Edey isn't quickly trapping anyone. That's asking him to do something that's not in his skill set.
Flame away, but....
- Thread starter typeviic
- Start date
Zach's man is absolutely who we would have wanted trying a three. He's absolutely horrible at it
Do you not understand that it was Zach that did not execute and no resistance in 2 seconds. Had Zach did his job there is NO 2 or 3. Any counter to what I stated and how coaches would play that as Matt did is confusing the lack of execution with the strategy. Your way definitely gives up a chance to lose or tie. My way or coaches does not and at the worse goes into OT which should favor Purdue. No matter what you do, no execution can lead to failure. Look at all the mid range shots Hepburn made. If Zach forces the ball back due to overplay then there is no 2 or 3 ball. Matt played it that way and explained why he did it...which I started explaining long before I saw Matt's video. Your approach was to deal with the ball after it got where it could score. Matt's, mine and I expect coaching in general was to prevent that position of the ball. BTW did Zach look focused at teh start of the game getting the tech or in some of his catches and misses at the line. Not sure he was in tune 100%
Zach's man didn't have to shoot a 3. If Zach is in his one man zone, Zach's man can be a screener for someone that can...especially open since Zach is not there to contest.
Reading some of the comments I think some never stopped from yesterday morning two hours before the game.
Then you switch it. How is that any different from a screen if Zach is there? A screen could have happened anywhere on the court.
You think Zach is quickly trapping Chucky Hepburn? I don't.
I don't know what you are saying? I listed a lot of potential problems if Zach is in space and if Zach is in a one man zone...and then there are potential problems if Zach is not in their. Everything has options against it and you cannot make the other team do what you want. If Zach is not there to contest a shot, they there exist no defense on whoever Wisconsin chooses since Wisconsin screens who the want and dives who they want. All of these scenarios are trying to address a problem AFTER it happen...meaning the ball is already in a position to score in double bonus. What I have tried to explain is that if Zach is going to be on the court...the least exposure he has to be a risk is defending the triggerman and that is also the best way to prevent a good 2 or 3 from happening
What? So if Wisconsin screens we are helpless unless Zach is there? Zach's our only possible perimeter defender?
Yeah I don't remotely agree with anything you said. His least exposure is where he's used to being, in the paint. Not trying to contest a three out on the perimeter, something he almost never does.
You saw his unfamiliarity with being out there with how far away he was from the trigger man.
You simply switch every screen and you can contest any three with only 2.7 seconds and an inability to make multiple passes.
Agree 100%, a horrible decision. You might do that with 0.9 on the clock when all you can do is lob, but bringing him out of the play with that much time was complete idiocy.
First Matt has successfully used Zach like this before..it isn't the first time. Second, I have no idea what you are stating. If Zach is not guarding a player then a player is open even if you don't guard the trigger man. Doug Lee won a game in the exact scenario off of I believe a Tom Reider's out of bound play where nobody defended the trigger man back in the mid 80s. Ball goes in play and back to triggerman unguarded for wide open shot. Think Wahl has to not be guarded if on the perimeter...he just sets screen for shooter with other Purdue defenders away on other players and zach in no position to defend. Hepburn had no issue hitting mid range shots. Your approach allows ball going where ever Wisconsin wants it and hopes they miss it. Had Zach done his job, none of this happens. It doesn't matter if you agree with me. I'm stating what and why something happened and how most coaches would play that. Your disagreement is your thing and it is quite alright. I'm not in need of agreement. This forum in almost everything has difference of opinion. I will agree that even though Hepburn had a running start and dribbled into the lane there was only going to be one pass max after the ball was inbounded. Kinda amazing the focus on this single item instead of what really lost the game
With all this talk about Edey guarding the inbounder, one detail consistently gets lost in the conversation. Why in the world was Braden Smith even on the court at the end of regulation? He had four fouls and was clearly being hampered by his knee injury. Why not put Cam or Morton on Hepburn for that last play?
