PISCATAWAY, N.J. — A few final musings — yes, musings — from Purdue's 70-63 loss at Rutgers.
• Purdue doesn't need Nojel Eastern scoring to win, but it does need all its guards being stronger and more protective of the ball, and the standard is always higher for veterans. Here's a chance to lead by cutting out of some of the seemingly casual stuff that's biting Purdue.
• The Boilermakers have to get Matt Haarms going. It feels like an asset is going untapped here offensively. This is not solely on Haarms, but he is a very different player than Trevion Williams in that his strength lies in movement, mobility and it's up to Purdue's guards to get him the ball differently. Looked to me live like Purdue missed him a few times in pick-and-roll, and didn't cash in on that until the game's final few minutes.
This was significant in part because Myles Johnson is known to struggle in ball screens and they never really exposed him there.
Johnson is kind of the face of a Big Ten where it turns out suddenly that almost everybody has a really good, in some cases, great big guy. Purdue had to feel good about its tandem, and you knew Jalen Smith would be good, and Jon Teske and Xavier Tillman would be solid. But no one knew Luka Garza would turn into Superman, Kofi Cockburn would be the Incredible Hulk and Daniel Oturu would go from pretty good to pretty damn great in a single off-season, or that Johnson would be developed at the rate he has. He may not get a lot of pub, but he's pretty good, and you can sort of tell when a player's size and length gets to Trevion Williams and for the better part of the game tonight, his did.
Point is, Purdue's standouts aren't standing out quite as much, its presumed advantages dulled.
• I did think that when Williams went to the bench with 4:35 left after he'd gotten going offensively that Painter was using that called timeout, then the defensive possession to follow (where you'd prefer Haarms), then the media timeout to get Williams a bit of rest before coming back with him inside the four-minute mark. He stayed on the bench 'til 1:49, when Haarms fouled out.
Not sure it mattered, but thought I'd mention it. It is a no-easy-answer deal with those two in those situations.
• Kudos to Purdue for bouncing back from that shot Geo Baker hit from the corner. That was Baker — after Purdue had cut a 17-point lead almost in half relatively quickly — making a playground shot, in the spacial equivalent of a 747 lavatory, with Nojel Eastern positioned well. That could have been the shot that stymied Purdue's rally and sent things the other direction. That was a big-time shot, and exemplified the difference between these two teams' backcourts.
• I don't know what the rules say, if anything, but when the refs are reviewing the elbow by Isaiah Thompson for which replays we all had access to were inconclusive at best — and it was called a flop on the floor — and Montez Mathis is standing there holding a tissue to his lip, or whatever it was, couldn't the refs just ask to see the blood to at least prove incorrect their original ruling of a flop? Like, if there's no blood ...
I'm not saying it was the wrong call, because I don't know. But I am saying that I don't think they know either. Again, the meaning of the word "inconclusive" becomes, well, inconclusive.
Thanks everybody for reading. Good night.
• Purdue doesn't need Nojel Eastern scoring to win, but it does need all its guards being stronger and more protective of the ball, and the standard is always higher for veterans. Here's a chance to lead by cutting out of some of the seemingly casual stuff that's biting Purdue.
• The Boilermakers have to get Matt Haarms going. It feels like an asset is going untapped here offensively. This is not solely on Haarms, but he is a very different player than Trevion Williams in that his strength lies in movement, mobility and it's up to Purdue's guards to get him the ball differently. Looked to me live like Purdue missed him a few times in pick-and-roll, and didn't cash in on that until the game's final few minutes.
This was significant in part because Myles Johnson is known to struggle in ball screens and they never really exposed him there.
Johnson is kind of the face of a Big Ten where it turns out suddenly that almost everybody has a really good, in some cases, great big guy. Purdue had to feel good about its tandem, and you knew Jalen Smith would be good, and Jon Teske and Xavier Tillman would be solid. But no one knew Luka Garza would turn into Superman, Kofi Cockburn would be the Incredible Hulk and Daniel Oturu would go from pretty good to pretty damn great in a single off-season, or that Johnson would be developed at the rate he has. He may not get a lot of pub, but he's pretty good, and you can sort of tell when a player's size and length gets to Trevion Williams and for the better part of the game tonight, his did.
Point is, Purdue's standouts aren't standing out quite as much, its presumed advantages dulled.
• I did think that when Williams went to the bench with 4:35 left after he'd gotten going offensively that Painter was using that called timeout, then the defensive possession to follow (where you'd prefer Haarms), then the media timeout to get Williams a bit of rest before coming back with him inside the four-minute mark. He stayed on the bench 'til 1:49, when Haarms fouled out.
Not sure it mattered, but thought I'd mention it. It is a no-easy-answer deal with those two in those situations.
• Kudos to Purdue for bouncing back from that shot Geo Baker hit from the corner. That was Baker — after Purdue had cut a 17-point lead almost in half relatively quickly — making a playground shot, in the spacial equivalent of a 747 lavatory, with Nojel Eastern positioned well. That could have been the shot that stymied Purdue's rally and sent things the other direction. That was a big-time shot, and exemplified the difference between these two teams' backcourts.
• I don't know what the rules say, if anything, but when the refs are reviewing the elbow by Isaiah Thompson for which replays we all had access to were inconclusive at best — and it was called a flop on the floor — and Montez Mathis is standing there holding a tissue to his lip, or whatever it was, couldn't the refs just ask to see the blood to at least prove incorrect their original ruling of a flop? Like, if there's no blood ...
I'm not saying it was the wrong call, because I don't know. But I am saying that I don't think they know either. Again, the meaning of the word "inconclusive" becomes, well, inconclusive.
Thanks everybody for reading. Good night.
