Good win today!

[cprh9u]

Glad to see us take care of business and get another W. Excited to see Edwards light up a few teams lately and curious to see how he does against better competition on Wednesday.

Big game vs. Louisville. Still so early in the year, but this is the last non-conference game to get a big resume builder for March. A road win at Louisville will be big for us, even with their loss yesterday. Let's see Biggie and Haas dominate underneath and Carson continue his hot play to support them.

Boiler up!

 

[mathboy]

I agree. This was a trap game against a team that is better than many would expect. High scoring guards with athletic posts have given us trouble in the past. Add to that the slack time between playing two name teams, and we easily could have let this one slide.

 

[gd4now]

Agree all wins are a good thing!!! The thing I found most pleasant was the the fact they shared the ball well. Many nice passes before a basket. Not in just this game but in the past several ones . A team that shares is a team that succeeds.

 

[TC4THREE]

The Notre Dame game will look pretty good if we can win it too.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

The Notre Dame game will look pretty good if we can win it too.

End the Curse!

 

[nagemj02]

Glad to see us take care of business and get another W. Excited to see Edwards light up a few teams lately and curious to see how he does against better competition on Wednesday.

Big game vs. Louisville. Still so early in the year, but this is the last non-conference game to get a big resume builder for March. A road win at Louisville will be big for us, even with their loss yesterday. Let's see Biggie and Haas dominate underneath and Carson continue his hot play to support them.

Boiler up!

I think you might be forgetting one other non-conference opponent. I know we don't like them but Notre Dame is a good team. It's undeniable. They've beaten Purdue the last three times they've went head-to-head and their offensive attack is tailor-made (as we saw in 2014) for attacking a Painter man-to-man defense by going right at his man D schemes with the drive or by creating open teammates by driving towards the hoop and accumulating collapsing man-to-man defenders along their path. The bottom line: that is going to be a tough game for Purdue with the way Painter wants to play D every possession.

 

[punaj]

I was happy to see them handle a zone with no issues. That hasn't always happened in the past.

 

[BoiledSteel]

The bottom line: that is going to be a tough game for Purdue with the way Painter wants to play D every possession.

Just stop. The defense played at Purdue is fine and effective. I know you like to nitpick every chance you get, but your critique here has no merit. If man D fails, it is because the player doesn't do their assignment. Period.

 

[jadeezra]

Just stop. The defense played at Purdue is fine and effective. I know you like to nitpick every chance you get, but your critique here has no merit. If man D fails, it is because the player doesn't do their assignment. Period.

Well the obvious answer to that is a particular player or players are unable to execute due to the matchup. That's where zone or some other options come in. If a coach can't recognize this then it's on him obviously

 

[BoilerAndy]

The bottom line: that is going to be a tough game for Purdue with the way Painter wants to play D every possession.

Are you saying it will be an easier game if they don't play D every possession?

 

[Inspector100]

Well the obvious answer to that is a particular player or players are unable to execute due to the matchup. That's where zone or some other options come in. If a coach can't recognize this then it's on him obviously

OK, so you are having problems getting the correct match up to stop a particular player and that has your team in a bind. But you have tried all the matchup possibilities available from your roster and it isn't enough. Surely you are not putting that on the coach as well. At some point, the players have to be accountable for the overall team performance, including the defensive part.

 

[BoiledSteel]

OK, so you are having problems getting the correct match up to stop a particular player and that has your team in a bind. But you have tried all the matchup possibilities available from your roster and it isn't enough. Surely you are not putting that on the coach as well. At some point, the players have to be accountable for the overall team performance, including the defensive part.

Exactly right. No defense will work if the players don't put in the effort. And no failed perception that somehow zone is a magic bullet will change that.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I think you might be forgetting one other non-conference opponent. I know we don't like them but Notre Dame is a good team. It's undeniable. They've beaten Purdue the last three times they've went head-to-head and their offensive attack is tailor-made (as we saw in 2014) for attacking a Painter man-to-man defense by going right at his man D schemes with the drive or by creating open teammates by driving towards the hoop and accumulating collapsing man-to-man defenders along their path. The bottom line: that is going to be a tough game for Purdue with the way Painter wants to play D every possession.

The five phases of reading a nag post, confusion, shock, anger, acceptance, laughter.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Well the obvious answer to that is a particular player or players are unable to execute due to the matchup. That's where zone or some other options come in. If a coach can't recognize this then it's on him obviously

This might be true if the two did not require the same skills. If you are bad at man you will be bad at zone.

