This Purdue team has some limitations defensively...some physical and some a combination of physical and numbers. I have nothing against Nag and apologize if it was taken that way. I just want to enjoy this year and think Matt has brought PUrdue a good distance since teh budget issues. PSU palyed harder than any time this year...a palyer got hot and Matt rolled the dice...he won barely. Strategy is fair debate, but it should be within the scope of the current team...
Similar threads