Coming across like the way it was defended and your opinion is the absolute only effective way to defend. Nope it’s your own personal thought but not automatically the correct way. All ways are subject to execution and the results or lack there of. We saw the result of a not great execution and an easy high percentage shot to take us to OT. If defended by Zach as you suggest it too leads to a 3 point perimeter shot. It would force the ball away from the basket. But this way the result was a wide open lane and easy bucket. Zach in the lane greatly hinders that. Yes someone will try to fire u a 3 (21.8% 7-32 on the day) but I take that chance and have a rim protector in the lane to increase the difficulty of any shot above what we gave up.
Other reason I don’t think it was the best decision is we left an injured Smith on Hepburn, who had gotten the best of him often in the game and was their go to guy down the stretch. Healthy Braden, maybe a different result?
On a different note there was a game earlier in the year where we put Berg on the trigger guy and left Edey in to protect the rim on an inbounds play at the end of the half.
Wahl is a horrible outside shooter. So if it goes back to the trigger man you want him shooting an outside shot. That's the best shot you are going to get. They aren't running a play to give the ball back to Wahl with what would be less than two seconds to shoot a shot he's 18 percent on the season shooting.
My approach doesn't remotely result in the ball going wherever Wisconsin wants it. There was 2.7 seconds left. They aren't winging it around the perimeter. There's time for one pass and a shot. There isn't time for two passes and the most likely pass recipients are Hepburn and Storr. If Zach is near enough to the paint to discourage a drive you have basically locked UW into taking a contested three or a drive into the paint with Zach there.
With Zach matched up on the perimeter with a guy who isn't shooting a three you are completely opening up for a drive which is exactly what happened. And if they want a three they can still easily get one with a screen at the top of the key where Zach is also out of the play. Zach guarding the out of bounds there only does one thing, it makes it harder to inbound the ball.
It does nothing once the ball is inbounded because Zach is not suited to operate defensively on the perimeter. Which is why he was unable to trap.
And yes, focusing on a play where we have a game tying layup with 2.7 seconds left that sent the game to overtime is something that's not really surprising.
Perhaps Painter recognizes this blunder and won't repeat it. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. In theory, I see what he was trying to do, but man did that get blown up quickly.
What makes you believe that Wahl has to take it out? All they have to do is have an option depending on what Zach does as to who takes it out and where Wahl goes. you either are trying to address a problem of ball position and an open player or your are trying to prevent a loss or tie by ball position by the triggerman. It really isn't that hard and this is why fans disagree with coaches at times.
Matt explained what he did and why and I have wasted too many keystrokes before I knew Matt had already addressed the situation. We just witnessed Wahl at only 6'9" give Purdue trouble a few days ago inbounding the ball when Wisconsin pressed...more than once those long arms moving cut down the court. I went so far as to do the math to explain the feet left of view on the court. It isn't unreasonable that Zach couldn't and shouldn't be able to do the same thing. When Zach doesn't, then a strategy of using a big on a triggerman is questionable...not because of theory, but execution.
Isn't there a big difference between a baseline inbounds play and one on the sideline? A defender with length poses a bigger problem nearer to the basket, considering the inbounder can't simply just loft it over the defender's head with the backboard right there. Maybe I'm off on this, but it seems like a totally different calculus on the sideline.
Or put Berg in to be on the ball. Then leaving Edey in the paint.
It may have been a disaster or it might have worked. Probably could not have been any worse than the easy layup though.
Because he's the guy who took it out? Sure you could have an option, but Edey is not a better perimeter defense option than any other player we had on the court.
If there was like t second left, then sure, no chance of penetration. 2.7 seconds left? You're giving them a clear path to the basket against players they've driven on all game and one of them injured and with four fouls.