 

[jadeezra]

I'm not a fan of zone at all , I'm just saying there are some instances where it's effective. I like man to man and I think painter is a fine coach for the most part.

I'm 100% satisfied with him at Purdue and to those who want another. Be careful what you wish for

 

[Inspector100]

I'm not a fan of zone at all , I'm just saying there are some instances where it's effective. I like man to man and I think painter is a fine coach for the most part.

I'm 100% satisfied with him at Purdue and to those who want another. Be careful what you wish for

I remember going to the Silver Dome for an NCAA tournament game against K-State. They got the best of us in the early part, but we battled back and had a 9 or 10 point lead with about 7-8 minutes to go. Keady went to a zone and they bombed three 3 point baskets over that zone in a little over a minute. With the game now neck and neck, we failed to finish. I thought at the time a zone would be good for us and had to eat some crow (all to myself) that the defense employed gave the opponent an easy chance to get back in the game when we had it well in hand. Never again.

 

[tjreese]

Well the obvious answer to that is a particular player or players are unable to execute due to the matchup. That's where zone or some other options come in. If a coach can't recognize this then it's on him obviously

I have asked for three years what a zone will do that a man cannot do and nobody takes me up on it and this is by no means directed towards you. It is just that people have neither taught defense or may not have a good understanding of them. College players are ALL good and I think a zone is generally less effective against good players...and a zone many times doesn't improve as much as man over a season. I can take a man and sag...I can take a zone and trap. Now I will say that I am a definite believer in zone presses or traps than man.

Do you have to pressure the ball in man or is that a choice? A zone by the very nature puts a man initially in a location that allows the offense to place who they want near the players they want in a zone. A man may keep the man on the player they want. Both can keep players in general locations they want. Purdue switches 1-4...some teams only switch horizontally to keep similar size and skill set players. The differences are not that great between a zone and a man...particularly with switching. Sorry, but I think over the last few years I've written extensive verbiage discussing this and I know some of the questions are because people haven't read them...and som are probably due to them thinking I'm an idiot...which may be...but maybe not so much here....

 

[cprh9u]

I think you might be forgetting one other non-conference opponent. I know we don't like them but Notre Dame is a good team. It's undeniable. They've beaten Purdue the last three times they've went head-to-head and their offensive attack is tailor-made (as we saw in 2014) for attacking a Painter man-to-man defense by going right at his man D schemes with the drive or by creating open teammates by driving towards the hoop and accumulating collapsing man-to-man defenders along their path. The bottom line: that is going to be a tough game for Purdue with the way Painter wants to play D every possession.

Notre Dame is pretty solid, but they look like a borderline top 25 team to me. A win against them would be good for sure, but Louisville is a top 10ish team right now. Hopefully we win against both and that gives us a real advantage when the seeds come out.

 

[nagemj02]

Well the obvious answer to that is a particular player or players are unable to execute due to the matchup. That's where zone or some other options come in. If a coach can't recognize this then it's on him obviously

This is exactly right. Many Purdue hoops fans (not just on here, but in general) fail to grasp that an Isaac Haas is never going to be able to keep up with (examples) a DeAaron Fox (Kentucky) or even a Matt Farrell or Temple Gibbs (Notre Dame) when he switches onto them in a high pick and roll situation and they drive on him. Those caliber of players are going to beat him (or Swanigan in the same scenario) to the hoop nearly every single time. So what is the answer to that? The answer is don't put Swanigan and Haas in high-pick & roll situations!

I don't want to read about, see, or hear Painter saying that Haas and Swanigan need to "try harder" or "just need to do a better job" if there's a game where opposing players repeatedly beat them to the hoop for easy scores and it hurts Purdue's chances of winning. As a head coach and tactician, it's on him to put them in better positions to succeed in their half-court defense, even if that means using (gasp!) zone options for them.

 

[nagemj02]

Notre Dame is pretty solid, but they look like a borderline top 25 team to me. A win against them would be good for sure, but Louisville is a top 10ish team right now. Hopefully we win against both and that gives us a real advantage when the seeds come out.

Rankings don't really mean much, especially when they're playing in the Crossroads Classic games.

 

[BoilerAndy]

This is exactly right. Many Purdue hoops fans (not just on here, but in general) fail to grasp that an Isaac Haas is never going to be able to keep up with (examples) a DeAaron Fox (Kentucky) or even a Matt Farrell or Temple Gibbs (Notre Dame) when he switches onto them in a high pick and roll situation and they drive on him. Those caliber of players are going to beat him (or Swanigan in the same scenario) to the hoop nearly every single time. So what is the answer to that? The answer is don't put Swanigan and Haas in high-pick & roll situations!

