decent comparison?

[njm8845]

There was a ton of hype around the 08-09 season. That was the Baby Boilers' sophomore year.

They lost a couple games out of conference, and even started B10 play 0-2, including a surprising loss at PSU.

However, the conference ended up being a bloodbath, and Purdue finished 2nd in B10. They then won the BTT and made it to the S16 before losing to #1 Uconn.

I see a lot of similarities not in playing style but in how the season could play out. Perhaps people's expectations were too high at the beginning of this season. But would anybody scoff right now at a BTT title and S16 appearance?

 

[punaj]

I'd love a B1G title and sweet 16. That said, we are a terrible matchup for a lot of teams... we could go farther, still making a legit final four run or we could lose the first weekend. Match-ups are so important in the tourney.

 

[FleeTheScene]

I think Bardo made a great point last night that conference teams scout each other a ton, and that same level of scouting won't be there in the tourney. Couple things with that though. First, I think our biggest weakness is when we have to matchup with a legit shooting threat from the 4 or 5 spot. We haven't really found a good way to defend this yet. If it's a 4 we've put Ray on them to mixed results and if it's a 5 we put aj or Isaac on them and open up the middle. That needs to get shored up to be able to compete for a tourney run.

Another thing is, before Rutgers, we hadn't really made teams pay for going small against us. Teams like Illinois that run out 4 guards should be destroyed inside, but they swarmed the post and our guys panicked. One thing about last night that I loved was the obvious message to haas between last game and tonight that it is ok to pass out of the post. We played perfect inside out ball last night and that is what is going to make us successful.

So it's a mix of scouting and personnel, because I think if we play any team that wants to try to establish an inside game, we're going to be favored. If we play a team who knows how to get our bigs away from the basket and doesn't try to force things inside, that's where we could stumble.

 

[Bluegrass Boiler]

[QUOTE="One thing about last night that I loved was the obvious message to haas between last game and tonight that it is ok to pass out of the post. We played perfect inside out ball last night and that is what is going to make us successful.[/QUOTE]

Loved the patty-cake sequence between Isaac and PJ...it was like PJ was saying "you take it!" and Isaac was responding "no, you take it"... Can't recall the last time a ball went into Haas and came back out again without a turnover or deflection.

 

[*4purdue*]

I think Bardo made a great point last night that conference teams scout each other a ton, and that same level of scouting won't be there in the tourney. Couple things with that though. First, I think our biggest weakness is when we have to matchup with a legit shooting threat from the 4 or 5 spot. We haven't really found a good way to defend this yet. If it's a 4 we've put Ray on them to mixed results and if it's a 5 we put aj or Isaac on them and open up the middle. That needs to get shored up to be able to compete for a tourney run.

Another thing is, before Rutgers, we hadn't really made teams pay for going small against us. Teams like Illinois that run out 4 guards should be destroyed inside, but they swarmed the post and our guys panicked. One thing about last night that I loved was the obvious message to haas between last game and tonight that it is ok to pass out of the post. We played perfect inside out ball last night and that is what is going to make us successful.

So it's a mix of scouting and personnel, because I think if we play any team that wants to try to establish an inside game, we're going to be favored. If we play a team who knows how to get our bigs away from the basket and doesn't try to force things inside, that's where we could stumble.

I think most in the media that are intelligent (Bardo a good example), would not be surprised if this team makes it to the FF this year. Much like MSU, we have underachieved... the difference is that Izzo has a pretty good track record of turning things around & most think he will still be knocking on the door in March (which is hard to argue). Until CMP makes that breakthrough, we will not get that kind of respect.

 

[FirstDownB]

There was a ton of hype around the 08-09 season. That was the Baby Boilers' sophomore year.

They lost a couple games out of conference, and even started B10 play 0-2, including a surprising loss at PSU.

However, the conference ended up being a bloodbath, and Purdue finished 2nd in B10. They then won the BTT and made it to the S16 before losing to #1 Uconn.

I see a lot of similarities not in playing style but in how the season could play out. Perhaps people's expectations were too high at the beginning of this season. But would anybody scoff right now at a BTT title and S16 appearance?