College star basketball players should opt out of conference basketball tournaments which are meaningless...just like star football players have opted out of meaningless college football bowl games unless it is a playoff football bowl game.
not going further into this other than to remind you that Wahl did not have to take the ball out. I've said that quite a few times. He could walk away if Zach doesn't follow and let another take it out. As simple as I can make it. If Zach is not defending someone, then someone is not defended. Wisconsin can dictate who that shooter is which definitely can lead to a loss and if not a loss a tie by spreading the court and then having Wisconsin's choice to shoot the ball for 3 or 2. A tie should allow Purdue to win. What I said were the real possibilities and likely scenario and Matt's which he has used before as well as other coaches was to make the position of the ball harder rather than easier which happened due to Zach. Your opinion is fine...for you and any that share in it. Different opinions have a vast spectrum of thoughts in a forum and allows anyone to express themselves in whatever they feel. I don't share your view for reasons I stated and you don't share mine...which is quite alright.
If Wahl doesn't take the ball out then Zach defense Wahl. He's not defending nobody.
it is not registering. Wahl then screens for a shooter while Zach is in his one man zone and if Zach goes to the perimeter...now Zach is even more vulnerable. Look, I differ in an opinion and it is quite alright you have another view. I held the view before it happened and explained it to Kim and others before I saw Matt state the same thing. Matt and I could be wrong and it certainly didn't work out, but I understand the thought process and stated so before I caught the question asked of Matt. I'm perfectly fine with you holding a different opinion. I'm a LOT more concerned about things that caused Purdue to lose
All that ain't happening in 2.7 seconds and if it could it just as easily happens with Wahl taking it out and then screening.
I heard he's on the short list at immaculate incarnate unicv
Firmly believe that pass isnt' 3' behind Braden if that defender isn't touching it. His movement was the same direction the pass went.
Yeh I know, and not giving the 3 was the right choice. But I "think" I'd live with the 3 from the 3d string center if he's in there. I dont' think anyone playing thought they could get to the rim in 2.x seconds. In particular anyone guarded by Braden. He was slow from his injury and gassed I think. He was awfully flat footed in a huge crunch situation. Not like him at all. I look forward to watching him the next time we play the Badgers.
I think this one left a bad taste in his mouth.
So Hepburn was hot from mid range he ended 9/12 just stopping short of Zach for his mid range shot. I just know how I would have played it, and what Matt did. I told Kim to watch and see how the ball was defended and if a big was on it. I could do the math and show mathematically the field of view had Zach been swinging his arms and covering a field of view. That didn't happen and Hepburn got the ball running with a slight curl to the basket. It is over and people can hold whatever view they want...it is okay, but I wasn't going to get beat. This forum is for people to discuss and there is never going to be agreement on everything or most things or even few things. There will always be a different opinion held by others.
Now this has not been discussed concerning an out of bounds play. The pass to Zach with Braden running the side line that Zach pushed out of bounds. That is the second time I recall Purdue has done that. It would be soooooooooooo much more effective if Zach would just jump and toss it down the court to Braden leading him rather than what he did. The other time he didn't jump either. Nobody stops that pass if he does.
That said I'm thinking 5 or 6 seconds to go in regulation maybe??? Purdue ball under Wisconsin basket and I'm thinking some Purdue player needs to release hard pulling his man hard and knowing the ball is floating behind him and should land at half court or so getting the ball and defensive player going away from their basket that is not a ball handler read before the ball is passed. Just the opposite of what you want when you need to score in the final seconds and you want your player to get the ball going towards your basket.
We’ve played 30+ games and hes been here for 18 years. If he doesn’t understand that you protect the rim with your 7’4 center with the game on the line, he never will.
He did. He used Zach in a one man zone for the game and Hepburn hit on 9/12 stopping short of Zach. Matt just doesn't understand basketball and apparently a lot of coaches don't either. I wish this site would offer him a free subscription so he could learn so much more. I mean when you witness so many takes different than his...you know how stubborn he is. He never makes adjustments and just plods along in his stubborn ways never reaching out to this site for help when it is there to help him. It is embarrassing at his age having so much to learn
Similar threads