I don't want to read about, see, or hear Painter saying that Haas and Swanigan need to "try harder" or "just need to do a better job" if there's a game where opposing players repeatedly beat them to the hoop for easy scores and it hurts Purdue's chances of winning. As a head coach and tactician, it's on him to put them in better positions to succeed in their half-court defense, even if that means using (gasp!) zone options for them.

I desperately hope that Coach Painter never attempts to install a zone defense again. If he does, Nag won't have any reason to post on this board and instead may go out roaming the streets to cause mayhem in our communities. Coach Painter and this board are working together to provide a valuable public service.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

This is exactly right. Many Purdue hoops fans (not just on here, but in general) fail to grasp that an Isaac Haas is never going to be able to keep up with (examples) a DeAaron Fox (Kentucky) or even a Matt Farrell or Temple Gibbs (Notre Dame) when he switches onto them in a high pick and roll situation and they drive on him. Those caliber of players are going to beat him (or Swanigan in the same scenario) to the hoop nearly every single time. So what is the answer to that? The answer is don't put Swanigan and Haas in high-pick & roll situations!

I don't want to read about, see, or hear Painter saying that Haas and Swanigan need to "try harder" or "just need to do a better job" if there's a game where opposing players repeatedly beat them to the hoop for easy scores and it hurts Purdue's chances of winning. As a head coach and tactician, it's on him to put them in better positions to succeed in their half-court defense, even if that means using (gasp!) zone options for them.

It truly comes down to the guards fighting through the screen high to force the ball handler away from the screen. Many times when the players do this, it allows the big man to recover effectively. It also comes down to the backside help sliding down. In the lapses of defensive principles I have seen this season, most of it centers around just that...a lack of execution by the backside help.

 

[BoilersRock]

End the Curse!

I so hope you are right. I think our last best chance at a win was during Robbie's final year when Butler snuck in a layup with just a few seconds left. That might be the game where Robbie called out Anthony Johnson for not helping out on defense (though I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the ONLY game in which that happened).

 

[tjreese]

I so hope you are right. I think our last best chance at a win was during Robbie's final year when Butler snuck in a layup with just a few seconds left. That might be the game where Robbie called out Anthony Johnson for not helping out on defense (though I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the ONLY game in which that happened).

That was a clear out. Butler took everyone to the left side of the court and Butler got to the basket

 

[nagemj02]

I so hope you are right. I think our last best chance at a win was during Robbie's final year when Butler snuck in a layup with just a few seconds left. That might be the game where Robbie called out Anthony Johnson for not helping out on defense (though I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't the ONLY game in which that happened).

I'm pretty sure it was a different game (I think it was the game at home vs. Miami in the ACC/B1G Challenge). It was either that one or a home game vs. Coppin State. Butler center Andrew Smith put back the winning basket in that inaugural Crossroads Classic game. He passed away on January 13th of this year from non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Yes, that was the closest Purdue has come to winning a Crossroads Classic game (the first year).

 

[nagemj02]

It truly comes down to the guards fighting through the screen high to force the ball handler away from the screen. Many times when the players do this, it allows the big man to recover effectively. It also comes down to the backside help sliding down. In the lapses of defensive principles I have seen this season, most of it centers around just that...a lack of execution by the backside help.

That's true in some cases. Still, it's possible for an opposing ball-handler to beat a Purdue guard or big to the basket, even if they are forced away from the screen set for them. My bigger point is that Purdue doesn't need to put themselves in that situation so often, especially considering the massive size of their standout big men. Painter needs to mix in zone options when the man is not effective.

 

[Dakota Girl]

That's true in some cases. Still, it's possible for an opposing ball-handler to beat a Purdue guard or big to the basket, even if they are forced away from the screen set for them. My bigger point is that Purdue doesn't need to put themselves in that situation so often, especially considering the massive size of their standout big men. Painter needs to mix in zone options when the man is not effective.

Like the zone Syracuse used against Wisky last night? Dunk fest for Ethan Happ. They sure protected the paint though. And that by the biggest proponent of zone in college hoops.
That game is THE illustration of why zone is not the cure for all which aiils a defense. It's just another approach which has as many, if not more vulnerabilities.

 

[BoiledSteel]

Like the zone Syracuse used against Wisky last night? Dunk fest for Ethan Happ. They sure protected the paint though. And that by the biggest proponent of zone in college hoops.
That game is THE illustration of why zone is not the cure for all which aiils a defense. It's just another approach which has as many, if not more vulnerabilities.