I think expectations are mostly back to where they started back in November. Not final four or bust. But not satisfied with just making the tourney either. So, BTT champs + Sweet 16 is probably slightly exceeding expectations. Ditto for Elite 8 or better with no BTT title.

 

[Statey]

I'd love a B1G title and sweet 16. That said, we are a terrible matchup for a lot of teams... we could go farther, still making a legit final four run or we could lose the first weekend. Match-ups are so important in the tourney.

I see this mentioned a lot on forums, but I think this statement is often exaggerated. No matter who you're playing, there will be strengths and weaknesses on each side that create these "match-up" challenges. But it's the respective coaches' jobs to exploit the other team's weakness while trying to minimize the liability of his own team's. Good coaching can go a long way to negating small advantages the other team has (re: being on the wrong end of a bad match-up), and great coaching can go a long way to negating sometimes even large advantages the other team has.

I guess what I'm saying is the match-up line just feels like an excuse. In the NCAAs, outside of the 1, 2, and 3 seeds playing the low-major 16, 15, and 14 seeds in the opening round, all teams are playing relative equals. I mean, the highest 4 seed is - in theory - the 13th best team in the tourney, and the lowest 13 seed is the 52nd best. That's the absolute largest gap you can get in tourney among power-5 teams, and even THAT is not all that great (note: I'm assuming power 5 can get 13 seeds, but the cap might even by 12). The point being, top-50 wins is a measuring stick for a reason... most of teams in the top 50 are darn good teams. If a team ranked in the 40's beats a team ranked in the 20's, it shouldn't be a total shocker, you know.

Trying to come full circle on this... if you have a match-up issue at every spot on the floor, well that probably means the other team is just better than you... so I don't consider that a match-up issue. However, if there are 1 or 2 match-up concerns, that's on the coach to gameplan around to best of his ability. Case in point: how many times have you heard IU fans say Syracuse was a bad match-up a couple years ago? I suppose it pitted Syracuse's strong defense against IU's strong offense, but it wasn't like Syracuse was some vastly superior team with some secret weapon defense - a zone has it's weaknesses too. Syracuse just did what they do well (i.e. zone D) better than what IU did well (i.e. score). Of all the remaining teams in the tourney, maybe it was worst match-up IU could have had in that round... but it's not a valid excuse.

 

[SYoumans]

You're right, Statey, a "bad matchup" for a certain team just means the coaches are just gonna have to think more, instead of just rolling out their typical gameplan. For instance, a big, inside-oriented team like Purdue might struggle defensively vs. a lineup filled with small but quick shooters at every position. So, maybe, as a coach, you might switch to a 3-2 zone or something off-beat to avoid forcing your big men into guarding (or trying and failing to guard) the perimeter. As long as your team is not simply out-classed, good coaches should always be able to overcome "bad matchups."

 

[tjreese]

You're right, Statey, a "bad matchup" for a certain team just means the coaches are just gonna have to think more, instead of just rolling out their typical gameplan. For instance, a big, inside-oriented team like Purdue might struggle defensively vs. a lineup filled with small but quick shooters at every position. So, maybe, as a coach, you might switch to a 3-2 zone or something off-beat to avoid forcing your big men into guarding (or trying and failing to guard) the perimeter. As long as your team is not simply out-classed, good coaches should always be able to overcome "bad matchups."

good coaches can overcome "bad matchcups" on paper all the time, but the players must have the type of game that day and against that team to make it work as well. We can never lose track of the importance of players

 

[TheTruthIsBack73]

The baby boilers would smash this team.

 

[punaj]

The baby boilers would smash this team.

Not so sure but I'd love to watch that game. This years team has way more depth and size, at least by weight. JJ never got more than about 240 maybe. That said the baby boilers were studs when all healthy.

 

[FleeTheScene]

I see this mentioned a lot on forums, but I think this statement is often exaggerated. No matter who you're playing, there will be strengths and weaknesses on each side that create these "match-up" challenges. But it's the respective coaches' jobs to exploit the other team's weakness while trying to minimize the liability of his own team's. Good coaching can go a long way to negating small advantages the other team has (re: being on the wrong end of a bad match-up), and great coaching can go a long way to negating sometimes even large advantages the other team has.

I guess what I'm saying is the match-up line just feels like an excuse. In the NCAAs, outside of the 1, 2, and 3 seeds playing the low-major 16, 15, and 14 seeds in the opening round, all teams are playing relative equals. I mean, the highest 4 seed is - in theory - the 13th best team in the tourney, and the lowest 13 seed is the 52nd best. That's the absolute largest gap you can get in tourney among power-5 teams, and even THAT is not all that great (note: I'm assuming power 5 can get 13 seeds, but the cap might even by 12). The point being, top-50 wins is a measuring stick for a reason... most of teams in the top 50 are darn good teams. If a team ranked in the 40's beats a team ranked in the 20's, it shouldn't be a total shocker, you know.

Trying to come full circle on this... if you have a match-up issue at every spot on the floor, well that probably means the other team is just better than you... so I don't consider that a match-up issue. However, if there are 1 or 2 match-up concerns, that's on the coach to gameplan around to best of his ability. Case in point: how many times have you heard IU fans say Syracuse was a bad match-up a couple years ago? I suppose it pitted Syracuse's strong defense against IU's strong offense, but it wasn't like Syracuse was some vastly superior team with some secret weapon defense - a zone has it's weaknesses too. Syracuse just did what they do well (i.e. zone D) better than what IU did well (i.e. score). Of all the remaining teams in the tourney, maybe it was worst match-up IU could have had in that round... but it's not a valid excuse.

This is a great post. I was to talk about the idea of matchups and whether or not they can make a big difference though, because I think I may disagree. I think personnel plays a big role in what kind of scheme a coach can pull off in a game, especially a large scale tourney with a quick turn around time between games. I think our biggest Achilles heel is a team going small and using a stretch 5 against us. With that scheme I think a team that pressures the ball and fronts and then doubles the post would be a lot more successful. We haven't shown to this point that we can work through that or exploit it on the other side.

So I think your argument is, we have to have our guys ready for that matchup and know how to take advantage of it on the other end. I don't know that we have the personnel to do that though, because at this point our shooters have not shown the capability to consistently make defenses pay for packing in. Defensively, if we have to stick our rim protector on a guy that can burn us from the perimeter, that is a much bigger problem for us than most because a lot of our defense is predicated on man to man ball pressure with the idea that we have a last line of defense if the ball handler gets by.

This is a very interesting topic and one I would like to hear other opinions on because I have also said I'd like to see us getting a little more out of the offensive end when teams go small, that is what we've built this team to do after all. But I wonder if it's all a little too optimistic given what we've seen. I also feel a lot more comfortable when we play a team that likes to go with a traditional back to the basket 5, because I feel like there's no way they can hang. In that way I feel like matchups are important but I'd love to hear some other opinions.

 

[proudopete]

This is a great post. I was to talk about the idea of matchups and whether or not they can make a big difference though, because I think I may disagree. I think personnel plays a big role in what kind of scheme a coach can pull off in a game, especially a large scale tourney with a quick turn around time between games. I think our biggest Achilles heel is a team going small and using a stretch 5 against us. With that scheme I think a team that pressures the ball and fronts and then doubles the post would be a lot more successful. We haven't shown to this point that we can work through that or exploit it on the other side.

So I think your argument is, we have to have our guys ready for that matchup and know how to take advantage of it on the other end. I don't know that we have the personnel to do that though, because at this point our shooters have not shown the capability to consistently make defenses pay for packing in. Defensively, if we have to stick our rim protector on a guy that can burn us from the perimeter, that is a much bigger problem for us than most because a lot of our defense is predicated on man to man ball pressure with the idea that we have a last line of defense if the ball handler gets by.

This is a very interesting topic and one I would like to hear other opinions on because I have also said I'd like to see us getting a little more out of the offensive end when teams go small, that is what we've built this team to do after all. But I wonder if it's all a little too optimistic given what we've seen. I also feel a lot more comfortable when we play a team that likes to go with a traditional back to the basket 5, because I feel like there's no way they can hang. In that way I feel like matchups are important but I'd love to hear some other opinions.