At this point all you can do is just shake your head and chuckle at all the times nag has been wrong on here. Especially when trying to force Painter to using a zone.

He really is just nitpicking to nitpick. Next I suspect he and all the others like him, will want Painter fired for the color shirts he wears. Somehow the colors he chooses forces us to take bad shots or miss assignments.

 

[boilerzz]

At this point all you can do is just shake your head and chuckle at all the times nag has been wrong on here. Especially when trying to force Painter to using a zone.

He really is just nitpicking to nitpick. Next I suspect he and all the others like him, will want Painter fired for the color shirts he wears. Somehow the colors he chooses forces us to take bad shots or miss assignments.

Candidly, Nag isn't necessarily wrong about wanting Purdue to have a zone in its arsenal. I can see arguments both ways.

There have clearly been situations where having a zone option would have benefited Purdue and those instances will rise again. That said, just as Purdue's personnel isn't ideally suited for man to man, it's also not ideally suited for an effective zone. PJ and Carsen are vertically challenged and Spike, Dakota and Ryan are quickness challenged. As such, even if Purdue were to implement a zone, there would be a multitude of holes to exploit in it.

So it begets the question - Given the personnel limitations and the limited time Purdue is allowed to practice, should they:

1. Work exclusively on man to man and try to be as good as they can be with it, or
2. Split time and work on a zone which might still not be good (see Purdue's previous attempt) and might adversely impact Purdue's man defense

I think it's a viable question without a clear cut answer.

 

[tjreese]

Like the zone Syracuse used against Wisky last night? Dunk fest for Ethan Happ. They sure protected the paint though. And that by the biggest proponent of zone in college hoops.
That game is THE illustration of why zone is not the cure for all which aiils a defense. It's just another approach which has as many, if not more vulnerabilities.

I'm trying to let things go with those that are adamant that a zone is the key to this team. Mostly it has been about driver not being contained...some specifically concerning the 1-5 ball screen. I lost count just how many 1-5 ball screens figure into the game picture and forgetful of the options in man to defend the 1-5 ball screen that dominates the scenary...absent any other players on the court. I'm trying to just let it go understanding that the flexibility of man covers so much of a zone that not only can these things be addressed, but the things not being addressed that are still very important can be addressed. A zone is an option...a single option that is not the key to any game at any time, but something that "could" work for a short while...not to dismiss that other things in man might also work. We encounter statements concerning zone, but never what a zone will do in totality in comparison to a man in totality relative to the team employing the defense and the offensive team it is employed against.

I always liked Rumsfeld's quote and this is close. There are things we know. There are things we know we don't know, but the things we don't know that we don't know are the ones that kill us. Not against a zone and not against employing it sometimes. Just not sure it deserves the focus it gets in some forums, but that is my opinion only

 

[Dakota Girl]

Candidly, Nag isn't necessarily wrong about wanting Purdue to have a zone in its arsenal. I can see arguments both ways.

There have clearly been situations where having a zone option would have benefited Purdue and those instances will rise again. That said, just as Purdue's personnel isn't ideally suited for man to man, it's also not ideally suited for an effective zone. PJ and Carsen are vertically challenged and Spike, Dakota and Ryan are quickness challenged. As such, even if Purdue were to implement a zone, there would be a multitude of holes to exploit in it.

So it begets the question - Given the personnel limitations and the limited time Purdue is allowed to practice, should they:

1. Work exclusively on man to man and try to be as good as they can be with it, or
2. Split time and work on a zone which might still not be good (see Purdue's previous attempt) and might adversely impact Purdue's man defense

I think it's a viable question without a clear cut answer.

I like the question, but as you by now know I think it is clear cut. Do not waste time on a scheme for which we do not have personnel to operate at a high level. We are better off learning how to deal with deficiencies in one scheme than two. That is where zone protagonists miss the point. They are assuming we would automatically be fantastic at it when all evidence is to the contrary.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I'm trying to let things go with those that are adamant that a zone is the key to this team. Mostly it has been about driver not being contained...some specifically concerning the 1-5 ball screen. I lost count just how many 1-5 ball screens figure into the game picture and forgetful of the options in man to defend the 1-5 ball screen that dominates the scenary...absent any other players on the court. I'm trying to just let it go understanding that the flexibility of man covers so much of a zone that not only can these things be addressed, but the things not being addressed that are still very important can be addressed. A zone is an option...a single option that is not the key to any game at any time, but something that "could" work for a short while...not to dismiss that other things in man might also work. We encounter statements concerning zone, but never what a zone will do in totality in comparison to a man in totality relative to the team employing the defense and the offensive team it is employed against.