I think we have the personnel to play against a small ball team.
I think Painter failed I adjust in the games we lost.
If the opponent has their 4 as their best offensive threat. We put Ray on then and that forces Biggie to guard a smaller quicker player.
I would like to see us just go straight up at Iowa and let Biggie and Vince guard the Utoff.
Let Ray take Jok and see what happens.
Utoff is gonna go off no matter who we out on him. Let's take very one else out of the equation and see if he can beat us alone.
I would also think that when smaller guys abuse Biggie, we can go with Vince at the 4.
I know painter likes this make teams adjust to us. But when that doesn't seem to be working. I wish he would adjust. We have the personnel to do so.

 

[FleeTheScene]

I think we have the personnel to play against a small ball team.
I think Painter failed I adjust in the games we lost.
If the opponent has their 4 as their best offensive threat. We put Ray on then and that forces Biggie to guard a smaller quicker player.
I would like to see us just go straight up at Iowa and let Biggie and Vince guard the Utoff.
Let Ray take Jok and see what happens.
Utoff is gonna go off no matter who we out on him. Let's take very one else out of the equation and see if he can beat us alone.
I would also think that when smaller guys abuse Biggie, we can go with Vince at the 4.
I know painter likes this make teams adjust to us. But when that doesn't seem to be working. I wish he would adjust. We have the personnel to do so.

Yeah I agree I'd like to see Vince guarding Uthoff and keep Ray on jok.

 

[*4purdue*]

I think we have the personnel to play against a small ball team.
I think Painter failed I adjust in the games we lost.
If the opponent has their 4 as their best offensive threat. We put Ray on then and that forces Biggie to guard a smaller quicker player.
I would like to see us just go straight up at Iowa and let Biggie and Vince guard the Utoff.
Let Ray take Jok and see what happens.
Utoff is gonna go off no matter who we out on him. Let's take very one else out of the equation and see if he can beat us alone.
I would also think that when smaller guys abuse Biggie, we can go with Vince at the 4.
I know painter likes this make teams adjust to us. But when that doesn't seem to be working. I wish he would adjust. We have the personnel to do so.

CMP will put Davis on Utoff most of the game. Davis has an edge about him & if you remember, was the first one to take the blame for the Iowa loss. If he has an ax to grind, it will be this game & I can see him stepping up the D against Utoff.

 

[proudopete]

CMP will put Davis on Utoff most of the game. Davis has an edge about him & if you remember, was the first one to take the blame for the Iowa loss. If he has an ax to grind, it will be this game & I can see him stepping up the D against Utoff.

I hope not. His length makes that a bad match up. His injury makes it even worse.
I would rather see Vince on him.

 

[*4purdue*]

I hope not. His length makes that a bad match up. His injury makes it even worse.
I would rather see Vince on him.

I thought Davis adjusted nicely in the second half against Utoff. He only scored 4 pt. in the second half really. The other 5 were at the end of the game when we were fouling. I don't see CMP changing his ways, he never has in the past. Best defender on best player has been his MO

 

[FirstDownB]

I know painter likes this make teams adjust to us. But when that doesn't seem to be working. I wish he would adjust. We have the personnel to do so.

I've made statement before that we cannot be so in love with our size advantage that we don't recognized when it is being used against us within a game and make adjustments accordingly. Yes, you go into a game thinking 'make them adjust to us' and most of the time you stick with your bread and butter. But occasionally the opponent can negate that advantage with a really good scheme or the refs will negate it by the way they call fouls. It is a luxury to have a legit off speed pitch, which I believe this team does in fact have in the smaller, quicker lineup.
Now, I personally have seen some of these adjustments happening and am willing at this point to write some of the January struggles off to the learning process. Biggie's in-season development and where he fits into this is the main variable right now IMO. Will be interesting to see it play out!

 

[punaj]

IMO, it was good to lose the games we did because you learn and remember more from a lose than a win. I hope we use the loses to plan better and recognize faster when things are going south in a game. All that said, I'd love to be undefeated but that just doesn't happen very often.

 

[FleeTheScene]

I thought Davis adjusted nicely in the second half against Utoff. He only scored 4 pt. in the second half really. The other 5 were at the end of the game when we were fouling. I don't see CMP changing his ways, he never has in the past. Best defender on best player has been his MO

Did Davis adjust or was it just the fact that the points were coming off of turnovers and fast breaks and Uthoff was playing back in their trap and wasn't really involved in a lot of it?

 

[Statey]

IMO, it was good to lose the games we did because you learn and remember more from a lose than a win.

Really? That may be true, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any evidence that would support that. In fact, the only thing that popped into my mind when I read this was that behavioral therapists says that positive reinforcement for good behaviors conditions children for future good behaviors better than repeated negative reinforcement does for bad behaviors. If you applied that behavioral learning comparison to your statement - if anything - I think it would be saying the exact opposite... that you learn better by experiencing success and rewards than you do by failures and punishments. Just wondering if you had read something somewhere on this to support what you were saying.

 

[punaj]

Really? That may be true, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any evidence that would support that. In fact, the only thing that popped into my mind when I read this was that behavioral therapists says that positive reinforcement for good behaviors conditions children for future good behaviors better than repeated negative reinforcement does for bad behaviors. If you applied that behavioral learning comparison to your statement - if anything - I think it would be saying the exact opposite... that you learn better by experiencing success and rewards than you do by failures and punishments. Just wondering if you had read something somewhere on this to support what you were saying.

You are absolutely correct. I definitely would not use negative reinforcement when raising my daughter.

My comments did not come out the way my mind saw them.

My general thought that I was trying to express was that you learn more from losing a game, say that you are really being pressed in, than you do from the string of games earlier this year where we won them all by more than 10 points each. I feel that if the team that lost to VCU in the tourney a few years back would have lost a game against a strong press during the season, it would have positioned them to better handle that game.

 

[Statey]

You are absolutely correct. I definitely would not use negative reinforcement when raising my daughter.

My comments did not come out the way my mind saw them.

My general thought that I was trying to express was that you learn more from losing a game, say that you are really being pressed in, than you do from the string of games earlier this year where we won them all by more than 10 points each. I feel that if the team that lost to VCU in the tourney a few years back would have lost a game against a strong press during the season, it would have positioned them to better handle that game.

If you're saying you learn more from challenging games (even they are losses) than you do from weak non-conference games where you can play at 85% and still win, I agree wholeheartedly. And don't get me wrong, I do think there is value to be had in losses if the negative experiences, anger, depression, etc. is redirected in a positive way and built on.

The way I read your first post sounded as though the more losses you rack up, well the other teams better really watch out then. Like the most dangerous team on the schedule at the end of the year is the one that's lost their first 30 games! Ha. I knew that wasn't what you were really saying, but still thought I'd comment. Agree with where you head is though that if Purdue had experienced a press like VCU's earlier in the season maybe they would have been better prepared to attack it.

 

[tjreese]

If you're saying you learn more from challenging games (even they are losses) than you do from weak non-conference games where you can play at 85% and still win, I agree wholeheartedly. And don't get me wrong, I do think there is value to be had in losses if the negative experiences, anger, depression, etc. is redirected in a positive way and built on.

The way I read your first post sounded as though the more losses you rack up, well the other teams better really watch out then. Like the most dangerous team on the schedule at the end of the year is the one that's lost their first 30 games! Ha. I knew that wasn't what you were really saying, but still thought I'd comment. Agree with where you head is though that if Purdue had experienced a press like VCU's earlier in the season maybe they would have been better prepared to attack it.

Its been a few years, but I don't recall VCU's press being near as big a problem as Purdue extending the D and giving one layup after another...but admit I've slept since then.

 

[FirstDownB]

Its been a few years, but I don't recall VCU's press being near as big a problem as Purdue extending the D and giving one layup after another...but admit I've slept since then.

Pick and roll layup drill as I recall

 

[boilerzz]

Its been a few years, but I don't recall VCU's press being near as big a problem as Purdue extending the D and giving one layup after another...but admit I've slept since then.

You are correct. Purdue only had 7 turnovers in that game.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Pick and roll layup drill as I recall

Yes. Specifically a side ball screen from the inside with a fast dive to the rim. We never came close to figuring it out.