I always liked Rumsfeld's quote and this is close. There are things we know. There are things we know we don't know, but the things we don't know that we don't know are the ones that kill us. Not against a zone and not against employing it sometimes. Just not sure it deserves the focus it gets in some forums, but that is my opinion only

I also am not opposed to zone. I have employed several myself (Tark's Amoeba being my favorite). I just don't see the long lanky laterally athletic players on the current roster to make it work well. The assumption by some that it cures all penetration problems is erroneous at best. The hat is my objection.
I can see the team in 2018-19 being really good at various zones. Just not 2016-17.

 

[tjreese]

I also am not opposed to zone. I have employed several myself (Tark's Amoeba being my favorite). I just don't see the long lanky laterally athletic players on the current roster to make it work well. The assumption by some that it cures all penetration problems is erroneous at best. The hat is my objection.
I can see the team in 2018-19 being really good at various zones. Just not 2016-17.

Fully understand and admit I do have a bias day in and day out to man...a bias. In the most fundamental thought...areas of the court do NOT score baskets...players do. I think a little reflection on that thought would give pause to zone being a catch all for defense

 

[Dryfly88]

Fully understand and admit I do have a bias day in and day out to man...a bias. In the most fundamental thought...areas of the court do NOT score baskets...players do. I think a little reflection on that thought would give pause to zone being a catch all for defense

That explains why I have been confused all these years! Thanks TJ.

 

[nagemj02]

Fully understand and admit I do have a bias day in and day out to man...a bias. In the most fundamental thought...areas of the court do NOT score baskets...players do. I think a little reflection on that thought would give pause to zone being a catch all for defense

No one on here that is for various types of zones to be sprinkled in from time-to-time ever states that it is the end-all, be-all defense that should be played. The only people on here that state that are the same people that are staunchly against the idea of Purdue learning zone principles and using them on a regular basis. So basically, you guys are creating a self-perpetuating lie when you claim that others believe zone defenses are the end-all, be-all to any problems Purdue has on defense.

 

[Boiler Wolf]

Like the zone Syracuse used against Wisky last night? Dunk fest for Ethan Happ. They sure protected the paint though. And that by the biggest proponent of zone in college hoops.
That game is THE illustration of why zone is not the cure for all which aiils a defense. It's just another approach which has as many, if not more vulnerabilities.

I was really impressed about how easily Wisconsin shredded the Cuse zone. They are the gold standard for matchup zone defenses. Jimmy has some work to do.

 

[Dakota Girl]

No one on here that is for various types of zones to be sprinkled in from time-to-time ever states that it is the end-all, be-all defense that should be played. The only people on here that state that are the same people that are staunchly against the idea of Purdue learning zone principles and using them on a regular basis. So basically, you guys are creating a self-perpetuating lie when you claim that others believe zone defenses are the end-all, be-all to any problems Purdue has on defense.

Here that TJ? You're a liar. Classic Nag.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I was really impressed about how easily Wisconsin shredded the Cuse zone. They are the gold standard for matchup zone defenses. Jimmy has some work to do.

It was text book. Cuse is not anywhere near where they need to be for Jimmy B to succeed. They have the right body types, all between 6'5" and 6'9" but they just didn't see what Hayes and Happ were doing to them.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

No one on here that is for various types of zones to be sprinkled in from time-to-time ever states that it is the end-all, be-all defense that should be played. The only people on here that state that are the same people that are staunchly against the idea of Purdue learning zone principles and using them on a regular basis. So basically, you guys are creating a self-perpetuating lie when you claim that others believe zone defenses are the end-all, be-all to any problems Purdue has on defense.

STFU. Seriously you are as clueless as they come and are an embarrassment to the purdue fanbase.

I mean that with the utmost sincerity. You're pathetic and have zero credibility on here. All you do is whine because you think you're some basketball genius but reality is you're dumber than a bag of hammers and don't know the first thing about basketball. My guess is you're family doesn't even like you.

 

[tjreese]

No one on here that is for various types of zones to be sprinkled in from time-to-time ever states that it is the end-all, be-all defense that should be played. The only people on here that state that are the same people that are staunchly against the idea of Purdue learning zone principles and using them on a regular basis. So basically, you guys are creating a self-perpetuating lie when you claim that others believe zone defenses are the end-all, be-all to any problems Purdue has on defense.

I think a few are just not as concerned with playing a zone as others...even though they have no problem seeing it from time to time...they don't think it is needed. I think that is the real picture...